Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 15	March 17 >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liaqat Ali (cricketer, born 1987)[edit]

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

Nothing in coverage, I searched in DAWN, The Express Tribune, The News, and other Pakistani newspapers, nothing notable just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NCRIC, having played in four F/C and two L/A matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has played 4 FC and 2 List-A matches, but I haven't been able to find any significant coverage. I found this which may be him (same name from the same area) but nothing else, and nothing about his cricket career, however sources may exist. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has one or a few matches, but no coverage, they are redirected/deleted, and as he's played for two teams there is no potential redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, which is the bare minimum needed to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have significant coverage, hence fails GNG. Setreis (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reliable sources not found and non notable cricketer. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per all. Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not covered by reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin James (cricketer)[edit]

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

Searched in local papers and cricket magazines. Nothing notable about his short career. He can't be notable just because he is a brother of a notable cricketer (notability is not inherited), fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though I have argued recently for a 10 matches threshold, James falls one short of this. However he captained Hertfordshire for 2 years [1] in addition to playing over 70 matches for the county. I'd argue he just scraps in. StickyWicket (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you have only done this to appease those who have been at our backs all this time. We have been surprisingly accommodating in allowing them to express their opinions. ;) Bobo . 00:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to try and find some middle ground, however it thus far doesn't seem to be working, from what I can tell :/ StickyWicket (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played in nine List A matches, and per the comments from AA about his career as a captain. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in 9 List-A matches and has a significant minor-counties career. Sources likely exist offline, and per StickyWicket. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played in List A matches, passes WP:NCRIC. Setreis (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what local papers and magazines were checked ahead of the AfD, but he is mentioned pretty regularly in Wisden in the notes on the Minor Counties championship; without a comprehensive check, he was there in at least 1998, 2001, 2003. I'd argue that with a little more than the 10 minutes I devoted, he could comfortably pass WP:GNG; however, that's largely irrelevant, as he's a clear pass of WP:NCRIC. DevaCat1 (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per above, passes notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:24, 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 merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. Consensus that Caribbean Series is not a major international competition per WP:NBASE exists.

Permalink: Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Diplan[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "He played Caribbean Series." However, being a regional tournament, not sure that is of the level to pass WP:NBASEBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. I wish I had done that before this AfD. He's 24, still active, still could become notable, as soon as this season. But playing in the Caribbean Series is not in WP:NBASE, Fujimori5. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Muboshgu, I did do that, and was reverted, which is why this is here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Baltimore Orioles minor league players as per above. Setreis (talk) 15:34, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu de Lophem[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:BASIC requirements of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. His role at Deliveroo Belgium doesn't seem to be as notable as represented here; the source does mention that the company grew from six to 100 people and created 2,000 jobs over 3 years, but doesn't actually credit de Lophem for that, as he didn't become the manager until 2.5 years in.

His media coverage consists of interviews, one-off quotes, and passing mentions. Routine coverage for CEO of a small company, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. (Note: the promotional nature of the text is suggestive of paid editing, though it has not been explicitly disclosed as such.) DanCherek (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Run-of-the-mill businessman. BD2412 T 21:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current coverage fails WP:BASIC. Setreis (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage and Reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2021

(UTC)

Minor opposition: What I think is the major issue about this article, is about its sources. These sources are effectively outdated, with its information not covering on most of this businessman’s career, and therefore, this article becomes a stub. Only if this article uses reliable sources, but that not a lot of sources are available, then I feel like everyone here at least has something good to say. This page was organized into small sections, each with at least 3-4 sentences. A major gap in information occurred between Lopem’s birth, all the way until 2015. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst he played a role at Deliveroo this does not make him notable, maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON Devoke water 10:47, 22 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayatullah Kheshgi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. References are passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 20:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a businessman nor as a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources are mostly passing mentions, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO --Kemalcan (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reliable sources not found. Non notable person. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly unfounded biased views by the same user who nominated the Article previously. Sources are reliable as they have been disseminated by a diverse range of news agencies operating in the same environment of the subject. Article meets WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG as notability is corroborated by the subject's political position. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who is the former Chief Executive of the State and political party's founder has attested several times that the notable subject is the party's (APML) incumbent chairman. Other references regarding the subject's activities with regard to business {for e.g. PIA Board Membership) and politics further deduces the notability of the subject. CaptainNathonson (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm suprised how this is happening for the second time now. As the above user said, one-sided attitudes by the same user who doesn't understand the meaning of "notability". Article meets WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG as this has been confirmed many times by various agencies that the notable politican is the incumbent chairman of a high esteemed political party prevalent in the same area of the subject, the area which is Pakistan. ISI-DeputyDG (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the WP:SPA that that voted in the previous Afd. Has made 16 edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 18:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Devoke water 22:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES - we have tended to keep the leader/ president/ executive director of major political parties of larger nations. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Per nom. Additionally, WP:POLOUTCOMES does not apply as the individual is the leader of a political party with no currently elected officials. In other words, it’s not a major party but a minor political fringe group.4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 24 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 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Proctor[edit]

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

PROD concern was Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:NRU and WP:GNG.

This was removed without adequate explanation so taking it to AfD. He has never played at professional level in rugby union or football and has never received significant coverage from reliable sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JBchrch (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A semi-professional rugby player so fails WP:NRU. A search bring up no coverage either so fails WP:GNG per nom. Looks like a hoax page as the only links are to a personal-Facebook page, a semi-pro player (of a different name anyway), and a statistics list of which he has no part in. Could potentially be SALTED. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG --Kemalcan (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable sportsperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a semi-professional rugby player so fails WP:NRU. Setreis (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability guidelines fails. Non notable rugby player. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice, zero indication of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the opening sentence of the article already admits that the subject only plays semi-professionally so he obviously fails WP:NRU. Out of the three sources, one is from facebook, one doesn't mention him at all, and this one (see here) is the most promising but it talks about a rugby player named Ben Leung, not Ben Proctor. Are they the same person? I don't know, and that source by itself would probably not be enough to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 10:55, 23 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 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of bagpipe books[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. It's a grab bag of tutorials, how-to guides, music, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability guideline for lists says that the items in the list should have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This list does not cite any sources that discuss these books as a group or set. Indeed, the talk page contains a discussion about if the article needs a reference section or not, which concludes with, "I [. . .] don't understand why there's a "references" section when the whole article is a list of books." They seem to have decided that the books serve as their own references, which so far as the title, author, publication info, and the fact that they are about bagpipes is concerned is true, but there is no evidence that NLIST is satisfied - that anyone before Wikipedia has treated these books as a set. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTEVERYTHING. KidAd • SPEAK 21:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NOTCATALOG. I think this has managed to exist for so long just due to being overlooked. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTCATALOG. If it had some well-defined scope that was covered in sources (such as if there was an award for the best 20 Bagpipe books of all time, or bagpipe book of the year award), then and only then would it pass WP:NLIST. Until then it's just a random list of any related book, which fails WP:NOTCATALOG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTCATALOG. Setreis (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ye'll nae be liking the skirl o'the pipes, then. Och, aw'a wi' ye. >MinorProphet (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disenfranchise the Sassenachs. Their wee minds cannae handle it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 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 01:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Isyaq[edit]

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

No appearances recorded on Playmaker Stats or on the unreliable Transfermarkt, the only two databases that seem to feature him, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL. The only coverage found, other than brief transfer announcements, were two articles on Sportflames here and here but there is no indication that this blog is reliable. He has zero coverage outside of that one website so I believe that WP:GNG is also not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed, fails NFOOTBALL playing only at lower tiers (American Soccer League appearances were outside of that leagues notability per WP:FPL). No other indication of GNG JW 1961 Talk 19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note While an individual player page is not the place for the debate - NISA is recognized and sanctioned by USSF as the same level of the pyramid as USL League One and the defensibility of including one and not the other as a notable football league is not strong. I'd caution against spending much time and effort to pursue deletion of these, when it seems far more likely that the standard will be revised. BigKennyK (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BigKennyK: feel free to start a discussion about the professional status of the league at WT:FPL. Giant Snowman 15:19, 23 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) 13:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Champ Imi[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:GNG or WP:NMODEL. Most of the presented sources are passing mention except the reference from Destination magazine which is an interview. Listed awards do not appear to be notable enough to warrant notability per Wikipedia's standard. Hitro talk 07:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete meets neither GNG nor our notability guidelines for models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Johnpacklambert and nom. -Cupper52^Discuss! 18:51, 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. Sandstein 12:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuckles[edit]

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

non-notable rapper, sources are largely contributor pieces or press releases (and worse, regurgitated press releases not identified by the publishing outlet.) VAXIDICAE💉 17:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I checked the English-language refs and none are good sources. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:03, 23 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. Sandstein 12:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolting Society[edit]

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

Unnotable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stub article about an unnotable Taiwanese thrash metal band. Tagged for notability since 2012. No evidence of notable members or labels (btw, I love the names of the members :) To date, they have released one EP. During a Google search I only found the article itself, the facebook page of the band, youtube and some Wikipedia mirrors. The rest of the results aren't about this. No evidence of notability. COI also applies (most likely), as the majority of the article creator's edits revolved around this band, as well as Taiwanese metal bands in general. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (I think this can be PRODed).. Sun8908 _Talk 02:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may not matter, but I have some basic knowledge of Taiwan's rock scene due to some personal connections. Rock bands there tend to be promoted in a distinct way. Under both "Revolting Society" and their native name 背骨樂團, this band is often listed in directories of Taiwanese entertainers targeted at English-speaking tourists, and they sometimes get brief gig announcements in major newspapers. Those will come up in searches. But they have achieved little dedicated or critical coverage in either language, and beyond those basic listings can only be found in minor social media discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:43, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Solzman[edit]

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

Promotional content, and subject does not meet general notability guidelines.

It may be worth noting that User:SilvioPozatto and User:LisaSmithNY have contributed quite a bit of seemingly promotional content on pages associated with Flavio Alves, Alves' films, and Danielle Solzman (cf. [2], [3], [4], [5]): films Tom in America, The Garden Left Behind, Even in My Dreams, The Secret Friend, Odysseus' Gambit, First Date (film) ([6]), Jinn (2018 film) ([7]); actors João Silvério Trevisan, Alex Kruz, Sally Kirkland, Burt Young, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Daniel Flaherty, Viola Harris, Roy Gokay Wol, Alex Lora Cercos, Bernadette Quigley; reviewers Jackie K. Cooper ([8]), Claudia Puig ([9]), Jonita Davis ([10]); festivals A Celebration of Friends ([11]), Film Girl Film Festival ([12]); &c. A COI wouldn't be terribly surprising; this might be worthy of further investigation. –Kyuko (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article uses bare references, so it's hard to see where they come from. Some are from SoundCloud or IMDb, I see two from the Boston Globe and one in the LA Times. Might be notable, might not be. Oaktree b (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we get such lines in the article as "while she has yet to breakthrough as a filmmaker" that is an admission that she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be possible to discuss how we can improve this article as opposed to delete it? The subject is a transgender person, and I am afraid that her page is facing extra scrutiny due to her gender identity. Yet, agree the page needs more work. SilvioPozatto talk 18:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it looks possible to improve her article, at minimum with The Advocate 2017, HuffPost 2017, Associated Press 2018, and Variety 2020. She appears to be an established film critic and advocate, and focusing on one aspect of her career that hasn't materialized without looking at what multiple independent and reliable sources are covering seems unfair when assessing notability. I haven't had a chance to look through all of the bare cites in the article, but revision and improvement seems likely to help establish notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Lambert - the article itself acknowledges lack of notaiblity. --Trödel 20:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"), and revisions made to the article, which includes the addition of multiple independent and reliable sources, citation fixes, and the removal of excess and unreliable sources. While there is still work that can be done to add additional independent and reliable sources and biographical information (e.g. per Solzman's website), it seems clear enough that there has been WP:SUSTAINED coverage of Solzman as a film and culture critic, including by Vice 2017, The Boston Globe 2018, The Los Angeles Times 2018, The Associated Press 2018, the CBC 2018, Entertainment Weekly, 2018, and Variety 2020, and some of this coverage includes biographical information. The unsourced POV about her short film has also been removed, so the article now more clearly focuses on her actual career and accomplishments. Beccaynr (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you pasted above are merely examples of why the person is not notable. They're not about the individual exclusively, but rather contain one or two quotes, most often accompanied by "trans critic". Surely you can understand that's not extensive coverage? Of course they would be quoted here and there: that's their job. But what makes them notable as opposed to other individuals? This hasn't been established either in the present sourcing or otherwise. No quality independent source discusses them in the context of their achievements or life in general. PK650 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and the WP:SUSTAINED sources are not only referring to Solzman as a film critic, but also sometimes as a 'culture critic,' or 'cultural commentator,' and sometimes include biographical information when reporting her commentary. For example:

What Trans Folks Think About Trans Representation in Film and TV, Vice, 2017

[...] With a long history of cisgender actors playing transgender characters (Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club, Elle Fanning in 3 Generations, Jeffrey Tambor in Transparent), it doesn't seem like there are many opportunities for trans actors to succeed in film and television. And under the administration of President Trump, who's trying to ban transgender people from military service, representation should matter now more than ever.

So VICE spoke to trans actors, critics, and talent managers to find what the state of trans representation is right now. [...]

Danielle Solzman Film Critic

VICE: As a film critic, how do you react to films that have cisgender actors playing trans roles? Danielle Solzman: If it was me, I would have completely trashed the film just because of the casting. The Chicago International Film Festival recently selected a film with a cisgender person playing a transgender parent, and I pretty much wrote that I was skipping that film, because of the casting.

How should audiences react to films that cast cis actors in trans parts? I vote with my wallet, and I just don't see the film. They keep on casting cisgender people in trans roles, but the tide, I believe, is turning. The Casting Society of America did a major casting call for trans actors, and within a matter of days, FX announced that they were casting five trans [actors] as series regulars on shows. It's not the first time trans actors have been cast as series regulars. In Canada, a little show called The Switch had five trans and non-binary actors, but because it's not FX or one of these major networks, it didn't get much press.

What are your thoughts on Transparent and Jeffrey Tambor? I believe that Jill Soloway said knowing what they know now, they would have cast a trans person in the role. Jeffrey Tambor's speech hit close to home when he said—after winning an Emmy for best actor—that he wouldn't be terribly unhappy if he was the last cisgender actor to win an award for playing a transgender character.

Trans folk involved in the industry have created their own spaces, whether it's an actors' guild or on the internet. Can you talk about those? There are those spaces out there, and they're very important because it gives me and other trans actors the ability to network. But it's like, "Do I have to do everything myself?"

Why does representation matter? Representation is important for the one reason: so we don't get that common stereotype that trans women are just men in dresses, because we're not. And that's one of the things that hurts when you get Matt Bomer cast to play a trans woman. It'd be nice if there were more than 11 trans people on television. And it would definitely be nice if there were more films with trans characters played by trans actors who could find a larger audience. I only came out to myself two years ago, and it would have been a lot sooner if we had trans representation in the media. In the late 90s, when I was growing up, when I first started to have these feelings, I thought it was a phase and that it would go away, but those feelings never went away. It was only when Caitlyn Jenner, Laverne Cox, and Transparent came out—all that awareness in 2015—when everything made sense.

Following Toronto Film Festival’s media diversity initiative, critics say there is more work to be done, LA Times, 2018

[...] At the time, Sundance committed to granting 20% of top-level press badges to underrepresented journalists for its 2019 festival. TIFF pledged to increase its own accredited underrepresented media by 20%. Those under the “underrepresented” label included white women, critics of color, disabled critics, as well as those from LGBTQ communities.[...]

Danielle Solzman, a freelancer based in Chicago who self-publishes reviews on her own site, Solzy at the Movies, had reached out to the festival herself. Knowing that she couldn’t afford the trip on her own, and that the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanah coincided with the festival, she was interested in ways to cover it remotely. But when her credential was approved in July, she mentioned to festival organizers that she may need assistance attending. As TIFF was securing funds to support, Solzman “wasn’t taking anything as guaranteed and started a GoFundMe,” she said.

(She notes that, based on her budget, having to buy a flight and wait for reimbursement from the festival would’ve prohibited her from attending.)

She raised $750 of a $700 goal, and AirBNB reached out with a $500 promo code to cover lodging. [...] On the ground, both Lashay and Solzman say they felt supported and welcomed, not like a fish out of water without direction.

[...] Both Lashay and Solzman were also generally pleased with the access they received to talent for off-carpet interviews at junkets. Still, they note that the fight for media inclusion is not yet won.

Simply put, “Larger outlets need to provide more opportunities for diverse writers,” Solzman said.

Elliot Page Disclosure Gives Trans Visibility ‘Huge’ Boost, Hollywood Insiders Say, Variety, 2020

[...] The conversation that Page has sparked about gender identity mirrors ones that are taking place all over. In turn, that gives families and communities a greater sense of the struggles that many trans people face when it comes to unveiling their true self.[...]

“It’s huge. He’s the highest-profile actor that I can think of that we didn’t know before the fact,” marveled trans film critic Danielle Solzman, adding that she wished a disclosure of this size was possible in the late ‘90s during her own journey.

Also, some of the coverage is more than 'one or two quotes,' but even in the sources that include briefer commentary, I think those also support her notability, because independent and reliable sources are finding her expertise worthy of notice, over time, and for a variety of issues. Beccaynr (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is minor coverage but it is always in relation to the website, that she runs as a critic, asking for a comment, but there is nothing in-depth, nor independent of the subject. There aren't the secondary, in-depth sources, sufficient to verify the article per WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV for a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 21:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Johnpacklambert and the !vote just prior. There is simply no extensive independent coverage about this person that would support a notability claim. All sources provided are in the form of minor comments or similar. This discussion is about the person's notability, and so far it fails to prove so with reliable evidence. We are not doubting they are a trans film critic; we are simply stating the sources do not indicate she is a notable one, i.e. no reliable independent sources discuss them extensively. PK650 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources just simply aren’t there to support WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 24 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Rocketeer episodes[edit]

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

Separate episode page is not needed because the show only has one season. Tony1173 (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to The Rocketeer (TV series)#Episodes, the nominator has already merged the content there yet did not complete this last step for some reason, so there's nothing left to discuss here. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to The Rocketeer (TV series)#Episodes as per postdlf. No reason why this just couldn't have been done to begin with and avoiding creating an AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per...yeah. Vaticidalprophet 17:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aeonico[edit]

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

This article has been created before and sent to draft. The creator creating this again in main space makes draftifying this again inappropriate. There is no evidence of notability found within the article or during a search. The relevant guideline here is WP:NCORP, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This fails WP:ORGIND as I could not find any decent independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete nothing here suggests this is a notable thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no indication of notability, and cannot find a single source (beyond social media etc.) to even verify this. (Also as an aside: what sort of paid editor takes money for creating an article like this, and doesn't provide a single reference — how long did they expect this to survive, exactly?!) Possibly worth salting as well, seeing as there is clearly determination in getting this published. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches return the usual listings but are not showing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, maybe. WP:TOOSOON. --Devoke water 22:34, 23 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) 13:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desaer[edit]

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

Light plane manufacturer does not meet WP:NCORP. The company hopes to release a plane in 2023 but currently has no products on sale. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All routine coverage in unreliable blogs. Rest no other reliable source even after searching — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofstar (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rather more sources on the Portuguese language article - at least some of which appear at first glance reliable.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olivehill, Tennessee[edit]

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

Article seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:LOCAL. Google search shows nothing of note. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a real population center with all the addresses officially designated at "Olivehille, Tennessee."[13] Officially recognized as a census designated place by the US Census with a population of 3,697 in 2000.[14] Oakshade (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade - populated place so should be kept per WP:PLACEOUTCOMES Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as legally recognized place. See [15] for recent use (dispite mis-spelling). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above, passes WP:GEOLAND guidelines as legally recognized place. Pilean (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely a legitimate community. This wouldn't quite pass the WP:SCHOLARSHIP muster, but the fact that's there's a significant-length master's thesis written specifically about this community further demonstrates that this is a real community of some significance. Hog Farm _Talk 04:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND as listed above, and this location meets that. Unincorporated community articles are common, as you can see at Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States. Redoryxx (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a settlement, and unincorporated community articles are common on Wikipedia. Has sources to back it up. Knightoften (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that existing sources was enough to satisfy WP:GNG. It would be best to add sources mentioned here to prevent another deletion nomination. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Kirkhorn[edit]

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

Not notable; WP:NORESUMES Stonkaments (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable; there are many ~~primary~~secondary sources available. Not a resume. If this person is not notable then we can delete the vast majority of articles that are created in Wikipedia workshops about people who barely have 1-2 ~~primary~~secondary sources. --Trougnouf (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guidelines on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion,

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, uncontested redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

--Trougnouf (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is to be based on secondary sources, not primary ones. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly not well cited but a quick Google search of Mr. Kirkhorn finds several notable articles about him from reliable sources. To me it raises the question, which I don't know that answer to, of how do you treat a potentially notable person with a lousy cied page? Has the original author been given an opportunity to try to shore it up? Miaminsurance (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Miaminsurance: If an article can be improved by adding reliable sources, then that should be done instead of deletion. It's expected that the nominator perform due diligence and search for sources before nominating an article, and if sources exist but aren't being cited, that is not a reason to delete it. — The Earwig (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preach on, Earwig. Totally agree.Miaminsurance (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. he is a CFO of Tesla. Now "Master of Coin". he has received significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. 1 2 3 4 --Kemalcan (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per having significant news coverage, passes WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 20:08, 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 14:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Helen Østervold[edit]

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

No significant coverage located. More recently, there was a brief announcement in Aftenposten and another in Firda. A search of Norwegian newspaper archives yields nothing better. There is nothing that we can build a biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single evidence of notability or meeting WP:GNG. Peter303x (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 11:15, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Fox[edit]

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

Seems to fail all wikipedia notability guidelines. Did a WP:BEFORE search and nothing remotely close to SIGCOV showed up. Awards won were minor ones that wouldn't have counted in the last version of the now-defunct PORNBIO notability guideline. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible RS coverage fails WP:BASIC and fails to support claims of meeting WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ENT because of her AVN awards, basically the Oscars of the adult industry. I googled and found some new sources to add and have added them now.Peter303x (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AVN award she won wouldn't have even met the later versions of PORNBIO, let alone ENT since it was a lower level scene award. The sources added like AVN, Adult Industry News Source and Mike South were interviews and not considered RS anyway, especially the latter two. The Creative Loafing one just has a trivial passing mention of her. Still nowhere near meeting any notability guideline. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concurring comment with GoldenAgeFan1. I'll add that AdultFYI and Mike South are unreliable self-published sources. The AdultFYI article is an obvious promotional press release with one sentence of editorial comment tacked on. Finally, PORNBIO was taken down because porn awards generally lack independent RS support for their significance. Claims of passing WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO also fail without that support. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article would not have survived under the old pornographic notability guidelines. With those entirely scapped this article has even less standing to survive and needs to be deleted now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 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 speedy delete. Deleted as WP:G5; created by a blocked/banned user in violation of their block/ban. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Leela[edit]

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

Current sources fails in passing WP:NACTOR Setreis (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G5. Creator is locked as an Arshifakhan61 sock. Blablubbs|talk 17:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Medical Relief[edit]

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

Borderline notability, not sure if it passes WP:BASIC Setreis (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple WP:RS found in The Durango Herald, Grand Forks Herald, Yahoo! News, Star News, MSN, Eyewitness News, Reporter-Herald and Brainerd Dispatch. Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per having coverage in multiple reliable sources, passes WP:GNG Pilean (talk) 20:07, 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 14:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Hilland[edit]

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

Non-notable official. According to World Football, he is usually an assistant referee. The only coverage that I can find on him is an article in The Sun and another in the Sunday Mail, both of which are just brief articles showing criticism of a refereeing decision. Nowhere near enough to show a passing of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On its own refereeing in South of Scotland League is never going to meet notability requirements for an article. Dunarc (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football referee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above, Fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 10:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, subject obviously fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:51, 23 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death Vomit[edit]

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

Still not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad about Indonesia having a death metal scene, and they are great at it, but I am afraid that Death Vomit is still not notable. Tagged for notability since 2013, even though the article had an Afd back in 2014 where it was kept because new sources were presented. I checked them, most of these sources aren't even available now, and the few ones that are available are blogs. There is a newspaper article which looks good, and it could be reliable - still, that's just one good source, and it isn't even present in the article, along with the other ones. The sourcing in the article includes two dead links and two Metal Archives entries. A search with the albums returns only the standard unreliable sites. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - As noted by the nominator, this band survived an AfD in 2014 because a voter supplied about ten newspaper links. Almost all of those are now dead, and many of them may have been minor gig announcements. That 2014 voter also exaggerated the band's importance in their country. A search of the skanky depths of the metal web indicates that this band has long been noted for the novelty of being from Indonesia and for sticking around for a long time, and they get occasional album reviews in deep metal geek blogs. Alas, until someone can detect better sources in other languages, there is not enough for an article here although the band has certainly received some notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be just me, but I don't even think it's such a novelty that they are from Indonesia. There are quite a few bands from there, we even have a category for them. They may have been the first death metal band from Indonesia though. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - great name, but just not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 24 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 14:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radhe Krishan[edit]

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

non-notable academic, fails WP:NPROF and any other applicable academic criteria. VAXIDICAE💉 13:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Dr. Radhe Krishan is a notable academician. However, the page may be referred for improvement. There are multiple sources available online and offline that establish that the person is notable. His works have also been cited considerably. Therefore, the page may be kept with suggestions to include more references, links and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masscommentators (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of meeting WP:NACADEMIC or the GNG. There's no presumption of notability for former assistant professors, and his citation count is very low. My searches find no substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to pass WP:NPROF. WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NPROF. Too few news sources. Peter303x (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete academic career not notable, and not current government position, either. David notMD (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources, never mind any that would show notability. The "references" are all to his own publications. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 22 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 14:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Freeland[edit]

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

No evidence that Freeland passes WP:GNG; nothing presented in the article, nothing found in my searches except this Daily Record article. According to his World Referee page, he has only officiated qualifiers, youth matches and two first round UEFA Cup games outside of domestic level, which might explain the lack of coverage. Being the fourth official in a Scottish Cup final doesn't make him automatically notable either. A Google Books search only came back with trivial, incidental coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football referee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above, fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a very easy call. This article does not meet notability guidelines and fails even the minimum standards for Wikipedia-quality biographies. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 13:52, 23 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelz[edit]

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

Not remotely notable. Creator and main editor appear to have COI issue. Very few sources on this artist available on search, and what can be found (e.g. spotify account with 1 monthly listener which was hard to locate as there are other non-notable Nickelz on spotify who have different recordings) is not encouraging notability wise. I am also nominating The Mint (album). Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for coverage in Philadelphia media, and found nothing both now or in the past. If his local media isn’t even covering his work as an artist, than it’s highly unlikely that sources exist elsewhere. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:28, 24 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 14:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral Inception[edit]

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

Non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian death metal band. The article was created in 2011, and it got tagged for notability two years later. The article does not cite any independent, reliable sources at all. Searching is a bit difficult since Suffocation has a song with this name (the song came first though :), so google will return hits to that. So I searched with some of their albums and it returned only the usual databases, retail sites, streaming sites and blogs. Another non-notable underground metal band. No evidence of notability. They don't have an article on the Indonesian Wiki either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find passing mentions, nothing with significant depth. It looks like they played at Hammersonic Festival one time but that alone isn't enough for it to be kept. Looks like a failure of WP:NBAND but I'm happy to change my mind if appropriate evidence is presented. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of sources are just mentions as per Spiderone. Fails WP:NBAND. Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is probably copied from a self-written history at their website. The band has a few brief notices in the international metal geek infowebs. But unless anyone can dig up something reliable in other languages, otherwise this band is only found in self-created social media and even those sites are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignace Goris[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I have searched but not been able to find any sources providing in-depth coverage of Goris to justify a stand-alone encyclopaedia article. I found a passing mention in Bravo l'arbitre! but nothing else really. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps most telling that even World Referee, the most extensive referee database, simply says "nothing much found" on his profile page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football referee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by -noah- (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:MILL. He took over as a ref for the second half of a tourney. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 24 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 Jon Solomon. There is a consensus that the subject is not notable. There is also a consensus that the article should point at Jon Solomon, with multiple suggestions of a merge or redirect. There is no referenced content to merge so the effective result is a plain redirect. Any editor may find the unreferenced content in the history though, and may use it in the target article themselves. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Pal God Records[edit]

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

Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another unnotable record label. The article does not cite any sources, only the site of the label which is no support for notability. Couldn't find any decent sources, as the company is only present in the usual databases and WP mirrors. It seems like anything could've gotten a Wikipedia article back then, simply existing was enough, it seems. Thankfully, our standards have increased since then. This has been sitting here since 2007. Notability hasn't been proven ever since. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Jon Solomon - there are sources found in a Google search and at Newspapers.com, but most simply mention the label in passing. The more substantial articles, such as this one found on Google or others found on Newspapers.com, tend to be about the founder of the record label. A merge / redirect to Jon Solomon would retain any useful content and point people to the label's founder. Alansohn (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. Label fails WP:NOTE; at best, they seem tangentially connected to some of the bands listed on the page. Redoryxx (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jon Solomon, with no prejudice to re-creation. WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label implies that this article should continue to exist. There are enough notable bands associated through this label that we should have some encyclopedic way to present that information, but I'm sort of neutral on whether that is done through a label article or an article on a label's founder. In any case, if additional sourcing or reasons of utility make it more feasible to have this as a separate article, this discussion should not hinder that process. Chubbles (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Jon Solomon per those above.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 24 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 Filicide. Sandstein 12:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prolicide[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There's no real reason for this article to exist in addition to Filicide. Pipsally (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Filicide. They are the same topic, and the latter article is better developed. Cnilep (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or "merge", but I see nothing to merge) to Filicide. Indeed this is the same topic and WP:NOTDICT exists. Of the other links mentioned, neonaticide and foeticide are more specific while infanticide is overlapping but not close to the same meaning, so these are not good targets. The option of soft redirecting to Wiktionary's wikt:prolicide would be the rain check option as we have an existing article, Filicide, which is not in bad shape. — Bilorv (talk) 02:02, 24 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 14:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Brazil[edit]

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

too little coverage in the media. seems non notable to me. RZuo (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. No record of exhibitions in notable venues, no museum collections, very weak sourcing. Netherzone (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find much of anything beyond the couple of local source in the article. GNG and NARTIST fail. --- Possibly (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Early days as an artist, but not there yet. scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources present in the article are insufficient. Sources otherwise available are minor and very local. Does not appear to fulfill the GNG. PK650 (talk) 04:10, 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 14:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kevin Jiang[edit]

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

This looks like a WP:BLP1E (the policy extends to "recently deceased"). There are sources about the murder, all around the last month or so, but nothing that shows this has long-lasting significance like Death of Sarah Everard. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at least. It looks like there is some continuing coverage of the manhunt aspect and such that may lead to an article in the future but as of now it doesn't look fit for a standalone article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My gut says there will be enough ongoing coverage to support an article, but it isn't there yet. The facts are not well enough known for an article at this point. Wait until the story has demonstrated lasting impact (WP:SUSTAINED), enough facts have been published to support an encyclopedic article (WP:NRV). At present there is only enough for something resembling a news report, not an encyclopedia article. The scope of the initial news coverage suggests that it will reach notability is coverage continues. At that point there may be many more facts available. There is no urgency. Wait. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, doesn't has long lasting significanct notability. Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yup, NOTNEWS. No lasting notabilty. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 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. Sandstein 12:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weder-Weder Lang 'Yan[edit]

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

I'm struggling to find any sources for this film. There are two identical copies of this in draft, Draft:Weder-Weder Lang 'Yan and Draft:Weder Weder Lang 'Yan. The cast is full of notable actors but I can't find a single review or any analysis anywhere. Searching in Google Books, for example, has a few hits but none seem to be significant coverage of this film and many of the hits are unrelated. Other searches are coming up with websites where you can download the film but I can't find any WP:RS.

In the article itself, we have the IMDb page and a news article which doesn't even mention this film once. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM yet.

I have a feeling that this film could be notable but it keeps getting shoved back into mainspace without any attempt to demonstrate notability so I see no harm in taking it to AfD to establish once and for all whether this is actually notable or not. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find anything either. It does not appear to pass WP:NFILM. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find anything that has a merit to add to keeping the article. Kolma8 (talk) 20:49, 23 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 Sword of the Spirit. — The Earwig (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kairos (retreat)[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. The nominator, Linn C Doyle (talk · contribs) tagged this as speedy, but I think they meant to come here. The nomination statement is as follows : "The subject of this page has no notable mentions. It is, however, a subdivision (youth outreach) for a notable organisation, Sword of the Spirit, and has been added as a subsection in the Sword of the Spirit article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_the_Spirit." I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge rather more fully to Sword of the Spirit, where it has a very short paragraph. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above with additional content, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 22 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 12:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shabab Libya[edit]

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

per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:MASK, just a Facebook page created in 2011 during (Libyan Crisis) and no works or achievements and nobody remember them, the page has no notable role during protests as they claim, the sources about speech from people belong to this page but don't talk about it. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 16:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 16:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search in Arabic shows they have 22 followers on Instagram. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E - this is a group that got together for a single day of protests, and have had no coverage since. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andisheh TV[edit]

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

Cannot find coverage of this network to meet WP:GNG. Wondering if there might be material in Persian. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a source on Iran International that's about the Tv in Persian and notability has been established. Brayan ocaner (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brayan ocaner. That source helped to add a bit of content and also establishes that this TV channel closed in 2017. I'll leave this nomination open in case anyone sees it who can point the way to additional sources. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — The Earwig (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Is In[edit]

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

Article about a television series, not adequately referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. One of the base notability criteria that a television show has to meet to get a presumption of notability is that it airs on a national network -- but this airs only on a cable community channel in a single market, which means it has to clear a much, much higher burden of sourceability than a series that was actually airing on CTV or CBC or Global would. But for coverage, all it really has is a couple of hits in the local media of its own local market, along with one hit of "local actress gets role" in the hometown newspaper of one of its cast members in an article that's fundamentally about her rather than the show per se, which is not enough coverage to make it notable in spite of its lack of national network carriage. Additionally, this was first created by an editor with a clear conflict of interest, as their username very closely corresponds to the name of the show's creator. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if its basis for notability changes (e.g. actually getting picked up by a national network for followup seasons), but simply existing is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a local TV show from having to have nationalized carriage or nationalized coverage. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quickly googling there does seem to be sufficient coverage of this. There are additional articles about the show that are not currently referenced. For example: [16], [17]. These seem very clearly to indicate notability. matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry looking closer I see the first of those links is in the article, I copied the wrong one in. The second is not. The other one I meant to link to was: [18] - which I acknowledge being only a capsule review, but it's in a major publication and on top of the existing references. matt91486 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I pull up articles on CBC, ETCanada and Globe and Mail, so it seems notable enough. Article could use better sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is pretty notable and there's a lot of sources I can find of it by doing a quick search, it's rather just a stub but overall the article meets WP:GNG. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 11:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:RS is present. Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. WP:GNG is easily met with a quick search. Redoryxx (talk) 09:27, 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. Sandstein 12:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Kazakh Border Guards Antonov An-26 crash[edit]

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. Military accidents are very common and mostly not notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, aircraft crashes happen, particularly military aircraft crashes, nothing apparently notable about this one. Already listed on accidents and incidents on the Antonov An-26 page and that is all that's required. Mztourist (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Per WP:AIRCRASH, this accident warrants a mention on the Antonov An-26 and Almaty International Airport pages, but it does not warrant its own article. Carguychris (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added it to the Almaty International Airport page; my job is done here. Carguychris (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever per decision.

please use the image at least.Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 18:13, 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 14:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satyaveer Aloriya[edit]

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

In charge of social media for state level youth-wing branch of political party. Fails NPOL and GNG. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NPOL. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - As per SailingInABathTub. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:NPOL. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 12:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG --Kemalcan (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS coverage available; fails WP:GNG Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Reliable sources in References -AppuduPappudu (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Just a piece of promotion. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?}
Delete, no doubt its a promotional article and isn't an encyclopedic content.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kalkini Upazila#Education. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Smriti College, Shashikar[edit]

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

Non-notable secondary school, nothing to indicate notability in any sense of the word; poorly sourced, and a search finds nothing beyond social media and directories etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no indication of importance or notability as per WP:SIGCOV, the sourcing is truly lousy. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 12:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kalkini Upazila#Education. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 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) 13:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan B. Malik[edit]

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

Promotional article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Kemalcan (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and possibly WP:TOOSOON, pretty unambiguous at this point in time. AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet basic GNG,. --Saqib (talk) 05:57, 22 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Templeton Boat Club[edit]

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

This subject appears to be non-notable by wp standards. It was tagged for additional references 8 years ago, to no avail, and proded, but the prod was removed without comment. --2603:7000:2143:8500:284F:1640:953:7AA8 (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage I found was a few routine "This boat club boat clubbed against this other boat club, and a boat club came out on top" news stories. No significant coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I find it surprising that a constituent college rowing club of the University of Oxford is considered not notable. The Template:Oxford University Rowing Clubs would look odd to have a red link if this goes ahead. What is the non-notable aspect of a club that has the potential to supply rowers to arguably the world's most famous rowing race?.Racingmanager (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't notable because someone from the club may at some point supply rowers to a race. There are a lot of teams, groups, schools and organizations that have the potential to supply whatever to a world famous something or other, but they're not all notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Scottish said. It fails to meet any of wp's notability criteria. The fact that it is a rowing club at a university does not in itself make it notable. And per wp guidelines, even if they do supply rowers to such a race - that would not by itself make them notable. It need not be in the template red-linked; it can (perhaps should?) be deleted from the template. 2603:7000:2143:8500:BCE6:9F4B:E3D8:9A43 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the constituent college clubs appear not to be notable, and I don't see why such student organizations necessarily would be. Students at all of the Oxford colleges play a variety of sports, and the university's academic prestige does not give them automatic notability, and this lacks the significant coverage of the university-wide team. Reywas92^Talk 18:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rowing club.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I understand it, Oxford University is a major university that receives plenty of RS coverage, yes? And it has multiple constituent colleges, which also receive RS coverage. And each of those colleges has a boat club, it appears, and these boat clubs presumably compete against each other? I would expect that there is sufficient RS coverage of this boat club, and these boat races, through the school itself and through other media. Rowing ain't cheap, and if this one boat club for this one college has 4 Eights, 2 Fours, and assorted sculls, that's pretty significant investment, easily into the 6 figures. The sort of people who shell out (ok, pun intented) for that sort of thing also like to have official histories and such written up as well. I'm just saying, it would be strange if there weren't more sources about this boat club. And as a general wikipedia issue, I'm not sure I can see the point of deleting some but not all pages of the college boat houses. I suppose a broad article on College Boat Houses of Oxford University might work, but I see 35 different college boat clubs listed. That would be a long article. Hyperion35 (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See if you can actually find any of those sources. I didn't have much luck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Scottish said. Also, its not the case that all the sports clubs of all universities deserve articles on the club itself. Nor each of the dozens of sports clubs of this one university. If you wish to propose that at the notability guideline, of course that could change, but I do not expect it would gather support. Also, its the common case at universities that some of the school's teams are notable, and others not. Finally, as pointed out, its likely this is not the only non-notable such team at the university. In addition to the Oxford University Gliding Club, Linacre College Boat Club and St Anne's College Boat Club for example comes to mind. 2603:7000:2143:8500:4C3:DFC9:A0E5:F915 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NINHERITED and that WP:GNG is not met. The Boat Race is big and Oxford is known for its rowing, but the thing is that each college has a few hundred people, only a small proportion are rowers and Cuppers (inter-college events, rather than Blues that are intra-university events) are not exactly high-profile events. Oxford colleges are not like universities or the U.S. meaning of the world "college". If you went to university, imagine the name of your first year accommodation block and put "Boat Club" at the end of it and you've got an idea of what scale this is on. Those above are correct that GTC's Boat Club is hardly unique in its sourcing position, but it is the case that most of these pages should be deleted and only the ones which are actually renowned or of historical importance (e.g. Oriel) should be kept. No ill wishes against GTC, a very beautiful college when I visited it. — Bilorv (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contextual info. In the USA, some large state universities have constituent "colleges", but these are often just divided into Science & Engineering, Arts, and Social Sciences, or something like that, so as to make a large 20,000+ student campus easier to organize. Other large state universities are divided by geography, as with the University of California system where each school is semi independent and has its own sports teams (UCLA, UCI, UCSB, etc). It sounds like these teams are more along the lines of recreational intramural sports? They only compete within the university and not as part of any interscholastic competition? That still seems strange given the cost of even a modest boathouse, those shells are not cheap (on the other hand, neither is Oxford University, I suppose). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion35 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's intramural. I think most colleges share boat house facilities—the article notes GTC shares with four other colleges, and they wouldn't have any additional in-college facilities like my college did because they're not on the river, and the other difference you allude to of money is probably a factor as GTC has assets of £100 million, an outrageously large number relative to the number of people it serves. — Bilorv (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The sources just do not exist.4meter4 (talk) 22:46, 24 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. No real consensus to salt Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovar Sadiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer who still fails NFOOTY and GNG. Restored after being PRODed and draftified who knows how many times. I suggest DELETE and SALT as the creator clearly having a hard time understanding NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT as non-notable. Giant Snowman 12:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft It's not that far off from passing GNG in my opinion, I feel it should be moved back to draft space and move protected. SALT seems too much, it's been deleted three times since 2017, that doesn't seem excessive to me. And you never know, he could be selected to play in the Tokyo Olympics! Govvy (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Footballer fails in WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Donegal Daily article shows some decent coverage but, apart from that, we just have routine transfer announcements and the like. I can't find anything better in searches either. We should wait until he actually meets WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG before creating this again. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irene M. Zoppi[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. My WP:BEFORE didn't yield significant coverage in independent and reliable sources... primary sources (leanin), employer ([19],[20],[21],[22]), student newspaper (AACC). This Hispanic Lifestyle article appears to mostly copy the Army articles: ([23]). TJMSmith (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?. Subject appears to be a very worthy person but I can't see notability under Wikipedia policies. Bloated BLP looks as it was written by a PR team. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak Keep On a first look this appears to be a well-sourced page, but as the nom has shown it lacks SIGCOV in multiple independent RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC) I have revised my !vote based on improvements made to this page, but still regard it as being of tenuous notability - another weakly sourced "first Puerto Rican to do/be something" Mztourist (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all, lacks SIGCOV. Setreis (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Neutral to Weak Keep With disclosure: I did some very minimal cleanup work on wording in parts of this article not too long back and noticed the issues with the sources. As it stands it lacks RS coverage, and my initial search didn't turn up anything additional. Intothat darkness 14:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sure that with a little research RS's could be found. The fact that she is a general makes her notable.Tony the Marine (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How? The only essay which supported the assertion that being a general makes one notable, WP:SOLDIER, was just deprecated by the Milhist Project. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep. Most of this is badly-sourced fluff but I think as the first Puerto Rican reserve general there is a kernel of notability here, and enough sourcing to support WP:GNG notability for that kernel. I've cut down some of the worst of the bad sourcing but this still needs more careful attention to remove claims that are not in the sources and sources that are not relevant for their claims (I removed some but I'm sure there is more), remove the insignificant trivia from her career record, and sort out which of the claims of civilian positions should be listed as past tense (for which years) and which as present. However none of these issues is a reason for deletion; WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, I was thinking maybe a redirect to Puerto Rican women in the military could be useful to readers if there isn't SIGCOV. I'm surprised that there isn't more out there on her. I came across coverage of other women generals in the Army Reserve (i.e. [24]) but nothing like that on Zoppi. TJMSmith (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just corrected a line in the lede. It was misquoting a source. And as far as RS I did the usual sweep using the google links provided. There's some stuff related to her graduate work, but sadly I didn't find much in the way of RS. Intothat darkness 20:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Sauret piece (we use the one directly published by the Army, but there are several other versions in other reliable publications) and the congratulations from the Puerto Rican government, are both in-depth, reliable, and independent enough to count. The Hispanic Lifestyle piece is in-depth and independent but more dubious in its reliability; it reads more like publicity than journalism to me. The 2019 and 2020 sources are more local and less in-depth about Zoppi, so they don't count for as much, but they at least look reliable and broaden the coverage of her. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS The new El Tiempo Latino source found by TJMSmith also looks in-depth, reliable, and independent. And since it's from 2014, it isn't just a copy of the 2017 first-Puerto-Rican-general announcements. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page could use a few more corrections. Under the section "Operation Desert Storm", the second paragraph misattributes a series of leadership positions as having been during her active military service when all of those positions happened later during her rising career in the reserves. I'd recommend combining the "Operation Desert Storm" section and the "Army reserve" section into one section titled "Military service", and let it run chronologically to fix that. As a side note, this article also refers to the National Intelligence University as being under the National Security Agency, but that is incorrect. The NIU started as the Defense Intelligence School under the Defense Intelligence Agency, then it became the Defense Intelligence College, and then the National Intelligence University, but it has never been under the NSA. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The corrected version of the NIU story appears to be that the NIU operates an educational facility ("academic center") within the NSA, and that Zoppi directs or has directed that center. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for making the corrections. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Eppstein made many improvements. I also found and incorporated into the article 4 sources: [25][26][27][28]. IMHO, these plus the release ([29]) from the PR Govt demonstrates significant and sustained coverage. Some of the sources predate her latest 2017 promotion. Pinging @Intothatdarkness:@Xxanthippe:@Setreis:@Mztourist: so you can reconsider your vote based on the newly uncovered sources. I'm glad to support keeping this article. TJMSmith (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most I would do is switch to Neutral or perhaps Weak Keep on the article. It still needs work, although it's good to see what @David Eppstein: and @TJMSmith: have done so far. I'm in the middle of cleaning up another article like this that was kept and then abandoned. Lots of heavy lifting that should have been done (IMO) when the article was created. Intothat darkness 14:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She is notable and here her some references to back up that claim - Dr. Irene M. Zoppi Rodriguez Professor at Strayer University, Irene M. Zoppi Rodríguez Brigadier General, Deputy Commanding General - Support, 200th Military Police Command, Latina of Influence, AACC Board of Trustees gets 1st Hispanic member, Women's rights, Social Fairness for equal opportunities, Women's Activism, 17th Annual National Latina Symposium and Virtual Awards Presentation, Arnold Campus Aerial Brig. Gen. Irene M. Zoppi Rodriguez, Ph.D., U.S. Army Reserves, Zoppi Assigned to U.S. Army South and so on. Once again this article defiantly deserves to be Kept. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony the Marine: Your comment demonstrates an indiscriminate attitude towards sourcing that is in large part the cause of why this article is currently at AfD. For instance, your Women's Activism NYC link is in many places a word-for-word copy of text from the Wikipedia article as it existed at the date of publication of the link. Per WP:CIRCULAR, it cannot be used as a source. You also list not one but two linkedin links, and we should not be using that as a source. We need to be much more careful about making sure our sources are reliable, that they are in-depth, and that they actually support the claims they are used here to support. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has some reliable sources and plenty of other links which prove she is indeed, well known. Antonio Mr. Cool Martin (the talk page) 06:11, 17 March, 2021 (UTC)
Keep Article has several reliable sources Hispanic Lifestyle, El Nuevo Dia, KSL.com, Campus Current. Other factors influenced me (1) the army article meets the standard of a reliable source since those articles published are subject to editorial review and written by journalists that are not directly tied to the subject matter, (2) the appointment is covered in the congressional record (primary source) and the army article(s) are secondary sources based on that material, (3) the lack of wide coverage could be part of a systemic bias against Latinas, women or both. --Trödel 20:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing is there, the article passes GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Beccaynr (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the improvements made. Also WP needs more articles about women in general and women generals ;-) - wolf 04:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've already put down my keep vote, but I just want to say that articles' notability is determined primarily by the merit of their sourcing, not whether or not the subject is a non-Anglo Saxon woman. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - pfft! Now you tell me. What am I gonna do about those completely unsourced articles about non-Anglo Saxon women I've created? - wolf 22:04, 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 14:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass in mode 2 (anonymous)[edit]

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

Always (even in the very first revision; here) failed WP:V. (the works listed in "further readings" mostly seem to be general works about Gregorian chant). Unclear exactly what this is referring to. Information about the propers^[a] for Easter should instead be included in the article about it (where there is strikingly little about Liturgical observance...). If this is instead only about this particular gradual (Haec dies quam fecit Dominus - which is still part of modern compilations; for eg. here vol 2. p 004-005 ) then, in addition to the completely wrong title - should be smthg. like "Haec dies quam fecit Dominus (gradual)", it might be better to cover this as a representative example^[b] on the article about graduals. I'll also note that we don't seem to have much other articles about particular gregorian chants; except maybe when they've had the fortune of being reworked into English by the likes of J. M. Neale or others (and thus gained significant exposure, which this doesn't seem to have). A look through places like JSTOR or Google scholar doesn't seem to yield much academic literature either. Except for the article from a Festschrift given in the further readings ("Die Ostergradualien Haec dies und ihr Verhaltnis zu den Tractus des II. und VIII. Tons" [The Easter Gradual Haec dies and its relationship to the tracts of the 2nd and 8th tones]), most of it seems to be relatively trivial mentions, or discussions as parts of analysis of other musical compositions.

^ Technical explanation: a "proper" is a chant which changes for each day or season of the liturgical year. Compare with the ordinary chants ("Kyrie", "Gloria", ...).
^ It being for Easter - there's plenty of manuscript copies of it... - see the listings on specialist databases such as CANTUS or gregorien.info; and it was inherently set by multiple composers, see cpdl.org for a probably non-exhaustive listing, but I don't think that would be independent of any other music for Easter

If the above is a long wall of incomprehensible jargon, then I'll summarise: this is just one short piece of Gregorian chant, which isn't independently notable from the rest of the music for Easter, and which does not seem to meet GNG - in short an example also of WP:ITSOLD, as despite its age (in all probability, at least a millenium), it hasn't attracted much coverage.. That, and the article in its current state fails WP:V and it is unlikely that will change. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Despite being around for about 7 years, it's an WP:ORPHAN, so it's not going to be missed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above, the article has a daily average of 4 pageviews due to it being an orphan and overall lacking general notability (unlikely to change). - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 12:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to include in Wikipedia. Setreis (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This has the feel of an article on the Catholic mass that someone started writing and never finished, concentrating on producing a bibliography to support what he intended to write. We have some content on the gradual (but mostly a link to an article on that) but nothing at all on the rest of the mass. The only answer to this is TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Face Up (magazine)[edit]

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

Only found maybe one other source besides the one listed. Probably not a notable magazine. Dronebogus (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as there is at least one good reference showing significant content - the Irish Independent piece that is already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 04:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the above and WP:GNG, that one piece from Irish Times saves it from deletion. "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 12:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - weak article unlikely to grow much, but adequately sourced and without serious issues. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:56, 24 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. — The Earwig (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Team (band)[edit]

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

Unknown small band, no notability and barely any information on them online. Page hasn't been updated apart from minor edits since it's creation over a year ago LikeDrinkingPoison (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 5 with two albums released by a major independent label and has reliable sources coverage such as Exclaim and The Skinny already in the article as well as coverage at AllMusic as well as a staff review there as well, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 04:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the above, it passes WP:NMUSIC and quoting from WP:GNG "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage,". - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 14:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As two albums released by a major independent label it passes WP:NMUSIC criteria #5. Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. And move to "Outline of education in China". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Education in China (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page is not required. The 3 articles about Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan are listed at the hatnote at Education in China, and the other articles are not ambiguous with "Education in China". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it was created by error. STSC (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a general article directory, not a disambiguation page. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Outline of education in China. Education in China (disambiguation) reads as it were an outline, not a disambiguation page. See Wikipedia:Outlines. It has a "historical perspectives" section that outlines articles about Chinese education in previous eras. An example of an outline article is Outline of education. Cunard (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reframed the article from a disambiguation page to an outline and expanded it. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It wasn't a DAB just because it was called one, and it's not an outline now just because someone wants to call it an Outline. Simply throwing together a random assortment of pages someone quickly finds into a page does not make an outline, it makes list spam. // Timothy :: talk 06:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Specialized list articles says:
* Outlines, from the general (Outline of mathematics) to the somewhat specific (Outline of algebraic structures), are part of Wikipedia's Contents navigation system, and are indexed at Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines. A type of tree structure, they are hierarchies of subjects organized as a structured list including headings, subheadings, and list items (usually bulleted, and preferably annotated). For more information, see outline (list), and WikiProject Outlines.
This outline is not "Simply throwing together a random assortment of pages". This outline contains "hierarchies of subjects organized as a structured list" and meets the requirements of the guideline.
Cunard (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the new page as an outline.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 04:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Outline of education in China and keep - The reframed page is fine to keep. The page satisfies the definitions stated in WP:Outlines. Sun8908 _Talk 15:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Outline of education in China. It serves as a(n incomplete) navigational aid, and Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Outline of education in China seems a reasonable solution to preserve the navigational benefits of the page. It is clearly not a proper disambiguation page. BD2412 T 03:33, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vageshwari Deswal[edit]

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

Citations included are just the articles written by the subject. After doing WP:BEFORE I'm convinced that the subject fails WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:Professor. Important and noted academic. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:NPROF, and WP:BASIC. This article has been revised and had sources added since the nomination, and notability appears to be sufficiently supported by Deswal regularly writing legal commentary published by The Economic Times and The Times of India, and having written for Yahoo News India, as well as being quoted for her expert opinion by The Quint, The Times of India, and ABC News (Australia), per criteria 7 of WP:NPROF and WP:BASIC. Her work has also been cited by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and the blog of the International Journal Of Advanced Legal Research. Deswal therefore appears to be "notably influential in the world of ideas." Beccaynr (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not pass WP:NSCHOLAR, not sure what the above editors are looking at. And WP:HEY would be appropriate, if there were in-depth references about the subject, but there aren't. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not the article it was when this nomination was made. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been updated with some very low-quality references, Amazon and annoucement/event pages. What is the purpose of that? Is that reference stacking? There is no standalone secondary refs that point to her being notable. Her Google Scholar entry is super low at [30] even for a lawyer. According to the university profile: [31] she is not a full professor, she is an Assistant professor. According to Academic ranks in India, it is the lowest rank on that scale. If the lassie got her PHD in 2007, she is likely to be at the very beginning of her career. For the two book entries, I can't locate any reviews. The other coverage for work outside academica, is mostly blogs, it is not under editorial control, with the occcasional real story, which is WP:SIGCOV. However, I don't see any secondary reporting that tells me she is notable. Essentially it an assitant professor who been asked to keep a blog and write a couple of stories. I think it too-low a bar for for me. scope_creep^Talk 15:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had added a source from the Delhi Journal of Contemporary Law that describes Deswal as an Associate Professor. Another editor had added a source from Bennett University describing Deswal as a "very eminent speaker and expert in the field" and a Professor. Additional research may be needed to confirm her exact current status, but it seems clear that she is no longer an Assistant Professor. Also, Deswal's legal commentary blog is published by major newspapers in India, and according to Muckrack, there are over 40 entries. It is true that there had been one reference to Amazon to verify one of her books, but it has been removed, and there is only one blog from an academic journal citing her work, as well as several news outlets, as noted above, quoting her as an expert. Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather go with the official university profile than the WP:PUFF both in the book and the Wikipedia article, in presenting her as a full professor, when she is not. scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an official university website for the Delhi Journal of Contemporary Law, stating "Dr. Vageshwari Deswal, Associate Professor, Law Centre-II, University of Delhi," a 2020 notice from the university describing her as an Associate Professor, and a January 2021 article in The Quint describing her as an Associate Professor. Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. This has been improved significantly and, as a lawyer, she appears to pass my own standards and WP:GNG. As an academic, she would probably not pass because she's just an assistant professor. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: perhaps you would expand your reasoning for a GNG pass? The article was just relisted for the 3rd or so time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further assessment of the sources required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per explained by Bearian meets WP:GNG now. Hulatam (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This article has been significantly improved and expanded by Bearian. Thanks for your works on this. VocalIndia (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate citations now in article, ps wiki editors should not be calling an Indian associate professor a 'lassie' Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate citations now in article, and also not impressed with above wiki editor calling an Indian associate professor a 'lassie'.Melissa Highton (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - recognised expert in her field. Stinglehammer (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of sources is still lacking per the last relist. At most there is counting of citations, which is vulnerable to WP:REFBOMB. WP:HEY is not a replacement for assessment of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 04:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:HEY, she now passes WP:NPROF, and WP:BASIC. Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have continued to remove excess citations from the article, and based on what remains: The Times of India and The Economic Times are both major conventional news outlets in India that frequently publish Deswal's legal commentary, and describe her as an expert in her profile, i.e. "an academician, feminist and activist teaching at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi." The "frequency" is documented by MuckRack, which claims to automatically update online portfolios, so it offers at least an estimate of Deswal's publication rate. WP:PROF states that it is a guideline, not a rule, and "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (emphasis added, because in this instance, Deswal is frequently published in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area, and based on the subject matter and her profile, it appears to be an expert in women's rights issues). In addition, Deswal is quoted as an expert in The Quint, which appears to be a respected news outlet in India, and ABC News (Australia), which appears to be a public news outlet with editorial independence in Australia. Per WP:TOI, for The Times of India, there is currently "a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government," yet Deswal often appears as an expert calling for changes to the status quo. However, a review of some of Deswal's research suggests that she does work in conjunction with the government sometimes, including with regard to investigating acid violence attacks on women, as well as issues related to farmers and prison reform.

As to Deswal's academic title, there is an undated academic profile from her university found through a regular web search that states she has been teaching since 2000, and that she has 16 years of teaching experience at p.2, so it may be dated circa 2017 due to the dates of workshops listed at p. 4 - regardless, it states she is a Senior Assistant Professor, and by that time, she had also made several televised media appearances in addition to her written commentary noted above, which suggests more sources are WP:NPOSSIBLE to support her notability. As to her academic title, other sources offered in this discussion to support that she is currently an Associate Professor include a December 28, 2020 notice from the university, signed by Deswal, with the title "Associate Professor" and a January 2021 article in The Quint, a respected news organization. Her current title seems less relevant than her accomplishments, but given the disagreement over which sources to rely on and the implication that it may be relevant to her notability, I've included a more detailed analysis. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was asked to comment further, I would add that she seems to be famous for being a public intellectual rather than an academic or lawyer, per se. George Conway is notable as a lawyer; his wife Kellyanne Conway is not famous as a lawyer but as an advisor the the Former Guy, and their daughter might be famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A detailed discussion have already taken place and discussion may be closed.HariSinghw (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think there's a case here for the subject as a public intellectual per WP:NPROF C7. It's very much verging on WP:TOOSOON, but the consistent record of blogging for the India Times organization (note that the Economic Times and Times of India appear to be co-owned, and certainly have a common blog platform) is something. The subject also appears to be frequently and somewhat substantially quoted on matters surrounding her legal expertise in India. The combination brings me to a (very) weak keep. The case would be more solid if there were more evidence of impact for the blog; I do note that it seems harder to find such evidence for a blog for the Economic/Times/ of India than in a comparable US-based publication. I agree with concerns of Aseleste about WP:REFBOMBing, but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Failing to see the subject clearly qualifying WP:Academic Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:01, 24 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 LoveRealm. That said, the target needs a closer look. — The Earwig (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Ansong Jr.[edit]

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

Two sources were of his own website. He doesn't have much on him apart from founding his company. But notability can not be inherited. Fails WP:GNG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Looking through at all the search results (only nine pages; filtered), there are not enough wp:reliable sources so that there are enough combined coverage to satisfy wp:basic. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 06:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also fine with a redirect to LoveRealm instead. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 06:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to LoveRealm: Change my main !vote to a redirect instead since non-deletion should be preferred over deletion per WP:ATD-R. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 18:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Aseleste . Redirect seems a rational move. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seem pretty clear here. MarginalCost (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, not enough reliable sources and available content for a standalone article at this time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect very little notability but a redirect makes senseLesscynical (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It is a small developer with a beta product, with no coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. It is a brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 22 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 15:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Bertolini[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NACTOR C2 and C3 are out of the question. For C1, the article lists Wrong is Right, Homer and Eddie, and Lady in White. For all three films, their roles are not significant, so the subject does not satisfy C1. Doing a search, the relevant results are not reliable in the first few pages, so it is unlikely there are enough wp:reliable sources to provide enough coverage such that wp:basic is met. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 06:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:NACTOR and GNG the article doesn't seem to pass. Also the source attached is pretty lousy and I didn't find any reliale sources about the person when doing a quick search (unlikely to change since the actor is deceased). - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 15:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, doesn't have indepth coverage, lacks WP:RS. Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I looked for coverage in Proquest and Newspapers.com and found only one mention coming anywhere close to significance. That's not enough. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ENT. Peter303x (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed — the notability test is not passed just by listing acting roles, it's passed by showing reliable source coverage about his acting roles to demonstrate their significance. But there are no reliable sources here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR --Devoke water 10:49, 22 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 15:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saros (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The 2008 AfD was closed as "delete" but was later overturned via WP:DRV see. As far as I can tell it doesn't even come close to passing WP:NBAND KH-1 (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My quick search "Saros American extreme metal" resulted in no reliable sources. By the second page I was getting links for the word "saros" only, and they were not music related. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources fails in passing WP:NBAND. Setreis (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walter Görlitz. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find aything that suggests notability --Devoke water 10:51, 22 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) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taba Chake[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and GNG Jenyire2 18:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 18:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be an indie artist. He has a brief mention in Rolling Stone India and a few other sources I found using Google News, I think he might be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 03:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand I've found sources from Rolling Stone India, The Hindu, The New Indian Express and Firstpost interviewing this musician, as well as many smaller mentions in coverage of events he's performed at. The article needs expansion for sure but I would say Chake makes it by the GNG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:33, 23 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 15:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard W. Bourne[edit]

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

Lacks sufficient notability WP:BIO 48Pills (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. versacespace talk to me 03:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG --Kemalcan (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources fails in WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 12:21, 23 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automation Workshop[edit]

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

My prod request was removed on the ground that there were three Independent sources listed on top of the primary sources that source most of this article. One is a tech blog post [32] and another is a 5 star "review" from a product marketer [33]. Both fail WP:INDY. The last one is an unrelated book. I consulted it, and it doesn't mention the subject at all. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as challenger of the soft delete. The article is about freeware app. It now has 2 book sources listed. Please consult to these books. The 1st - Oracle Business Intelligence Discoverer 11g Handbook, page 531. And the 2nd - Security+ Guide to Network Security Fundamentals, page 413, where it talks about Cryptographic hash functions that are supported by the app. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De DAC (talk • contribs) 08:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To warrant an article on Wikipedia, a product must meet WP:GNG. It needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources you provide above fail this because they discuss features of the software rather than the software itself, and thus cannot be used to demonstrate notability. (Is this the correct handbook? I can't find anything mentioning Febooti's "Automation Workshop" on page 531, or in the whole document for that matter.) Mottezen (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not that book. Your link is to some random website. I have a physical book [[34]]. And may I ask, why do you want to delete the page about useful free app that I am using every day? There are a lot of commercial apps in Wikipedia without any notability and references. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Image_Backup (zero references, not notable). There are thousands of the similar pages. Should I start deleting process for them? I really want to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De DAC (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found the book. This is page 531. As this topic is covered in only one sentence in the whole book, this source fails the "significant coverage" clause of WP:GNG.

As for your question, wikipedia wants to avoid being a WP:SOAPBOX for groups, companies, products and people to advertise. The article you linked is a particularly egregious case of spam, so I proposed its speedy deletion. But being free, open source, or not-for-profit doesn't make a topic unable to be advertised. To avoid spam, Wikipedia established notability guidelines. We require a topic to be covered by Reliable sources to warrant inclusion. That way, we can write a decent article about a topic without relying on primary sources, which are systemically promotional and could jeopardize our Neutral point of view policy. As for the thousand of articles who don't meet that standard, there are volunteers who sometimes go through them to try to improve them, or to propose their deletion if that is impossible. Mottezen (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. versacespace talk to me 03:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No good secondary sources to be found; given its limited audience and specialization I doubt any exist. — Bilorv (talk) 02:15, 24 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 have been refuted and clearly consensus is that thus is below the gng and normal standards for inclusion. Being part of an underrepresented group isn’t an argument to lower our standards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miquel Antoine[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NPROF. According to Scopus, she has ~18 papers and an h-index of 7. She also received a non-notable award from a non-notable magazine. Overall Scopus citation metrics for Dr. Antoine, and for the people with more than 5 papers among her 43 49 coauthors and the most recent 50 coauthors of her most frequent collaborator: Total citations: average: 2762, median: 1204, Dr. Antoine: 276. Total papers: avg: 71, med: 44, A: 18. h-index: avg: 20, med: 17, A: 7. Highest citation: avg: 419, med: 172, A: 114.

EDIT: Scopus didn't combine her Hampton and JHU publications. The new metrics are as follows (with 6 new coauthors added): Total citations: average: 2738, median: 1298, Dr. Antoine: 484. Total papers: avg: 72, med: 46, A: 25. h-index: avg: 20, med: 17, A: 10. Highest citation: avg: 409, med: 184, A: 165. Still well below the standards in her field, keeping in mind that the standard is also far from sufficient for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. The reason I'm here in the discussion is that I deprodded it, and I think thta was the right choice, because notability of a record like her's needs to be determined in a group discussion. The only numbers that really count are the ones that determine whetherthe person is influential, and that's measured by the most cited papers. There's an approximate standard conversion factor between Scopus and google Scholar--GS counts are normally about twice as high in most subjects. GS is convenient because we all have access to it. (indeed, I no longer have access to Scopus myself after my retirement from Princeton) And, for her most cited paper, Analytical Chemistry 63.6 (1991), the GS count is indeed 252, and I would expect the Scopus count to be half that. In particular, h index shows nothing. Someone with citations of 300, 200, 100, 90, 80, 50, 7, 2. would have h=7. Someone with citations of 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 2 would also have h=7. The first person would be notable , but not the second. I'm normally rather skeptical of those whose role is technical only and whose proprsed notability might possibly have some connection with being one of an underrepresented group. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG (pinging hroest as well) -- Apparently Scopus left out the 7 papers she had at Hampton, so I added them and recalculated her metrics (still far from notable). I agree h-index isn't particularly meaningful on its own, but in the context of the other metrics it is useful. I would also argue how we weight a particular highly-cited paper strongly depends on author position (not to mention subfield). According to Scopus, Dr. Antoine's top 10 papers have 165, 114, 38, 32, 24, 22, 17, 17, 12, 10, 7, 5, and 3 citations, and her highest-cited first-author paper has 17 citations. Of the 80 coauthors*, 54 have more citations, 53 have more papers, 57 have a higher h-index, and 43 have a higher highest-cited paper. Only one of those 43 has a lower h-index and 0 have fewer total cites. Looking at the average of their top 5 papers, the median is 227 while Dr. Antoine's is 52; 5/43 have a lower-cited 2nd-highest paper, and 0/43 have a lower 3rd-, 4th-, or 5th-highest cited paper). I mention all of this to show what the implications would be if Dr. Antoine met our NPROF criteria: over half of her coauthors* would have articles. For what it's worth (and I know this is rather OTHERSTUFF(DOESN'T)EXIST), I searched Wikipedia for all 23 (out of 80) of her coauthors* with an h-index above 25, and there was only one page, for Catherine Fenselau. Her metrics are 15878, 415, 65, and 750 (with top 10 papers at 750, 673, 366, 275, 264, 249, 218, 215, 190, 186).

*direct coauthors + most recent 50 coauthors of her most frequent collaborator; publication threshold >5, which is a VERY LOW cutoff considering we want to determine whether she beats the average professor test. JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. per NPROF also the most cited paper is a review she wrote in her first year of her PhD and clearly a total number of citations of 276 is very low in her field (of which 114 are from the review paper). --hroest 15:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It looks like she satisfies Criteria 1 at WP:NACADEMIC based on citation counts at Google Scholar, but might be borderline. Leaning towards keep to bridge the gender bias gap. Redoryxx (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redoryxx genuinely curious, what makes you think that her citation count makes her satisfy NPROF#1 ? 484 citations in this field is clearly not a lot. --hroest 19:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hannes Röst From what I've seen in other discussions re NPROF, my general understanding was that having a few publications with >100 citations satisfies #1. This isn't defined in NPROF, so what I've seen in other discussions may have been dependent on the field. Redoryxx (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redoryxx there is a reason why there is no numeric cutoff in NPROF since this will depend largely on the field, in low citation fields this would be more than enough but in high citation fields such as chemistry/biology etc this would make way too many people notable. Secondly, writing a review is basically a summary of the literature and not an original research contribution, so it does not count as much as a research paper with a novel finding in it. So we have to look at the whole career of a person, in this case it seems she had a reasonably "average" career (nothing bad about that) but nothing that would make her stand out from the other 55,195 people who get awarded a PhD every year in the US. Also, as JoelleJay shows above, her citations are actually way less than even an "average" academic in her field, and in general we do not write articles about the "average professor" (there are simply too many of them). --hroest 21:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Redoryxx that numeric citations of her work so far and her notability as a woman of color in STEM are not two separate achievements and so it may be WP:TOOSOON but for me it is across the border to keep.Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaybeesquared: can you please explain how being a women in STEM makes a person notable? I dont see that anywhere in WP:N or WP:NPROF. --hroest 20:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a citation from the guidance sections refers to gender bias in wikipedia content ^[1] but I can accept that it may not be evidenced in this case, unless those familiar with academic criteria being applied are also convinced there is a bias at play.

Kaybeesquared (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaybeesquared, the solution to [X] bias on Wikipedia is to create more articles on notable [X], not to hold on to the articles on non-notable [X]. In the course of my research during AfDs I've come across dozens of women who don't have articles but more than meet NPROF criteria. I will start adding them to my userspace in case people want to make articles on them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4

JoelleJay thanks agree but I wonder if you could add the suggestions to a community group instead e.g. WikiProject:Women in Red

Kaybeesquared (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, added to the talk page of WikiProject Women Scientists! JoelleJay (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The citation stats from Scopus and Web of Knowledge (cf. JoelleJay's comment below the nomination) are insufficient for WP:NACADEMIC#1 within her high-citation field (mass spectrometry, analytical chemistry, applied physics). In other words, it does not stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than the average impact of a researcher in [the] given field. The awards don't fit NACADEMIC#2 either, and there isn't any evidence of the other NACADEMIC criteria nor WP:GNG.
Echoing other here: the WP gender bias is very real and is a reason to create articles on notable women, but is not an argument for individual notability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing here that establishes notability. While it is true as remarked above that we usually take a few publications with more than 100 citations as evidence for notability, I would like to note that in the present case the subject is senior (last) author on only one of those papers. --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see arguments about her meeting the criteria or not based on publications, and it appears she is slightly below that mark. I note she has won an award but that may not be notable as it does not have an article of its own. I would be on the fence here except I hold a presumably unpopular opinion that if it's really close and the BLP is of an underrepresented community (both female and of colour in a STEM environment), I would lean towards keeping it. I love JoelleJay's initiative and will bookmark it and begin working on some of those. Ifnord (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ifnord see the analysis of JoelleJay, this isnt just "borderline", this is way below average with the caveat that "average" is below the bar that we require for notability. --hroest 02:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The citation count is borderline, but with the award win in conjunction with that, I think she just squeaks by. Additionally, gender bias should be considered in this decision by the closer. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ifnord, thank you for taking an interest in my list! Hopefully someday all those red links will turn blue :) 4meter4, regarding Dr. Antoine, I would generally also err on the side of keeping close calls when underrepresented groups are involved, but unfortunately in this case it's really not even close to borderline. The average number of citations of researchers in her field (including students and techs) is almost 6 times higher than hers, and the h-index is double. The average (and median) of all 80 of her coauthors' and her top five papers are: 1st: 412 (213), A: 165. 2nd: 223 (118), A: 114. 3rd: 150 (105), A: 38. 4th: 130 (91), A: 32. 5th: 112 (74), A: 24. While the medians aren't as exaggerated as the averages, they still demonstrate quite a ways to go before she meets even the standard citation metrics of her field -- which are themselves much lower than the standard metrics of senior researchers in the field (this is actually the more appropriate demographic for comparisons according to NPROF). I didn't think I would need to calculate those metrics, but will do so if it would be more convincing. Regards, JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per reasons stated above by other pro-keep comments (related to positive approach on gender and minority issues), and also because in 2006 she was recipient of the Lloyd N. Ferguson Young Scientist Award for Excellence in Research, granted by the National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (that reward is not mentioned in the article). Sorabino (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino, generally non-notable "early career" awards are not considered sufficient for satisfying C2. I don't know which guideline a "positive approach on gender and minority issues" falls under, but surely it still has some academic notability standards? Dr. Antoine is a highly skilled, respected researcher in a competitive field -- but that does not mean she is notable. She works as a senior technician (not a professor) and her h-index is 10. If we lowered our criteria enough for her to meet NPROF notability, we would need to add articles on at least half of her 80 coauthors; would this really achieve gender/minority equity on WP? Personally, I would find it extremely insulting, racist, and sexist if we did this only for STEM minority women -- we already face enough doubt in our abilities from society's perception of affirmative action. JoelleJay (talk) 19:33, 27 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. Nomination withdrawn, with the only delete vote also withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moods of the Sea[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged since 2017.

PROD removed without explanation. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its legacy as an experimental film has it meeting film notability. A BEFORE search would have shown a number of sources suggesting notability. Will add some to article now. I added a "sources exist tag" to the article when I deprodded. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that exist, but are snippet or no view available:
Delete, does not pass gng. versacespace talk to me 03:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find evidence that this has screened at multiple film festivals, some in the last 10 or so years. There is also coverage in the academic/scholarly sphere per the sourcing in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23: I've done a substantial overhaul to the article. What do you think? I pulled out my best Google-fu for this one. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now. I withdraw my nomination, but it can't be closed unless @VersaceSpace: also withdraws their 'Delete' vote. Thanks @ReaderofthePack:! Donaldd23 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn, versacespace talk to me 16:20, 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. Sandstein 12:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Rutland mayoral election[edit]

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

A local election with less than 5,000 votes which only received local or blog coverage in a before search (there was one major right-wing blog which reported the result, but I don't think that's enough for notability.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion An election in a town with a population of about 15,000 is not notable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the context of Vermont, this election in the second largest city (not town) was notable regardless of the population, and received statewide news coverage due to the issues debated and the stances the candidates took. The article for the 2019 follow-up election has already been deleted, which I also disagreed with. This article is meant to give information about the context surrounding the election and it's broader implications, not about the relatively small city itself. BM6 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It takes a lot to make a particular election notable, and I see no reason to consider this one so. Most city mayoral elections are not notable. I am going to say that no election in a city of less than 20,000 people is ever notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JayJay. Number 5 7 13:15, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Chesapeake mayoral special election[edit]

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

Non-notable mayoral election, the article fails WP:GNG as written and the event of this election was routine. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not important enough to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 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.

[1] Technical explanation: a "proper" is a chant which changes for each day or season of the liturgical year. Compare with the ordinary chants ("Kyrie", "Gloria", ...).

[2] It being for Easter - there's plenty of manuscript copies of it... - see the listings on specialist databases such as CANTUS or gregorien.info; and it was inherently set by multiple composers, see cpdl.org for a probably non-exhaustive listing, but I don't think that would be independent of any other music for Easter

[3] ttps://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4

[a]

[b]

[1]