Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 17

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone would like the article userfied, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Geldards Coaches

Geldards Coaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Everything I found in searches relates to a depot fire and subsequent administration and closure of the business which is trivial/routine per NCORP. There is a decent Buses article but multiple sources are needed. Found nothing in book searches either. SK2242 (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Nearly impossible to find additional sources during lockdown so there's no hurry here and the fact there's one mean's there's likely others.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Then you can put this into your userspace and find sources when you can. We don’t assume sources exist when there is no proof of them existing. SK2242 (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Articles regarding a fire at a depot of the company are enough to confer notability, as they aren't simple routine corporate events. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No opinion on the notability of the company generally, but it can't be the case that reporting of a fire at a business confers notability on that business, no matter how lacking it was in notability absent the fire. BD2412 T 03:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, subject does not appear to meet WP:NCORP and the keep arguments made thus far are rather unpersuasive. No objection to this being userfied if someone wants to commit to looking for sources when COVID restrictions are relaxed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - there has been no evidence presented thus far that this company passes WP:NCORP, which is the guideline that it absolutely must pass. The depot fire coverage does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing found in Google searches and nothing found in a search of British newspaper archives, which includes many local West Yorkshire papers. By all means, someone can work on this in their user space but I see no reason for this article to sit in main space on the small off-chance that there might happen to be some significant coverage offline somewhere. If coverage is found later on, then restore it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• LOL I cant believe this made it so long in the discussion. This is a defunct bus company known for nothing other than a fire? Seriously. Delete. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stagecoach South East. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Eastonways

Eastonways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Arguably independently notable though I'd need to get past end of lockdown ... worst case this could be assimilated into a merged article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Given the company was liquidated in 2013, the article may be kept for archiving historical facts. Chiro725 (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chiro725: That doesn’t establish notability? See WP:NCORP SK2242 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stagecoach South East: Searching does not yield sources that can satisafy WP:NCORP. Most results on the front are wp:unreliable. Redirection per WP:ATD-R. Merging does not seem like a good option since the only statement that should be merged (In October 2013, the company was placed in liquidation and most routes were taken over by Stagecoach in East Kent on behalf of Kent County Council.) has a dead source without an archive, making it not wp:verifiable. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Merge I suggest to delete or merge into a new page a bus lover can create that is UK's defunct bus companies. As a group they might be notable. Standalone they clearly fail NCORP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Harrhy

Nicholas Harrhy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Kemalcan (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Non Notable Football player. Fails GNG & Bio. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete,Fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - badly fails WP:GNG; not a shred of notability found Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Devokewater 09:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MX Player#Mx Takatak. (Policy-based arguments are given for redirection and there is a consensus in favor of this outcome; notice that relisting does not have to be done for the full seven days per WP:RELIST). (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Mx Takatak

Mx Takatak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not Passing GNG, sources are unreliable or routine coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Strong Keep The article currently lists extraordinarily significant sources from The Economic Times. There are so many hits on Google news. This seems to be a frivolous nomination much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moj (app) Mottezen (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Analysing the references one by one. The first reference is an Apple Store link that can't be counted as a source. The second is a google playstore link.[1] Entrackr doesn't seem to be a very reliable source. Seems very niche with most of its news about funding etc (likely to be rewritten from various press releases without fact checks. I might be wrong though but quick browsing of their website does give this perception). [2] The Economic Times link doesn't seem to be independent. There is no byline. The way it is written, no journalist would write that way. [3] Another ET link which doesn't seem very independent and likely to be influenced. Besides, it is funding related news that doesn't help much to contribute notability. And last [4] is an Indian television website link. Seems obviously promotional. Doesn't qualify GNG and NCORP. I fail to understand why would an experienced editor would vote a strong keep at this junk of sources! Sonofstar (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's clear to me you don't understand WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Mottezen (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to MX Player. Would've suggested merge but the content on the parent company page is identical. -KH-1 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to MX Player per WP:PRODUCT.---Pontificalibus 13:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to MX Player per WP:PRODUCT appears a valid option, otherwise Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Incap

Incap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is WP:ROUTINE for an electronics manufacturing company. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• I have updated the article with some additional information and sources (at least some of which I would hope categorize as being significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject) and would argue against deletion on the basis that it is a relatively noteworthy company, operating in several countries, having received several awards and recognitions in the recent years, and despite the current difficult economical climate, has been growing steadily. Being listed on the Nasdaq Helsinki does not mean it is inherently notable, but I don't see it as less notable than several other companies listed there that do have articles, such as Basware, Biohit, Citycon, Raisio Group or Tecnotree. PrunedSamurai (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • PrunedSamurai, just be aware that the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP - take particular note of WP:ORGIND. With listed companies, the easiest/quickest way to establish notability is to point to coverage of the company by analysts - I don't mean "Buy/Sell" ratings but where analysts have published research on the company itself or perhaps they've analysed the market in which they operate and included information on the companies (including this one) that compete in that market? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Subject to somebody coming across some analyst reports (which I'm unable to find), I might yet be persuaded to change my mind but until then, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per HighKing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 18:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Perry Fotakopoulos

Perry Fotakopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also Fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There is sufficient coverage and links supporting this topic. Perry Fotakopoulos has played in professionally listed FIFA tournaments, along with national division in his country. He meets the guidelines, he could also be listed or have this topic merged into a 'notable' topic. MichaelKondor (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)MichaelKondor

• Unfortunately its not the case in my opinion. There is a lack of significant coverage. Furthermore the article also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The subject has not represented his country at senior level or at the Olympic Games. Nor has he made any senior appearances in a fully professional league. Simione001 (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable footballerRondolinda (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Can this topic be made as a notable figure as opposed to footballer? A lot of effort and times goes into each and every topic as you would all understand. This topic was visible and ok for a long time, and does have a number of sufficient write ups and articles included. I think its fair to leave, if it can also be made as a notable figure instead of football if it does not meet guidelines. MichaelKondor (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)MichaelKondor

• Delete - subject fails WP:GNG; see below for my analysis of the sources provided. Name checks and youth match squad listings do not add up to significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Enough coverage not found to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For future references, in simple terms- what is needed to be sufficient enough to pass as notability guidelines? MichaelKondor (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)MichaelKondor

• Delete, Fails WP:FOOTBALL and WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Devokewater 09:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Away (company). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Steph Korey

Steph Korey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This started out as puffery but has now become an attack article -- the best course will be to remove it entirely as not yet notable in a positive sense nor even sufficiently notorious in a negative sense . DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete The references were always atrocious and weren't sufficiently in-depth nor independent to support a BLP. We will see if the same SPA's turn up this time. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The borderline notability combined with the article either being a puff piece or a hit piece leads me to believe that no article at all is a better option. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks indepth and independent sources, fails WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Away (company). The controversy over her social media activity, and repeated stepping-down and returning to CEO, have been covered by The Verge, The New York Times, Forbes, Business Insider, Vox, and Jezebel. However, the large number of NPOV and BLP issues in the article's history suggest that information may be better contained to the business article, not the person. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Away (company). Was kind of on the fence between a weak keep and redirect. I think the sources are reliable and significant but the tone is all over the place. Seems more appropriate as part of the Away page.Miaminsurance (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Creator requested G7 StarM 21:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Jessica Tozzi

Jessica Tozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Very minor Italian TV sports "personality". Passing coverage from tabloids revolves around what clothing she wears on the show. PK650 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete unable to find significant independent coverage of her work. StarM 23:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with both of the above. This fails the WP:BASIC test. I couldn't find even one example of significant coverage in a source that could be considered as a reliable journalistic source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Articles about the attractiveness of, or clothing someone wears, or about what she does on social media, can just as easily confer notability as an article about her journalism, if the work of the source is significant enough (plus the other qualifications for GNG). Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment A quick Google search gives what appear to be tabloid articles about her attire, one including bikini photos. I don't see any that would be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete hilariously not notable. Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete non notable Devokewater 09:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy-deletion per G7 Dr Salvus 21:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. With respect to the sources provided in the weak keep argument, trivial mentions are not considered significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Maggie Hallahan

Maggie Hallahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

most of the sources cited are articles in which her photos were used, not articles about her. there're also few independent publications online. not a very notable photographer, i'm afraid. RZuo (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete – as per RZuo, while there are a few sources, most of them don't even mention the subject's name, and just show her photographs. Doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE... subject is not a notable photographer. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep She actually has a decent number of mentions in books and magazines. Here she is outlined in What Matters: The World's Preeminent Photojournalists and Thinkers Depict Essential Issues of Our Time, where her photos are also used. Here she with her creative work cited in Mother Jones as more than a normal photo credit. I would also argue that each time she's credited by name for use of her photography in more than a simple credit it works towards WP:CREATIVE:1. For instance here her photographs are being cited in a history book discussing the changes brought about by the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco. Additionally the sources already in the article do a lot to establish notability, especially this profile discussing her and her photography. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV guidlines to show WP:GNG per nom. Redoryxx (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Wan Mohammed Afiq

Wan Mohammed Afiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has never played in a game between two clubs playing in a league listed at WP:FPL, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL. This footballer has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him, therefore failing WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Per nomination fails GNG & NFOOTBALL JW 1961 Talk 22:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - As per all, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, Per nom. fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, Alex-h (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Per above, subject obviously fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Devokewater 10:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

David N. Farr

David N. Farr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, one reference is a self-published one that doesn't seem notable anyway and the other three are Amazon links. Searching doesn't yield any notable inclusions. Also fails WP:AUTHOR. FozzieHey (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FozzieHey (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: As per nomination. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: As per all above, not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Grailcombs (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 10:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Zsolt Ábel

Zsolt Ábel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL with no professional appearances recorded at MLSZ or HLSZ.

In my search, including one centred on Hungarian sources, I could only find a passing mention in a match report, so I believe that Ábel fails WP:GNG as well. His two names could not be any further away in the alphabet but that's about the only interesting or notable thing about him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete – no sources could be found (fails WP:GNG) and also has never played in a league deemed fully professional by WP:FPL so, therefore, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Per above, subject obviously fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Ábel's team play in the third tier right now, and while they probably played at a higher level when the subject was around, there is little to suggest that he even regularly played for them in any professional games. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 21:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Cadet College Jhang

Cadet College Jhang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing notable about this private military college. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete – fails WP:GNG (no sources on the article and couldn't find any via Google) and WP:NORG Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG, nothing indicates notability of this school. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete we need to start requiring these articles to have at least some indepdent sources. We have some that have no sources at all. We really need to start following the standard of verrifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete It looks like the school does actually exist, but that's all I could find. Doesn't appear notable. I'm willing to reconsider if someone provides a glut of Pakistani sources or somesuch. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as prev comments. Zawed (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Gabriel Stricker

Gabriel Stricker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO criteria. Most coverage of this person is trivial snippet press or the routine exec departure/arrival news. Furthermore, the coverage is overwhelingly possitive and written by a single editor. According to xtools, 96.3% of the authorship of this article is done by one editor: AmandaYChen. The editor is a SPA (who almost exclusively edits this one article). The editor never responded to a 2014 question on their talk page asking if they have a COI on the subject.

In summary, this is a low notability article about a C-level executive, written by a single editor, and is cited using poor sources and trivial coverage.Ew3234 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. many mentions in news stories but no significant articles about him. Miaminsurance (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the above comments. This is not an article that meets Wikipedia notability standards. It should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to the Wikipedia community for all this feedback. I am not a very experienced editor, so I am trying to use the comments as best as I can. I have incorporated your feedback by deleting content coming from lower quality sources and by deleting content that suggested any bias. I find this particular executive of interest because of his Planned Parenthood board membership, his board membership on a prominent journalism organisation (Center for Investigative Reporting), as well as his notability as a published author by a reputable publisher (St. Martin's Press). Most recently, the revelation of having been represented by prominent US government official Alejandro Mayorkas in ongoing litigation seems significant. To answer the question raised previously, I do not have a COI and am not a Twitter employee. I apologise for not having answered that sooner. Please do let me know how I can be most helpful here as a member of the community. AmandaYChen (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Bangladeshi IT companies

List of Bangladeshi IT companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is not a complete or comprehensive list and the number implies some sort of ranking; they do not. As it stands it is a list of non-notable companies that have little chance of becoming notable.

This is a promotional list for the ten non-notable companies. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy delete this along with the other two similar ones by the same creator. Random list of non-notable companies, practically unsourced, and serves no encyclopaedic value. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LISTN/WP:NOTDIR. No notable list entries worth making a list article about Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Promotional list. Shrikanthv (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete current article. List of companies of Bangladesh exist already but only list one thing for information technology. Category:Lists of companies of Bangladesh does not list any IT companies. Since nothing on this list is a blue link, no reason to have it now. Dream Focus 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This is a promotional list. This article does not qualify for being an Wikipedia article. It is an unsourced article. It doesn't contain Tables for lists or necessary sections. It is uncategorized. It does not meet the notability for lists or any other categories. User:A.A Prinon

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

C N Vijaykrishnan

C N Vijaykrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable politician; being party official and election candidate do not satisfy WP:NPOL, and the sources cited do not establish WP:GNG notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - as per RaviC Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Per nomination. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Devokewater 10:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yara International School, Riyadh

Yara International School, Riyadh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable school, the references look plentiful but the sources cited are either primary or only passing mentions; therefore fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. This has been deleted before, so may need salting as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, it was deleted because I failed to provide references and citations on time. I am still working on the article to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. There have been plenty of similar schools across Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, etc. that have a Wikipedia article and their notability wasn't questioned even though they rarely made any headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist (talk • contribs)

Two things: 1) you should provide references and citations and generally meet the guidelines before publishing, not publish first and then race against time trying to avoid deletion; and 2) WP:other stuff exists is not a valid argument in and of itself. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: A page entitled Yara International School (created by the same editor) was deleted at AfD in 2018. A newly-created and unreferenced article under the present title was moved to draft on 13 March 2021, and then the present article was created on 17 March 2021. AllyD (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• I believe that the article about the school Yara International School, Riyadh is already notable on search engines with numerous websites discussing the school. The school has also got many coverages by the Saudi press as I have provided citations for evidence. The school is apparently famous for having both Indian and British curriculum, making it one of the few schools in Riyadh to make that claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist (talk • contribs)

• Delete somehow looks promotional and lacks any major event to lend to its notability. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• And somehow there are enough citations to prove that the school is too important to ignore. User:Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53#Recordings. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography
• Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (2nd nomination)

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Transitioning this to AfD following rejection of a speedy deletion request [5]. The rejection of the speedy deletion is only on procedural grounds, as WP:G4 does not apply due to there being significant differences between the deleted version and the now current version. This is something that the person proposing the speedy deletion could not see. I have no comment on whether to keep or delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete As original requester; the concerns of the first AfD are still present, this is an unecessary WP:SPLIT by an editor who is trying to bypass multiple RfCs on the article talk page. I see very little information that is not already covered on the main article; and even less information which could not reasonably be covered there. An unecessary WP:CFORK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  And to clarify: currently, despite the parent article (BWV 53) standing at about 120 kB in wikitext size, there's only 10 kB of readable prose... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep or merge/redirect – the concerns of the first AfD are no longer present (see here and here, and here). The next bit of the first "delete" !voter's comment is unjustified ad hominem, followed by a reason not to have this at AfD in the first place: even if this would be a content fork (which it isn't) AfD is not the place to sort content forks. See WP:AfD, first bullet in the first big box on that page, after "... consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate" it says:

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

  (emphasis added). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  Content forks and POV forks (as opposite to simple POV problems) are entirely within the scope of AfD, if the only reasonable solution is to put them back in the main article, and such bold action without a discussion (given that this was just recently deleted for a first time, and the re-creation does not address my concerns that the split is still unjustified; and that the only history to merge is by one single contributor, who could add it to the main article instead) would be reckless... And if it is a duplicate article, then you are right it is not AfD, it's WP:A10. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  Incorrect: "duplicate article" refers to "content fork"; a "duplicate article" with "POV problems" is a "POV fork". But the problem isn't yours: your comment only illustrated it. The problem is Hammersoft's, who initiated this AfD throwing precaution to the wind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  What is your problem however, RandomCanadian, and apparently also Smerus's below, that is that if "content fork" would have been the actual problem, then you'd not steer for "delete", but for turning this into a redirect, as is, or after merging material currently missing from the BWV 53 article. So, I don't see either of you actually believing the "content fork" hypothesis, which per current guidance would lead to a different outcome than the one you propose. Let me give you an example. A very common component of any article on a church cantata is mentioning the composition's performance time. No performance time is currently mentioned in the BWV 53 article. It is currently mentioned in the discography article. That is not a "content fork" of any sort. That is normal WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for the cantata article, with the detail covered in the "see also" discography article. Deleting the information is without merit: it belongs in the cantata article (which is anyhow justified), and/or in the discography article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  And now Kusma steers for the same contradiction: if it is a content fork it should be turned into a redirect (with or without first merging content from the current discography article), and not deleted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's a content fork you started by ignoring the normal editing process, which is to reach WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page - there are such discussions, and it is rather clear that editors have decided that Wikipedia is not a database listing of recordings; or a place where you can impose you preferred style of citation. Anyway, redirecting would be a valid option if this wasn't already partially copied from the article it's to be merged to, and if you weren't the sole contributor. Additionally, except for a short note about brisker tempi in light of the HIP movement (which I'm not sure if it's on the WP:SYNTH side of things), which you can add there yourself, there's nothing to be merged. Anyway, you've had you chance to give your point, and obviously you're not going to convince me that this is a valid fork, so let's just drop it for now and let others give their unpit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Re. "... the normal editing process, which is to reach WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page ..." – incorrect, a discography article can be started without such prior consensus, as a normal process. That's even policy. It's called WP:BOLD. Besides, the talk page of the BWV 53 is not "normally" the place where other articles and their content are discussed. Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography is for discussion of the content of the discography article (and its referencing style), not the talk page of the BWV 53 article. Yes, I'm the first major contributor of the discography page, so I normally take the lead on its referencing style. Are you saying that taking "first major contributor" status on the discography article away from me is one of the objectives of this AfD? Really...

  Again, it is not a content fork, at least not of a type that shouldn't exist on its own: WP:SPINOFFs are OK, and should not be dragged to AfD. You also keep ignoring that the list (i.e. the content of the table) is considerably more complete than what can be found in the recordings section of the BWV 53 article.

  Re. "... which you can add there yourself ..." – which I did. But that content is not visible any more, is it? I'd be happy if you made it reappear there. That is called "merging", so indeed, what you propose is "merging", not "deletion". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Re. "redirecting would be a valid option if this wasn't already partially copied from the article it's to be merged to, and if you weren't the sole contributor" neither has anything to do with the validity of a redirect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Re. "obviously you're not going to convince me that this is a valid fork" – I'm open to being convinced of whatever is reasonable. So give your reasons, instead of burying yourself in an (apparently) indefensible position. I only say that I can't see it as an invalid fork, currently. I'd even like to be convinced otherwise, but the RfC mentioned below decided otherwise, and I'm living by that consensus. Which implies a separate article for the more comprehensive discography, while it isn't included in the main article, by consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  You boldly (arguably, for your own reasons) made a spinoff; people are questioning the validity of said spin off: that is a perfectly valid reason for AfD; please stop the rules-lawyering about mostly inexact procedural points (per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). I said I'm dropping it so I'm not going to be answering any further. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  AfD is not the "normal" place to question a spinoff. It can be if and when other, more collaborative, routes to find consensus were tried earlier on. Which isn't the case here. There was, I'm afraid, too much prejudgement in the minds of those who wanted this AfD at all cost, without premeditation in the form of lending an ear to those suggesting another approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Updated !vote, per DGG's rationale below: "merge/redirect" would still be my first choice (consistent with my earlier comments on the matter), and only "keep" as second choice, in the case the RfC outcome would not be subject to WP:CCC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as per RandomCanadian above. The article orignally conceived and deliberately intended as fork has been reinstated with some different wording by the connivance of its creator after a deletion discussion. As it is it is effectively no more than a duplication of the main article it remains a superfluous fork. The creator's assertions above that the concerns of the first AfD are no longer present, and that it is not a fork, are unconvincing to say the least. And to assist the discussion below, where there are assertions that editors may not be aware of, or understand, what a fork is, I add here the definition under WP:CFORK- "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject.". Further, "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy". I therefore believe, and am confident that I have reason to believe, that the aricle here under discussion is a clear POV fork, inconsistent with WP policy. Smerus (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC).

  It's what you suggested at the RFC: "There is always the option for someone to create a supplementary List article if they are keen to do so"[6], and all other support was based on that. Peter James (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per User:RandomCanadian and User:Smerus. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – I'm trying to get a normal distribution of material relating to recordings of a work to its main and discography articles respectively, as it currently works, for instance, for (FA!) BWV 4 (and its discography), and (GA!) BWV 243 (and its discography), that is:
  1. No list of recordings in the main article about the composition: highlights of the composition's recording history are in the prose of the article. An actual list of recordings in the main article makes little sense if a more or less complete list of recordings is too large and for that reason put in a separate article.
  2. The separate discography article is in list form.

The concluded RfC on which recordings can be mentioned in the BWV 53 article prevents a more or less complete listing of recordings in that article, thus making a full listing of recordings in a separate article a quite normal proceeding, as also the conversion of the incomplete list to prose in the composition's article (who needs an incomplete list if a complete list is available elsewhere?). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, we have just established in the first AfD that there should not be a content fork of the article. Also note that Francis Schonken suggested not to have a separate discography article not long ago. —Kusma (t·c) 12:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  ... which was before the RfC (linked above) ended in a consensus to exclude part of the discography from the main article (which is already implemented). So, that's the current consensus about the BWV 53 article, after which a more comprehensive discography on a separate page is just a normal next step. Regards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Francis, try, once in a lifetime, not to divert the discussion with other references, and understand that the present objections are to the present article as a content fork.--Smerus (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Smerus, again, content forks are normally turned into redirects (even without AfD): the fact that you didn't !vote for it to be turned into a redirect is a clear indication that you don't believe it is a content fork, but that this is... I don't know what you think, but this all seems rather counterproductive to building an encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

As for the "content fork" argument: it isn't a content fork. What's more to say? The "content fork" argument was put forward without anyone explaining why it would be a content fork. Above, I gave an example why it isn't a content fork. Could give more examples. Are my counterarguments perhaps inconvenient for those contending it is a content fork but failing to explain why it would be? There's no diverting of the discussion by me. I explained what I'm working towards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused: so this subarticle has 9 or 10 more entries in the table than the main article, and a "time" column? That does not look like a good reason to have a subarticle, but really just a fork to display a different version of the table. —Kusma (t·c) 20:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT: There have been a number of speculative comments in this AfD regarding the motivations behind the edits of various contributors to this AfD. This sort of behavior is inappropriate and needs to stop. To all of you; drop the sticks and back away. Any further comments should be directed solely towards reaching consensus about retention of this article. This is an AfD, not a battleground. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53#Recordings largely per RandomCanadian, as I agree this seems to be an unnecessary SPLIT since this is already covered there. I don't agree with the characterization of it as a content fork, and I don't understand what POV this supposedly represents (if the "POV" is just the "POV" that this should be a separate page, that doesn't count), but there's no need to resolve it on that basis. postdlf (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't object in principle to making this a deletion and redirect, only that I have a fear that it may be brought once more to resurrection. How would we prevent that happening?--Smerus (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  In principle this could be made a redirect, but given that the regular search function would be able to point any readers interested to the correct section; and that there's no real need for a merge, it would be unecessary, and well we don't need more resurrections of this already once deleted article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and oppose redirect per the consensus at the first AFD which still applies. In reviewing the massive amount of time waisted on this issue in multiple locations from talk pages to AFD and RFC actions, all of this boils down to a case of forum shopping by User:Francis Schonken in which the user has attempted to countermand community consensus in multiple locations in regards to the inclusion criteria and referencing requirements of the discography of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde. In short this article was created in contradiction to the consensus reached at RFC and AFD and conversations of the main article's talk page. This sort of behavior is unacceptable. I strongly urge Francis Schonlen to read policy at Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and recognize that at some point one must choose to accept community consensus (even when we disagree) and let it go and move on to edit elsewhere. If this sort of behavior continues, I will be taking this to WP:ANI. I say this as a neutral observer who has not participated in any of these conversations previously.4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as per my objections expressed at the previous discussion, as well as per User:RandomCanadian and User:Smerus. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography there was consensus that it could be included in the main article. Then at the RFC there was consensus not to include it. The discussion that led to the RFC is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions but there is not much participation and it is unlikely to change the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Recordings: "If the artist's or work's discography is extensive, it can be split out to a separate article". The "POV fork" argument would be that according to a guideline these don't meet the criteria for inclusion, whether in the main article or as a separate page, but the RFC was because of the number of recordings, so a WP:SPINOFF is recommended by the WikiProject guideline and acceptable according to Wikipedia:Content forking. Peter James (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  Except the RfC at the article was not about removing the recordings altogether, but which ones should be included; which resulted in a "only significant ones [reviewed in independent sources]" limitation, which seems coherent with WP:NOTDATABSE. The fork is nothing but an attempt to circumvent that by including a non-consensus listing in avoidance of the conclusion of the RfC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section also says to provide a summary of major works and link to a separate discography, and it is accepted that no such limitation exists - there are many featured lists such as Johnny Winter discography (which seems to be the most recent discography to be promoted). The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography was only "delete" because the RFC was open and editors thought that it was short enough to be included in the main article. "There is always the option for someone to create a supplementary List article if they are keen to do so" was the only reason given in the RFC, and without that option the outcome would have been different. Peter James (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  From WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" - this looks like an attempt to circumvent that by creating discussion outcomes that contradict each other. If there is wider consensus to limit discographies in this way, it will result in deletion of most discography articles, including many that are featured lists such as the one I mentioned. Peter James (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  Wikiproject guidelines are usually the thing that is LOCALCONSENSUS. If editors at a particular page decide that a more specific application at that particular page is required - in this case the reasoning was that this is one of the most recorded cantatas (being one for a solo singer) and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database-like listing of every recording of all of them. There was no consensus to remove the discography from the article; simply to keep it but with a bit of a stricter inclusion criteria. Whether this is a case of multiple contradicting guidelines which are not helping things (WP:CREEP comes to mind) is a different matter, but this doesn't change that, in the current state, the article under discussion was created in clear opposition to an existing consensus against it's existence (both at AfD and at the article talk page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Local consensus also applies to individual AFDs, for example, which is what I was referring to. Consensus at the first AFD was not the content shouldn't exist, but that it could be included in the main article. If every "delete, it can be included in the main article" or similar is changed to "keep", which it would be based on the consensus at the RFC, the AFD consensus disappears and the RFD applies, which was about whether it should be in the main article. Similarly, if every "a separate discography can be created" is removed from the RFD the consensus there is reversed. For WP:NOTDATABASE there is consensus that some complete lists belong in an encyclopedia; these include discographies as well as other topics such as NRHP lists. Do you think there is now consensus throughout the site to include only notable items in discographies or are you arguing for that as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here? Peter James (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I think RandomCanadian's recent changes to the WP:NOT policy, e.g. [7] (to put it mildly: not very well coordinated with WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY), also telling. I reverted the attempt to change the policy: this needs further discussion and strong consensus if such policy change would be acceptable. I don't think Wikipedia should change policies every time an editor with a bee in his or her bonnet passes. Under current policies and other guidance, bibliographies and discographies are a common component of the encyclopedia, that is, of course when complying to the "context information" requirement of WP:NOTDIR, which is the case for the Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. @Hammersoft:, User:Francis Schonken and User:RandomCanadian are clearly having battles elsewhere in WP, but can these battles please be excluded from this thread and can we keep to its topic? I have been aware that it is a frequent part of Francis Schonken's tactics to fork discussions by bringing in all sorts of other material to obscure the matter being discussed -and indeed that is a basic resaon why the present disucssion has come about - but some sort of focus would be helpful. Both he and RandomCanadian have cast their votes here - enough already!--Smerus (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I was answering honest questions; but ok, I'll stop. As for Francis again detracting the conversation by bringing up a minor clarification (unless he's saying that excessive listings of books and publications are exempt from WP:NOT, which is the actual non-consensus position) that has absolutely no link to this AfD (if he took a moment to look at the date that would be plainly and blatantly obvious), that's his problem; and I'm not obliged to answer, indeed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there is consensus for that or not, but there is context in this discography as well as being a WP:SPINOFF of content that is only missing from the main article because of length. When fewer recordings had been made, these would have been encyclopedic content, and that doesn't change when new recordings are released. Peter James (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Peter James, in case you were in any doubt, I think we also get your point by now.--Smerus (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There is not all that much extra content in this additional article. A few more recordings do not seem to me to merit a spinoff article. (Note also that we have spent an amazing amount of effort has been spent on the question whether 20 or 30 recordings should be presented to readers. I don't super care about that, but I am opposed to having one version with 20 recordings and another one with 30 recordings at the same time). —Kusma (t·c) 13:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment on sourcing and inclusion concerns. I haven't had time to go through the article to review sources carefully, but I have some strong concerns about sources just on a cursory check. Some of the urls link to websites selling materials and do not support the content (for example Melchior Hoffmann (1679–1715): "Sound your knell, blest hour of parting" – Funeral Music – formerly attributed to J. S. Bach (BWV 53) is one url in the article that goes to a page selling material and not an actual reference work). This is unacceptable promotion of a for profit company, as well as drawing into question the verifiability of the list. Reviewers who are willing to go through and check that cited sources are being represented properly should do so. Ultimately, I am concerned that this expanded version of the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. One of the issues with recordings in the field of classical music is that there is a lot of self published material and boot leg recordings of well known literature that aren't notable. The fact that record labels are not included on this list is telling. In general, recordings released on an established record label are notable, but those on pirate labels or small indie labels (usually self published) are not. Contrary to what Peter James is claiming, there is a broad consensus at WP:NOT for information to be curated properly by context and WP:VERIFIABILITY. One of the issues raised on the article's talk page about the items on this expanded list were notability concerns. I share that concern, simply because not all recordings are notable (particularly when they are self published vanity projects with no third party coverage in reliable reference works). I am not convinced that: A. The expanded list adds valuable content. B. That the expanded list is supported by sources that meet wikipedia's standards at WP:Reliable sources C. That WP:SPINOFF applies because the additions by USER:Francis Schonken are either not discriminate or not verifiable. Ultimately, this AFD is asking us to weigh content inclusion, which to my mind isn't the the role of AFD, (i.e. monitoring what gets put on a list). Given the consensus of editors actually watching and editing that article to not use the material being indiscriminately added by Francis Schonken, its my belief that we should defer to that consensus.4meter4 (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Note on bootleg recordings. Sometimes notable artists get recorded without their knowledge during live concerts, and then people sell those materials online without the artists themselves being paid. This happens with some frequency in the classical musical world, which is why verifying a recording is on a reputable label is important. We shouldn't' be promoting illegal content.4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Bootleg recordings probably shouldn't be included but that is not what these are - I checked the most recent that is missing from the main article and it's on a notable label, has an entry in WorldCat which says there are copies held by libraries, and has a review as one of its sources. You have also misunderstood the purpose of the breitkopf.com link - it's the website of a publisher (Breitkopf & Härtel), not just a retailer, and it is not the web page itself that is being cited, but a publication listed on that page ("EB 7053 piano vocal score"). Peter James (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

With respect, linking to the publisher's website is at worst self promotional and at best the use of a primary source. If a recording is notable there should be some sort of secondary or tertiary sources not connected to the publisher (who has a financial motive to promote the material it publishes) to verify notability. This is an example of bad referencing decisions. Additionally, the list should add label information since that is standard in discographies on wikipedia. Spot checking one source, does not prove the rest of the list doesn't include a bootleg, and the lack of label information makes it impossible tell without going through and checking every single item. 4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The publisher's website was being used in the lead section, not as a source for a recording. I agree there are problems here with references, such as that one, and I was mistaken here - that citation is claimed to be both the website and the publication mentioned there. The lead section also has primary sources where secondary sources are probably needed. I don't know if that would affect what is included in the list - other discographies, including those that have only been promoted to Wikipedia:Featured lists recently, have only primary sources for some entries. Peter James (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Peter James, with respect, then those other lists should not have been promoted to a featured list without addressing those sourcing issues. If I had been a reviewer I would have raised the issues in a review. Wikipedia process is not always consistent at implementing policy everywhere all the time. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not convincing.4meter4 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Since this isn't about the AfD really, I'll just put a small note about the Breitkopf publication: it appears to be only a score (without critical commentary) so except maybe for the attribution to a particular composer (and we'd rather cite a more suitable source which goes into further detail about this) it's inappropriate; even coming from a reputed musical publisher. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh boy – talk about off-topic in an AfD discussion. None of these issues provide sound AfD rationale (even if they would be justified, which seems far from the case). Inasmuch as they could be germane they should have been raised on the article's (or the discography's) talk page. Nobody asked to bring such points here in a "if you throw enough mud at the wall something will stick" approach... and then reproach others that you brought them here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This was off-topic (talking about a specific source and article content) long ago; as I was pointing out... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• merge all documented recordings There is no justification for separating the discography from the article on the work unless the two are very much large rthan this. The main article is where anyone would look, and sending the reader to two places is a little absurd. If this is going to take another RfC, it should be a general one applying to all forms of music. (I'm a little startled checking now how few of the major classical works there are for which we have discographies of any sort at all, and perhaps those who are competent to prepare them would do better to write them, than argue about where to put them. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerry Stahl

Gerry Stahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Cannot find secondary sources for it. Does not meet notability. Manic Monk (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Article needs cleanup and better sourcing but he appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 by his many highly-cited publications (even in a highly cited field) [8]. Nominator does not appear to have even considered our academic notability guidelines, as the nomination statement only addresses GNG-based criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • PS as founding editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning he also appears to pass #C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per David Eppstein. Article needs sourcing, but subject does merit an article based on WP:PROF#C1. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep with over 10k citations in total and 18 papers with 100+ citations passes WP:NPROF, even in a high citation field like CS. Also, secondary sources are not required for the article since its an academic. --hroest 02:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Authored two books with over a 1,000 citations as well as many well cited papers [9]. --Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails GNG. Whatever other notability guidelines exist, they still need to be verified through significant, reliable sources. The article is nearly 10 years old with no actual sources listed. Delete, anyone interested in keeping the article can draft space it until they add enough citations to qualify for notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • For WP:PROF, the sources do not need to be independeent, so GNG is irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    • PROF Criterion 1 specifically requires "independent reliable sources". Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
      • That means independent sources that cite his. You see the little number "Citations: 11507" in the upper right corner of https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=P3igc9gAAAAJ? Those are 11507 sources, mostly independent and mostly reliable, about Stahl's work. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Macktheknifeau: Please see the General notes that are written for exactly this purpose: "Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." As David points above, notability cannot be established by the subject itself (eg me claiming to have 10k research papers citing my work) but through independent sources and verifiable sources (we can go in and inspect each of these 11507 to check that they rely cite Gerry Stahl), *then* we can use non-independent sources to write the article. This is common practice for academics. --hroest 21:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
        • You still need to cite the sources. The article has no independent sources. Delete, and if anyone wants to keep a draft of the article, they can feel free to do so, improve the page and then ask for it to be republished. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
          • You still need to read WP:DINC and WP:BEFORE. AfD is not about cleanup and notability is not about what's in the article now. In fact, the main reason I haven't put effort into improving the article yet (as I often do at AfDs when it becomes obvious that the articles are notable but need cleanup) is your intransigent attitude insisting incorrectly that the cleanups must happen before the article is kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
          • here is the independent source, nowhere in WP:PROF does it say that the sources need to be cited in the article. Please read WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Passed WP:NPROF and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• It clearly fails WP:NPROF as it needs "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". There is not a single paragraph referring to the subject in what can be considered independent reliable source. May be it exists and I couldn't dig it up, then please post it before concluding the discussion. Which is the gist of what Macktheknifeau also was saying.

This decision is going to impact more than this page's keep or delete because throughout Wikipedia there are articles on academics that are almost in the same area of study and others too that are not notable as perWP:NPROF. The keep on this page can be taken as sure call for all academics in the world with a home page in a university or even a personal website to make Wikipedia into LinkedIn. Manic Monk (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Manic Monk on what is this perspective based? We currently have a lack of notable academics in Wikipedia, some of the most prominent and widely-cited academics do not have articles in Wikipedia while many singers, artists and athletes do. Can you please explain how this article fails WP:NPROF and please be specific since it clearly passes WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 18:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• here is your independent source, unless you can explain how the subject was able to influence Google to manipulate this page. Please read the notability guidelines on WP:PROF which were specifically designed and adopted with consensus after several embarrassing incidents where people used exactly this kind of argument to delete articles about notable people. If you have issues with the rules, please discuss them at the appropriate talk page of WP:NPROF, that would be the right place to change the rules. --hroest

A list of works or researched he's published isn't a reliable, independent source for notability in the same way that a list of books an author has written isn't. Yes, he's a well known academic. No, that doesn't make him inherently notable. Significant Coverage in Multiple, Independent, Reliable Sources. That's the only guideline that matters. GNG is not a hard bar to pass, it only needs two clear examples. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 18:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

There is explicitly no need to pass WP:GNG if WP:NPROF is met. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

exactly, GNG does not apply here, how hard is this to understand? Nobody argues that this person passes GNG, the argument is that they pass WP:PROF. --hroest 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• hroest Google scholar is only an index and a list, it does not say anything. Not an independent secondary source that is reliable but its lists may have articles that meet independent reliable sources. Of the several citations listed there not one paragraph could be gotten of the subject so far, still trying. This is due in part to the citation gaming that goes on that is necessary for academics especially in some fields like that of the subject. The argument that there are too many pages for artists but too little for academics is not that good to keep poorly sourced and not notable academic pages. It is very alarming actually that to match the numbers with the numbers of articles on artists the criteria will be reduced Google scholar that will give the scenario of Wikipedia being the new LinkedIn. On a related note google searches, and not what shows up in searches, can be used in the same way as criteria for making up pages in wikipedia for anybody. Macktheknifeau and

• citation counts are *not* the same as Google searches, they are one (among many) measures of an academics impact on their field. I don't see how keeping the current policy for academics will turn Wikipedia into the new LinkedIn, especially as the standards in WP:PROF are relatively strict. Again, if you like to change current policy then this should be discussed at WP:NPROF and its discussion page. --hroest 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

One paragraph mentioning the subject from any one of the articles indexed by google from out of a reliable source. Until then it should not be passed. This decision will affect Wikipedia very severely. Manic Monk (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• come on, please do your research before making an argument. Can you please explain how keeping the status quo will "impact Wikipedia severly" exactly? --hroest 00:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems his books have been highly cited, so despite below-average Scopus/WoS-indexed article citations (compared to coauthors/etc.) I think his scholarly impact has been established. JoelleJay (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep More than 11k citations in google scholar is enough for notability. Also, its not that academics need to have secondary source mentions per WP:NPROF for being notable. Chiro725 (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Lee Fudge

Samuel Lee Fudge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Vanity article. Does not meet WP:NACTOR, WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. Autobiographical article on a subject that has never starred in nor directed a notable film nor have they received any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources as per WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Curious on why page is being suggested for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfudge38 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My reasoning is as per my rationale above. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Per a BEFORE, I found two interviews in VoyageATL, an Atlanta-based magazine (interviews here and here), and then an article from the Augusta Chronicle here talking about how the subject appears in three scenes as a marcher in the film Selma. I don't believe the first two from VoyageATL count toward meeting GNG; the Augusta Chronicle piece does, but does one article GNG make? --Kbabej (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Autobiographical elements seem to have been removed, additional article found. Subject is still early in career so GN is possible. Anastasios999 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to wait until he meets NACTOR or GNG and then create the article then? I don't understand the need to create articles on people who might meet GNG later. Also see WP:CRYSTAL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

While I agree it would be better to wait before creating an article, why delete the existing one only to have to recreate it later? Give it time and if the subject has no more roles or career movement delete it then. Don’t think WP:CRYSTAL applies.Anastasios999 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Voyage ATL and Hy-Lo News articles are on my view, reliable sources independent of the subject. These two articles are significant coverage. Two such articles means he meets GNG. The wiki page being short, or about someone who only has small roles or hasn't directed a notable film does not remove the notability gained from the two articles that qualify him as a person for GNG. Crystal and Nactor are irrelevant for someone who has already passed GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Both of the Voyage pieces are just brief interviews. We generally prefer articles where other people talk about the subject rather than the subject talking about himself. The Hy-Lo piece was just a brief quote from him with no real depth of coverage. I can't access the Augusta Chronicle article for some reason but per WP:AGF I'm happy to accept that it has significant coverage. The real question is whether an article can pass GNG on one good source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What you consider a "brief interview" I consider significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the interviews and the Hy-Lo piece enable the subject to pass GNG. Anastasios999 (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

How? In what way is a subject talking about themselves 'significant coverage' (this is all that the Voyage sources are)? The Hy-Lo piece only trivially mentions Fudge. There is nothing even close to showing the depth of coverage required here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless you have a reason for the sources to not be considered reliable, there's no reason why an interview isn't independent, significant coverage under GNG. I think you're letting your desire to have the article deleted cloud your recognition of the GNG guidelines.Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no definition for the ”the depth of coverage required” in GNG.Anastasios999 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please can you explain how someone talking about themselves meets the requirements of 'significant coverage independent of the subject'? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You are misusing the word "independent". An article source can't be "independent" of the subject because if it were independent of the subject it wouldn't be about the subject at all. It's the independence of the source that matters. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

My point is that the subject talking about himself does not count towards GNG. It is what other people say about him that counts as coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

But the subject is not talking about himself as in a press release, which is not allowed under GNG, but is being interviewed, however briefly, by an independent party. There is nothing about interviews not being allowed. Anastasios999 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Interviews are not forbidden and I'm sure that there are many GAs and FAs that incorporate interview sources in an appropriate way. I do have an issue when they are used as the sole claim to notability, though; remember we are talking about an actor that has no notable roles in notable productions as well! We need to remember why Wikipedia has notability guidelines in the first place. This is obviously a vanity article and an autobiography and makes no attempt to not appear as one. We need to remember that Wikipedia has clear goals (see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI and others) and if the bar to notability really is so low that you can get through with a couple of articles consisting almost entirely of the subject talking about himself, then we have to consider the direction that Wikipedia is heading in. I've made no attempt to hide the fact that I feel an absolutely strong sense of disgust for anyone that decides to use Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion, as is the case here. Anyway, for fear of WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, I will leave it at that and not make any further comments as I've said all that needs to be said. Hopefully, this discussion will stay open for a while longer so that a few other editors can weigh in with their opinion on the notability (or lack thereof) of this actor. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Could be an up and comer in the film world but no notable coverage from sources that Wikipedia considers reliable. In the entertainment world think Deadline or Hollywood Reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: The roles fall short of WP:NACTOR/WP:NAUTHOR. In terms of WP:GNG coverage:
  • The article from The Augusta Chronicle is significant coverage from an independent reliable source
  • The Hy-Lo News article is not significant coverage
  • The two VoyageATL "Meet ___, Instagram handle: ___, Facebook profile: ___" interviews don't really constitute significant coverage from independent sources. The interviewee (i.e. the source of information) is not independent from the subject of the article.
  Not enough for GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per MarkH21 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

R. J. Robertson

R. J. Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG for not citing any sources JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 19:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete – fails WP:AUTHOR and cites no sources, therefore, fails WP:GNG Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete We need to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: @Johnpacklambert: I agree. Let IMDB be IMDB. This mirroring is unacceptable. JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 21:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• • • At one point I tried bringing to procedural deletion some articles sourced only to IMBd but had them all removed with not even an attempt to find any other sources by the other editor. There are clearly far too many editors who ignore the consensus that IMDb is not reliable. Overall there are too many editors that act as if Wikipedia has a grandfather clause and that the existence of an article on Wikipedia is almost in and of itself of some value or worth. It is very frustrating how many truly sub-standard virtually non-sourced or actually non-sourced articles there are on Wikupedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree Johnpacklambert. The main problem is that it's too easy to create a barely sourced BLP; maybe a few mins of time will be taken, nothing more. The problem, however, is that it often takes several more minutes to do a proper WP:BEFORE search and then at least a week of AfD to get it deleted and the WP:BURDEN is often on the person proposing deletion when it should be on the creator of said article, in my view... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This is why I think all new articles should go through AfC. On the other hand that is its own odd system which has no time limit. I posted an article there back on Feb. 11th, and it is still not formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no perfect solution, sadly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - found no reliable sources that show significant coverage of the subject. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - no notable roles so clearly acting career fails WP:NACTOR, no evidence as far as I can see that WP:CREATIVE is met. Most importantly, no evidence of WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, snow is falling. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

2-plan project management software

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2-plan project management software
• Articles for deletion/2-plan project management software (2nd nomination)

2-plan project management software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

References used in the article seem to be directly related to the company producing the software. Might not meet notability requirement. Anton.bersh (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Unable to find any decent secondary coverage to show notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Wimbledon & District Football League

Wimbledon & District Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This league's top division sits 3 tiers below the agreed cut-off for notability for football leagues in England.

It seems that even local papers are quite reluctant to cover this league in any detail. I have tried a number of search engines and also looked through Google Books and searched newspaper archives. For example, in newspaper archives, I have tried searching "Wimbledon District League", Wimbledon and District League", "Wimbledon and District Football League" and "Wimbledon & District Football League". Nothing better than occasional results listings in Norwood News. Looks like this fails WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough news coverage for WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Local league football. Nigej (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Cambridge Solutions

Cambridge Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:CORP. Most of the citations seem to be non-existing links. Not enough sources found on searches either. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete this AFD was rather annoying. Firstly, the article suffers from severe link rot. I ran IABot on it to rescue what little I could, and my assessment of the sources is below:

1. Trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH (not sigcov), company profile. Rescued by IABot.
2. More trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, inclusion in a seemingly non-noteworthy "top 10" list
3. Source dead, 'archive' is a bunch of google fonts.
4. Another dead source. From the title looks like another "top 100" list, but cannot verify it even existed.
5. Saved by IABot. Very promotional, and indeed is "Sourced From: Cambridge Solutions Ltd". This won't contribute to notability.
6. Saved by IABot. Not sigcov per CORPDEPTH, just another office opening
7. Source dead. Title makes it look like a listing on the stock exchange, which would be trvial coverage if so.
8. Not sure about this one - I can't access it for some reason, the server is probably down. Possibly an example of "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as... of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel", which would mean the source fails CORPDEPTH.

Now for a WP:BEFORE search. There seem to be several "cambridge solutions" that do different things (separate businesses). Setting aside the usual listings and compilations of information which do not count to notability, I was only able to find [10] and [11], the first of which does not contribute to notability as an example of trivial coverage. As a result, this does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Pahunkat (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for businesses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as per everything above. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• 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⁺⁺ 12:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ashok Gaikwad (politician)

Ashok Gaikwad (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable politician. Fails WP:NPOL. No evidence of the claim made in the article that he is considered a 'dominating' and 'favorite' leader. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but this article does not demonstrate any preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him into Wikipedia independently of a candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Kuki Grewal

Kuki Grewal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable Actor. Fails WP:GNG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Tagged for GNG since 2015. -Cupper52^Discuss! 18:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough news coverage for WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: The subject does not meet any criteria of WP:NACTOR. Applying the less strict WP:BASIC where WP:SIGCOV is not always required compared to WP:GNG, the subject is still not notable. Two of three sources provided in the article are too trivial; the remaining one is not wp:independent being an interview without original content. Doing wp:before searches yield very low quality results that are either not relevant, not wp:reliable, or not wp:independent. For valid sources, the combined coverage as required by WP:BASIC is not significant enough to warrant an article. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete snow is falling. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Simply being a public service utility does not mean that a company is notable. Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Environmental 360 Solutions

Environmental 360 Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. The sources cited are press releases, routine coverage in local newspapers about "garbage pickup", and mention in trade journals. This secondary source had some detail, but not nearly enough to establish notability, and I was unable to locate other secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Full disclosure: I wrote the article. First time writing article, saw that there's a section in Markham, Ontario (place I grew up in) for Miller Group (construction company) and garbage collection. Thought I could contribute the same way by finding a business that had a few more sources than the article for Miller, following layout, and to try writing on Wikipedia. The most notable citations, I could find of company I wrote about were Globe and Mail, The Star, and City News. Sorry for any inconvenience. Catpaperscissors (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Catpaperscissors: I think you might have used wp:other stuff exists badly when creating the article. I would advise not creating pages based on the existence of some other pages.

  Don't worry about inconvenience, it is not really an inconvenience since after the discussion has closed, there will be a consensus on whether the article should exists and future users can avoid the same mistake of creating an non-notable article. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Evaluting based on WP:NCORP, sources provided in the article fails WP:ORGCRIT as they do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:INDEPENDENT. It is also evidenced by the content of the article itself where the content solely consists of a history overview of the company, meaning there is not much information outside of wp:routine coverage. Before searches online do not yield additional sources that can satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they are not wp:independent. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep since it is a public service utility company. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep because it is a public service utility company. The public, and therefore the encyclopedia, has a vested interest in these kinds of companies because of their impact.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Undergarment. Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Panty line

Panty line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is a deletion request over on Commons regarding, effectively, creepshots in the "panty line" category. In looking through it, I had to wonder: why do we even have an article on this. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (nor Urban Dictionary), and it seems there's not much to say about this topic other than the term's definition, origin, and usage. If we had some sort of very inclusive glossary of fashion, it might merit a merge/redirect, but I haven't found a suitable topic (clothing terminology is a little more, you know, actually connected to clothing). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Undergarment (and maybe add a relevant sentence there). I agree with the nominator about WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I took a quick look for other sources and found mostly passing mentions in fashion how-to guides (Dress to Impress, Dressing Smart in the New Millennium, Look Like a Winner After 50, ...). Cheers, gnu57 18:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with the redirect and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Transwiki any useful material to Wiktionary and delete the rest. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it seems like this article is never going to be anything but a dictionary definition. No point in keeping it here. Dronebogus (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment We allready had this dicussion aubout the german version in 2015.[12] The result was Keep. BTW it is not only a woman thing. As the male actors on Star Trek The Next Generation where requierd to wear special underpants to avoid said VPL. Or in other words: you may have seen it for 7 years. B/C you did not see it. (Minute 3) [13]--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What the German Wikipedia does has no relevance on what the English Wikipedia does. And I have no idea why the sex of the person in question has anything to do with the argument. The last sentence (which is technically broken into two fragments) barely makes any sense so I can’t really respond to that, sorry. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete this is a wiktionary entry, we are not a dictionary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:DICDEF, and also per Dronebogus's orthographical analysis of a comment verging on a 'delete' !vote. ——Serial 14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Undergarment. I can believe it's possible to turn this into an article about women's health / fashion, but until somebody steps up with the sources to do it, an article is not appropriate. However, it's a valid search term. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Undergarment.4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I can support a redirect. Dronebogus (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear conclusion that as a medical article this isn’t helpful or appropriate but where or how we do this (if at all) we can leave editors to discuss and agree what kind of redirect, replacement or other solution is best. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Collapse (medical)

Collapse (medical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

(Responding to a call for attention from an expert in Cardiology, pending from 2019). 'Collapse' is a colloquial rather than a medical term, that seems to be used in medical literature with various meanings:

• abrupt loss of postural tone, with or without transient loss of consciousness https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653900/
• presyncope https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27107684/
• non-traumatic transient loss of consciousness https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16078771/

This may explain why this stub has only been relying on a single source for a number of years (other sources give different definitions). Being devoid of any standard medical meaning, the very existence of this article may be unwarranted. Moreover, given the above, I cannot see how this article is of high importance in Cardiology. It could be replaced by mentioning in Collapse (disambiguation) that, 'in medicine, collapse may refer to syncope or loss of pustural muscle tone', in a style similar to blackout (disambiguation); or perhaps some more refined restructuring of the disambiguation page (which could also include circulatory collapse). NikosGouliaros (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NikosGouliaros (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment' you are probably right, but can't we just list & link out such medical meanings as can be well-sourced? At the least there should be a redirect, I suppose to syncope. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Although the above definitions may be cited from single articles, and the colloquial term 'collapse' seems to be broader than the medical term syncope, in medical literature it is generally used as a synonym of syncope. ICD-10 itself lists syncope and collapse together, with no other disambiguation. In my mind, a new 'Medicine' section in collapse (disambiguation) may be the right place to redirect via link to syncope, and also mention circulatory collapse (which, by the way, may warranty merging with Shock (circulatory)) and lung collapse. This is what it could look like. (Syncope itself is not an easy term to define, and more problems arise as the broader but valid term loss of consciousness redirects to unconsciousness, no page as postural tone exists, and posture redirects to good posture. Luckily, Syncope (medicine) contains information on what conditions mimic but don't qualify as syncope.) NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as creator. The term is very widely used, although imprecise. It cannot always be determine whether someone lands on the floor as a result of a simple fall versus transient loss of consciousness (in the UK "collapse query cause"). Matters are much harder still in the absence of a clear recollection from the patients and the lack of an eyewitness account. I think there is some merit in keeping this article. It would need to be expanded to explain to the reader how one would go about distinguishing between the various causes. JFW | T@lk 13:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Distinguishing between various types of 'dropping in the floor' is a tough clinical problem and an interesting subject. However, I wonder if 'collapse' could be generally accepted as an appropriate term to discuss the above. For example, in the source the current article is based on, 'collapse' does not presuppose loss of consciousness, and explicitly excludes simple falling. I think an article on (transient?) loss of consciousness might be more appropriate; it seems to be much more widely used as a chapter heading in medical textbooks. NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Syncope_(medicine), barring an improvement in the references that clearly indicates this should be a standalone, I think a simple redirect is the best course. But I don't have strong objections to the suggestions by NikosGouliaros I think the keep arguments by the creator, are clear indications of why it should not be kept. Jeepday (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Amend as per NikosGouliaros suggestion. Collapse might not be a medical term technically, but we need to keep it and link to what is, as people will search collapse. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be an emerging consensus towards redirection, but given that this is a medical article where implications of usability are on the table, I'd like to leave this open to give editors one more go at ironing out the best solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 12:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Syncope is not a common name and a collapse might have other causes such as intoxication. As it is a significant and common symptom, we should have a clear entry covering the various possibilities. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Note: I left a request for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. NikosGouliaros (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as per Andrew. It is a significant and common symptom. A prose article with links to longer articles is a better way to handle this than having items listed on a disambiguation page. Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Too ambiguous. There are multiple problems here. First, we have one single source, and while it is a review article and thus meets MEDRS, it technically talks about "Transient Loss of Consciousness", although it does note that this is colloquially sometimes referred to as "collapse". At best, we could have "collapse" redirect and call this article Transient Loss of Consciousness. But even that would really require us to expand the article and get many more sources to do an article on TLOC.

But this brings us to a second problem, which is that the one RS we have is about how TLOC is a nonspecific clinical sign, and it then discusses a proper differential diagnosis and the various issues surrounding that. Wikipedia is really not the place for what would essentially become clinical practice guidelines. I see no real way to have a page about how to differentiate between several causes of TLOC (including a few not mentioned in the abstract) without crossing the line into WP:OR and providing medical advice. Even a disambiguation page would be risky because the very creation of such a page requires more RS than we have here, along with predictable debates about which conditions really belong on that disambiguation page.

I cannot see the use of a page for the colloquial term for a common sign that might indicate one of a number of different medical conditions, and that would be even if I had a hypothetical load of MEDRS sources to work with, which we don't in this case. None of the options seem appealing, some may prove unworkable, and I'm not sure how any of it improves the encyclopedia. The concept, while understandable, is too ambiguous to be properly encyclopedic. Hyperion35 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• keep per Andrew rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Maybe amend. Still, I think Hyperion35 has made a strong case for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: This is not a topic. That is to say, this article does not have a well-defined scope. I am thoroughly unconvinced by the argument that it should be kept because It is a significant and common symptom., because it's not—it's an ambiguous term which could refer to one of several things. As the nomination notes it is devoid of any standard medical meaning, and what it refers in any particular context may range from loss of postural tone without loss of consciousness to presyncope (for anyone who cannot access https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27107684/, it says Collapse or synonymous presyncope were defined as transient alteration of consciousness, but without complete loss of consciousness)—in other words, it might refer to a loss of postural tone without altered consciousness or conversely altered consciousness without loss of postural tone. That means that from a medical point of view, two cases of "collapse" may not have any characteristics whatsoever in common.
  I think the comparison made with blackout is particularly apt–vastly dissimilar conditions that may be referred to with the same inexact/ambiguous term. The idea that A prose article with links to longer articles is a better way to handle this than having items listed on a disambiguation page. seems misguided to me, not to mention contrary to WP:NOTDIC (In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.)—I don't think anyone would propose creating a prose article called blackout (medical) to replace blackout#Medicine. For that matter, elevated body temperature is a significant and common symptom (well, technically it's a sign), and some of the other arguments that have been presented in favour of retaining this article could equally well be adapted to argue in favour of creating elevated body temperature, but medically we distinguish between fever and hyperthermia and those are the appropriate articles to have, not elevated body temperature. Likewise, reddening of the skin is a common and significant feature of a variety of clinical conditions, caused by a variety of different mechanisms, and these can be distinguished by other indicators (such as the presence or absence of macroscopic skin defects along with the characteristics of those defects, whether applying pressure makes the redness recede, and so on). It would be preposterous to propose creating a prose article called red skin (medical) on the grounds that "erythema is not a common name and red skin might have other causes such as hematoma" (to paraphrase an argument advanced above). Put simply, it is a bad idea to have medical articles for these kinds of vague, inexact, imprecise, ambiguous, and/or ill-defined terms.
  I don't think redirecting to Syncope (medicine) is appropriate, for two reasons. Firstly because it is a poor match for the stand-alone term "collapse" in medical contexts (as noted above), and secondly because when the term "collapse" is used in medical contexts, it is usually a specified type of collapse (which should have some kind of modifier, but the modifier may be omitted if context makes it clear what is meant) such as circulatory/hemodynamic/cardiovascular collapse, airway collapse, or vertebral collapse rather than the general "collapse". These factors combine to make it an inappropriate redirect inasmuch as it makes it more difficult to find the content one is looking for.
  I see three valid options here: (1) delete this article without changing collapse, (2) delete this article and change collapse per NikosGouliaros's suggestion, or (3), change collapse per the suggestion at User:NikosGouliaros/sandbox2 and redirect collapse (medical) to collapse#Medicine. I don't have any strong opinions as to which of the three options would be the most appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This is a somewhat non-Wikipedian comment, but I believe it may be useful, coming from my own background in healthcare policy. A search of the ICD-10 lists multiple entries that involve the word collapse, including Collapse NOS Following a Procedure, but most forms of "collapse" reference an actual (if sometimes vague or suspected) cause, even where the cause is suspected to be psychogenic. A CMS-1500 with the comment "well, the patient there just collapsed" with no further documentation is going to be returned with a request for clarification, at best, and some questions from investigators at worst. It is clear that a physician or other clinician is expected to make an attempt to diagnose the cause of the collapse, and provide appropriate treatment. At the very least, to use a proper ICD code, the provider had better distinguish between cardiovascular, cardiopulmonary, heat, or syncope as a cause, and that's just for codes with the word "collapse". Realistically, that provider had better also make an effort to investigate and consider epilepsy, cataplexy, narcolepsy, hypoglycemia, simple dehydration, hyponaetremia, exhaustion, intoxication, and the list goes on for the various ICD codes that might be described by someone collapsing with or without a loss of consciousness.

My point is, there is no acceptable manner for a healthcare provider to bill for treating a patient who has "just collapsed", not without being much more specific. In the USA, at least, in my experience you simply will not find adequate sources for something that cannot be billed, because billing documentation is essentially how everything in medicine is defined. So you will find sources discussing differential diagnosis, sources discussing treatment for specific conditions, but you're just not going to find sources that just discuss "collapse" because the language and terminology has no need for this word or term on its own without reference to anything else. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• The idea that our medical coverage should be determined by US billing procedures seems quite bizarre. Note that this is an international project and other countries have different methods. For example, I'm in the UK which has a National Health Service. Anyway, here's a few counter-examples which discuss some common types of collapse:

1. Collapse in the Endurance Athlete
2. Rhabdomyolysis in elderly people after collapse
3. Maternal collapse
4. Rate of recurrent collapse after vaccination with whole cell pertussis vaccine

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

All four articles use "collapse" differently: "inability to walk unassisted, with or without exhaustion, nausea, vomiting, or cramps" [1]; any reason for falling and staying on the floor is implied [2]; "an acute event involving the cardiorespiratory systems and/or brain, resulting in a reduced or absent conscious level" [3]; "a hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode or shock-like syndrome" [4]. As a set, these articles clearly point to a wide spectrum of medical conditions, mostly affecting circulation, consciousness, and muscular tone (wider than loss of consciousness or postural tone but including them); so wide a spectrum that I cannot imagine how it could be discussed in an encyclopedic article, which must begin by some short of definition. More than an encyclopedic article, it points to a dictionary entry for "collapse": the word is used in the above sources in the loose, ill-defined way it would be used in everyday speech. It therefore reminds of the way it is used in the examples of User:Hyperion35. On the other hand, being an inexperienced editor, I may be mistaken and I'm open to any suggestion on how a "Collapse (medical)" article could be written. Hoping I'm not bludgeoning: NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Those four different definitions make me think that a WP:SETINDEX would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, I apologize, the reason I mentioned medical billing is both because it is an area I am professionally familiar with, but also because in the USA, our health system is highly decentralized and so billing is one of the few areas where government regulations and thus standardizations focus. Clinical practice is generally guided by the specialty and subspecialty societies and (God help us) physician experience. Various boards handle licensing. But it's only when it comes to billing that you generally find true oversight over the practice of medicine in the USA. This is important to this topic, because as User:NikosGouliaros correctly points out, "collapse" is a sign that could indicate a wide range of problems. So cardiologists are going to have an entirely different set of guidelines than neurologists, for example. It is possible that the American Academy of Family Physicians (potential COI: I once worked for a subspecialty society that worked with AAFP on issues unrelated to this article) might have broader guidelines that may be useful. But at the end of the day, American sources at least are unlikely to spend much time on "collapse" as a broad category, because physician documentation is going to have to be more specific, otherwise CMS or the state Medicaid agency or the insurer is going to send it back with the equivalent of those Wikipedia tags that say "more information is needed" (and without any payment). I cannot speak for NHS or HealthCanada or other English language healthcare systems, although I have little doubt that they are likely better organized. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course, a collapse may have a variety of causes and outcomes. But this just means that it's a broad topic, not that we should delete it. In this, it is like numerous other broad conditions or concepts such as injury, disease, rash and ageing. And notice that these are all articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Being referred to broad topics gave me an "a-ha" moment, and I tried imagining what such an article would be like. It seems it gets too confusing, in the sense Blackout#Mecicine would be if discussed as a broad topic, instead of a disambiguation page. You can check out what I mean here. I don't know where it could go from here; for instance, what short of Differential diagnosis section could include prostration and syncope? If anyone has anything specific to suggest, I'm willing to give it another try. NikosGouliaros (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The difference between this and injury, disease, and so on is that each of those actually is a broad concept, and not disparate topics sharing a term. Of course, it's not always immediately obvious whether medical concepts belong to the former or latter category; cardiogenic shock, hypovolemic shock, neurogenic shock, and anaphylactic shock are all part of the WP:BROADCONCEPT circulatory shock, but circulatory shock, shell shock, and spinal shock are not part of a broad concept that could be called shock (medical) (put another way, the first group consists of different types of shock, whereas the latter consists of different senses of "shock"). To give a more everyday example, "sex" as in sex chromosome or sexual dimorphism is not the same "sex" as in oral sex or sexual intercourse. Likewise, the different meanings of "collapse" in medical contexts here result in what is essentially an equivocation. Medically, the inability to walk unassisted (Sallis 2004), presyncope (Keller et al. 2016) and non-traumatic transient loss of consciousness (Thijs et al. 2005) are not part of a single, broad topic.

This is not like dizziness, an imprecise term used by laypeople which still has a clearly understood meaning as a collective term for what medical professionals more precisely refer to as vertigo, presyncope, and so on. What we have here is a term without any established, generally-understood medical meaning which is variously defined in contradictory (though sometimes overlapping) ways. Attempting to combine these different definitions into a single broad concept does not result in a quality medical article, it results in a WP:SYNTH nightmare. If this actually were a single, broad concept we would see sources discussing that broad concept.

We could by all means create a transient loss of consciousness article (and we probably should) which would include syncope, epileptic seizures, and possibly loss of consciousness due to blunt force trauma to the head (some definitions of TLOC exclude loss consciousness that is traumatic in origin)—but that's quite a different article than the one under discussion. It could say something along the lines of Transient loss of consciousness (TLOC) is a brief period of unconsciousness which resolves spontaneously. It may be traumatic—as in a concussion—or non-traumatic in origin. Common causes of non-traumatic TLOC include syncope and epileptic seizures. If we want a medical perspective as to why someone ended up on the floor or ground, we can expand falling (accident)#Causes. I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to reworking this article entirely to be about TLOC and moving it to the title transient loss of consciousness, but that would functionally be the same as deleting this article and creating that one from scratch (except the edit history would be retained). TompaDompa (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, why don't you do that - I think that would satisfy both keepers and deleters. Obviously "collapse" should redirect, if a new article is started. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist as it seems the discussion is ongoing and a clearer consensus may yet be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: I left a new neutral request for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.NikosGouliaros (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Syncope_(medicine) or delete per Hyperion35, I also doubt improvement to establish a stand-alone article, also per WP:NOTEVERYTHING CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Delete or Redirect to Syncope_(medicine). Looking over the discussion and the article I think the arguments on both sides of either keeping it or deleting it are strong. That said, at this point I'm leaning more on the delete side or redirect. Although, if it is deleted it should only be a soft delete with a low bar recreation at some point when it can be better established as a notable topic worthy of it's own article. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Collapse, where improved disambiguation for the various medical topics can be done. It seems clear to me this is a vague term, and I don't see a broad concept article being feasible right now. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect' to Syncope (medicine). This is a really vague term but the best target for a lay person looking for an article about someone collapsing in a medical context would be syncope. Natureium (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

* Strong Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Syncope is a very specific cause of collapse, but collapses have many other possible medical causes and therefore a redirect is not advisable or appropriate as collapse is the parent article and not the other way around. Collapse is a notable term in medical literature that’s widely used in medical RS. There are a multiplicity of sources available. I would suggest reaching out to WP:WikiProject Medicine to help develop the article further. AFD is not cleanup and it’s not prejudicial against notable stubs. Any arguments for deletion or redirect are not based in policy but are WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Question The RS suggested so far all indicate that "collapse" is a non-specific sign that could be caused by a large number of different causes. A search of the ICD-10 does not show any single code for "collapse" but rather records many different codes that might involve some sort of collapse. Also, with all due respect, the nominating editor and I are both members of Wikiproject Medicine as well as being medical professionals. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I would welcome more participation from Wikiproject Medicine, however your suggestion that votes for delete are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is simply not true. Several votes, such as my own, have pointed out significant problems with having this article, specifically concern that as a non-specific sign, the article could turn into what is essentially clinical guidance on a differential diagnosis, in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. This isn't "I don't like it" so much as "here are the challenges, and I can't see how to solve them." Rather than dismissing those concerns, could you please elaborate on how this article would avoid those problems? And what RS are you considering using? Hyperion35 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You have successfully changed my mind. Delete per Hyperion35. Oppose redirect. The disambiguation page for collapse should be all that is needed.4meter4 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Nagara (film)

Nagara (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, fails WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass.

PROD removed because "It's a notable film released in PIFF Toronto 2015. IFFA .. Punjabi International film festival Toronto and International film festival Toronto.. I have already provided the times of india link..and I think I times of india is the one of the biggest news paper in the world and in india.. so please. If they posted an article means the film is notable.. please do not remove the film article"

However, the Times of India "article" isn't an article...it is a film database listing. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's the link of iffsatoronto & pifftoronto the article about all event of that day. https://www.iffsatoronto.com/the-4th-annual-iffsa-piff-toronto-announces-an-exciting-line-up-of-films-and-events/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Team Sukhjas (talk • contribs) 06:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - a database profile page and a passing mention are not enough. No reviews in reliable sources, no significant awards, not apparently influential; clearly fails WP:NFILM. Not even a hint of significant coverage so comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Not a shred of notability. It's cases like this that make me wish that we had a speedy deletion A7 for films. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete passing mentions are not enough, fails WP:NFILM. Pilean (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable film. Kolma8 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. I wish we had a speedy deletion for films also Rogermx (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Collabtive

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Collabtive
• Articles for deletion/Collabtive (2nd nomination)

Collabtive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of the article is and never was notable. The article with the same name and subject was already previously deleted in 2008 but then re-created without any sources asserting notability. I propose to delete it again. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Primary contributors to the article appear to be the program's developers, one of whom was the article's sole defender at the previous AfD in 2008. Provided references are a couple of reviews, but aside from these I found nothing in depth. --Finngall ^talk 16:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom article created again without adding any reliable sources. Grailcombs (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Anton.bersh. No sourcing... and nothing had changed since deletion that would merit recreation. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone article. Redirecting plausible search term as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Philip R. Cowan

Philip R. Cowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails GNG. The only notable thing about him is he won an award from the Boy Scouts. Poydoo can talk and edit 15:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 15:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 15:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability as it stands. BD2412 T 15:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Current coverage fails in GNG. Setreis (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Winning the Bronze Wolf is not in and of itself a notable enough destinction to merit an article. If it was we would have sourcing from outside the boy scouts to show coverage of it. That is the test to award notability, 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award. --evrik ^(talk) 15:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award: Search results (Google with "Philip R. Cowan"; newspapers.com with "Philip R. Cowan") very likely fails wp:basic. Redirection per WP:ATD-R. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and merge content to bronze wold award. Doesnt even merit a redirect. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ranjeet Jha

Ranjeet Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The sources presented are inadequate and the film roles provided are not enough to meet WP:NACTOR. I have found no substantial coverage that would make the subject pass WP:GNG. (There is this piece but the source is not reliable.) Modussiccandi (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 15:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Current coverage fails in passing WP:NACTOR. Setreis (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Roles fall short of WP:NACTOR and the only independent reliable source coverage (i.e. WP:GNG) that I can find are passing mentions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above, snow is falling. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Alex Burger (music)

Alex Burger (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Current coverage is not enough for WP:NARTIST Setreis (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep lots of coverage in French to easily meet GNG. I have cleaned up the article. It is pretty obvious that it was not written by a native English speaker as it had a lot of problems. (note: NARTIST does not apply to musicians, as far as I know.)--- Possibly (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I tagged this one on NPP as a poor translation of the French Wiki article, It has now been greatly improved by Possibly and I believe this artist meets the GNG JW 1961 Talk — Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per the work done by Possibly. StarM 17:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural comment - As a cleanup endeavor, I changed the tile of the article (moved) to "...(musician)" per established disambig conventions, but did not notice that this AfD was still in progress. Sorry if this causes trouble with any automated processes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - The article was in awful shape before the AfD, but user:Possibly cleaned it up nicely. If it survives this AfD I will help with the copy editing. The musician's media notice is rather scant but per WP:HEYMANN there is enough for a basic stub article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Dániel Kákonyi

Dániel Kákonyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another one where there is some discrepancy over whether he has played that one top tier game or not. Soccerway has him down as playing 90 mins but HLSZ and MLSZ seem to disagree and don't have any top tier appearances listed. He has, however, played in two league cup games so does manage to scrape a WP:NFOOTBALL pass. He is currently playing in the third tier, which isn't professional and hasn't been playing at professional level for 10 years now.

A Hungarian search comes up with nothing better than a brief quote on a football site and a transfer announcement. Everything else, I have discounted as they're just blog posts or database profiles. I'm not seeing WP:GNG being met.

There is a growing consensus that a trivial passing of NFOOTBALL (in this case two confirmed appearances, possibly three but the third being disputed somewhat) is insufficient when GNG is not satisfied. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete It seem you really did have a good look for online sources, I had a look and see a lot of profiles and the same stuff you noted. Certainly seems to fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - there is plenty of consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALl with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. Please ping me if sources are found. GiantSnowman 17:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete As per all above, fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This is exactly why we need actual passing of GNG to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Patricia Altenbernd Johnson

Patricia Altenbernd Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are no secondary sources, cannot establish notability. Manic Monk (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Manic Monk (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Although she has authored several books, I cannot find the reviews that would allow her to pass WP:AUTHOR through them. The best case for notability so far appears to be her "Distinguished Service Professor" title and WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Her position is not enough to meet prof notability 5, and we lack reviews of her text books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Johnpacklambert's typical ignore-the-evidence-just-not-notable comment inspired me to look harder for sources and expand the article. I still didn't find any book reviews, but I found that she was given an endowed chair, that she was the first woman in the arts and sciences at her university to hold an endowed chair, and that she was president of an academic society (the Society for Philosophy of Religion). I think she passes both WP:PROF#C5 (for the endowed chair) and #C6 (for the society presidency). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per David Eppstein comments -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per David Eppstein, passes WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per above, and I added a review from Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews that includes a discussion of her writing. Beccaynr (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there are enough coverage in reliable sources to meet some notability criteria (presumably WP:GNG or WP:BASIC). WP:NBUSINESSPERSON adds a bit, but consensus can change, so less weight are given.

Permalinks: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, Wikipedia:Consensus (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ashley Buchanan

Ashley Buchanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Questionable notability per WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B25B:C90B:98:3350:CA9D:9319 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:NBUSINESSPERSON as the CEO of Michael's, a Fortune 500 company. Strong passage of GNG with coverage in several RS including CNBC, BusinessWire, NYT, CNN, and The New York Post to name a few.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Not in depth coverage, most coverage is an annoucement of being a new ceo. Most references talks about company and his name highlightes just as CEO. Not real coverage outwith the company. Grailcombs (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - I just cleaned up the sourcing. Notable for breadth of coverage. The NY Post BTW has been discounted on WP:RSN. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RFC:_New_York_Post_(nypost.com). 22:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs)

  @Timtempleton: Does there happen to be any clause (Similar to Fox News) that NYPost is reliable for non-political issues? If so, that could be considered a reliable source in this case.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Kieran207: there are exceptions to every rule, and the context is obviously important, but there does seem to be a general backlash against the New York Post. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Tentative keep. The subject has a presumption of notability per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Besides the sources in the article, I was able to find this article from the Wall Street Journal that contains in-depth analysis of Ashley's role as CEO at Michaels. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Fortune 500 CEO who had a top position at Walmart. Miaminsurance (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The guy gets ample coverage for his accomplishments in business. https://www.wsj.com/articles/michaels-stores-strategy-for-keeping-the-covid-bump-alive-11613664006 Dream Focus 09:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Crystal Palace 0–7 Liverpool

Crystal Palace 0–7 Liverpool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a record of any type, just a big win. We don't have articles for the biggest away wins of most other teams, nothing special or extraordinary about the match itself. Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not a notable game. SportingFlyer T·C 15:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - a big win, especially away from home, but not notable enough for an article. It wasn't Liverpool's biggest ever win, it wasn't even their biggest away win, it was merely their biggest away win in the Premier League (they won 8-0 away in the EFL Cup in 2000) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as per the point above, it's not even their biggest win ever, only in the league. And just because it was the biggest league win, doesn't mean it passes WP:GNG- it clearly doesn't meet GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails in meeting WP:GNG criteria. Setreis (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Govvy (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Just a big win but it would be helpful if criteria existed as to which individual games merited their own article.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Wonderful match from my point of view but I have to admit that it doesn't merit a article of it's own. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I understand why the article was created but the topic does not meet WP:GNG, simply being the biggest away win for the club in the Premier League is not enough for an article. It would be silly if we started permitting articles on matches with that as the sole claim of notability. To do so would be to permit loads of stubs sourced simply to the BBC match report or similar. Maybe this information could be displayed elsewhere but it doesn't require its own article. This may well be closed early per WP:SNOW. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - no significant coverage a day after the match, let alone a week. SK2242 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG --Kemalcan (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment this page could also delete per G5 criteria since the creator of this page is blocked. Dr_Salvus (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete — I stumbled upon this article a while ago and just marked it as potentially non-notable as it was still brand new and I wanted to wait to see what would become of it, but there is absolutely no reason why this particular match has any sort of significance whatsoever. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 00:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Educate & Celebrate

Educate & Celebrate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article does not provide secondary sources giving significant, independent, reliable coverage of this charity, and a quick search failed to produce any, too. The article therefore fails both the General Notability Guideline and the organisation and company specific notability guideline. While it's not directly relevant to AfD, the only substantive edits to the page are by User:JulesatEducate&Celebrate; their user page describes them as the chair of the trustees for the organisation this article is about. —me_and 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —me_and 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —me_and 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —me_and 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —me_and 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I am about to do some more updating of this page and will address recent feedback and comments made, thank you. I do not think that is a reason to delete the page though. I think there is very little positive LGBTQ+ presence on Wikipedia and am trying to ensure that people are aware of international charities (registered with the UK Charity Commission) , such as Educate & Celebrate have some visibility in this space. I have openly stated I am a trustee of that charity, I am not a paid employee of it. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Sadly fails WP:SIGCOV. While I found lots of news articles quoting the director of this charity, the articles themselves were not about the organization itself. Ultimately, there just aren't any sources of significance to meet the notability requirements at WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

FC Sokol Moscow

FC Sokol Moscow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Amateur-level football club. Fails GNG and NFOOTY. Not participated in national cup or national-wide level of football league. They only play in amateur Moscow regional league --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep There is not enough in-depth coverage, but enough coverage in my opinion that club just passes basic GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough indepth coverage, fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It is a soccer school based club. Registered as a soccer school (ГБУ СШОР № 27 «Сокол»). [[14]] Not a prof club. No notability. Kolma8 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Clearly fails NFooty. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Ghosts of the Green Room

The Ghosts of the Green Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this film pass the WP:NFILM guidelines.

PROD removed because "deprodding -- prodded far too early in the article's development (don't tagbomb the newbies!), sources are likely to be offline and/or not in English".

"Sources must exist" is not a valid argument to keep an article. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable film, I looked for the sources, but could not find anything meeting GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 14:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete There are not enough sources to make this film notable. Grailcombs (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Darwen Group

Darwen Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable defunct bus company. Fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Move to East Lancashire Coachbuilders, the majority of the page says that it supposedly rose from the ashes of the ELC collapse so that information would be useful there. Whether it warrants moving all of the information from there into here since Darwen allegedly was the new name for East Lancs is up for debate. NHPluto (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 14:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: But really not objection to a quality merge by a person with a positive approach to the process. Such a process would likely be a discussed merge outside of AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the subject is notable. Any article cleanup can be carried out directly or via its talk page independently from this AfD. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Moj (app)

Moj (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Highly promotional page created with unreliable sources also, No secondary coverage other than the wave of Tiktok ban. Sonofstar (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Strong Keep The article currently lists extraordinarily significant sources from the Financial Express and the Indian Express, which is exceptional for an app. And for good reasons, it's one of the two most downloaded apps in India so far this year [15]. I found so many recent sources with a simple google news search [16] [17] [18] [19]. There is just no case for its deletion. Mottezen (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

*Comment - Most of the coverage is about the launch when TikTok was banned (and identical). The Zeebiz article seems promotional and influenced by some company provided content. Doesn't have much apart from that. Sonofstar (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of the coverage is about the launch when TikTok was banned (and identical) This is just false. The Zeebiz article seems promotional and influenced by some company provided content Ok, so one of 5 first hits on google news for this app that day random day last week "seems" promotional. Color me shocked! This is such a ridiculous nomination. Any reasonable user who would have done WP:BEFORE would not have sent this article to AfD. You need to withdraw this nomination. Mottezen (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per Mottezen, though the Financial Express doesn't seem like a reliable source. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 20:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Passed GNG, however "weak" or "promotional" the article appears, that's an issue for the talk page not AFD. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Bessa Vugo

Bessa Vugo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Hoax. Claims she invalidated Fourier's Law of heat transfer are ridiculous. Page was created on the German Wikipedia in 2013 and deleted twice. Noah ^💬 13:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 13:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 13:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax (speedy has been declined, so it isn't uncontroversial and I won't delete it right now). All relevant search results seem to originate on Wikipedia. No evidence that this person exists. Based on the claims in the article, there should be some coverage at least, but there is nothing. —Kusma (t·c) 16:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax As per above no evidence to include in Wikipedia. Grailcombs (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete that this hoax has existed for over 8 years is a clear sign we have problems with Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and salt given the occasional recurrence. PK650 (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Devokewater 09:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

One Schoolhouse Consortium

One Schoolhouse Consortium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete we really need to purge from Wikipedia all articles sourced only to the organization's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Assuming the school is non-profit, WP:NSCHOOL says meeting WP:GNG or WP:NORG is enough. Applying the less strict WP:GNG, through a search (using "One Schoolhouse" since that looks like the more common name and will catch results from "One Schoolhouse Consortium" as the former is a substring of the latter) online, there are not enough significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources to make this meet WP:GNG. The results at the front are not independent and reliable while the latter search results are just instances of "one schoolhouse" that do not refer to the organization. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  For redirection, there seems to be no good target for it. Suggestions are welcomed though. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Current coverage fails WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: per others.--vote by Alcremie (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although my sympathy lies with the "delete" !votes here (and ignoring a few SPAs that may or may not be here because of off-wiki canvassing), there clearly is a consensus to keep this article. Any issues with promotionalism can be addressed by normal editing and talk page discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Northern Independence Party

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Northern Independence Party
• Articles for deletion/Northern Independence Party (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Northern Independence Party (3rd nomination)

Northern Independence Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested CSD. Party had been deleted before. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. No record or proof of notabity. Not on Register of Political Parties. Fails GNG. Clear COI and promotional editing. doktorb _words^deeds 12:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United NOKingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 12:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to Closing Admin The party has posted a Twitter post to this deletion discussion which might cause WP:CANVAS issues See [20] doktorb _words^deeds 21:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for bringing this here - this is the correct approach to consider this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Have to agree with doktorb- wikipedia is not a gazetteer for every microparty under the sun (especially ones which, by their own admission, do not have electoral commission recognition). The article was quite clearly written as self-promotion by supporters ahead of the upcoming by-election, with the only citations being offered being citations that weren't considered notable enough last time this was all discussed, or a "they exist", which isn't enough to establish notability. Those citations are well enough to establish it in the wikipage for the Hartlepool by-election, but still isn't enough for its own article.BitterGiant (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep. Some of the arguments regarding GNG have persuaded me. I also think notability has increased since this AfD began.Delete per OP and BiitterGiant. The last AfD wasn't that long ago and very little has changed since then. — Czello 12:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep the article has 9 references from different UK local papers as well as the national paper the Independent. It’s difficult to say given that much coverage that it isn’t notable enough to exist. Especially given most of those articles are exclusively about the party itself.

They are now running in the Hartlepool by-election - that is the change in circumstances. I wouldn't expect them to win that but I wouldn't expect them to lost their deposit either (i.e. they will get more than 5% of the vote). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to note that this is against WP:CRYSTAL doktorb _words^deeds 14:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

only the claim about the percentage of the vote they will get is crystal balling - which will be addressed by the first polls that are done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Getting involved since I received a delete notice while I only created a helpful redirect after a deletion that I supported. If a party is now officially running, there may be a case to keep. Previously, I favored deleting because the party did not exist. In that case, the discussion belongs in the broader movement. gidonb (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep – the last AfD had more support for keeping than deleting, and since then their standing in a by-election only increases their notability. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it increases their publicity. Not necessarily their notabity. doktorb _words^deeds 14:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - The relevant standard is WP:NORG. We've got multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV in the article. The publications include ones covering all Yorkshire (i.e., regional sources per WP:AUD). I've got questions about whether the coverage is WP:LASTING but the coverage of the Hartlepool byelection appears to address this. Registration or not doesn't matter. Previous deletion doesn't matter given the coverage that has come out since deletion. COI/WP:PROMO doesn't matter if the article can be edited to be WP:NPOV, and it obviously can be. The nom is correct that Wiki is not a gazeteer for every minor party - but we certainly can have articles on those that receive significant coverage in reliable sources, and this one has. FOARP (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The party's foundation got a fair bit of coverage in the left-wing press and their decision to run in Hartlepool has gathered a fair bit of interest as well. Passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete as per the original rationale. Other than an expressed intention to stand in a by-election, I haven't seen anything to suggest a functioning political party rather than a very active Twitter account. The current assortment of pages for UK parties already needs pruning and this would make a bad situation worse. MegaPowerTape (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - it doesn't matter whether it has achieved anything yet, there is significant coverage from multiple sources. Warofdreams talk 23:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia by it's own definition provides summaries of knowledge. The fact this political movement has members and right to stand by the commission makes it something worth knowing. Pruning electorate and official parties from Wikipedia

which is there to be an independent wiki (Without political bias). This harms the ability for people to make informed choices if only major parties get coverage. It hasn't gone against the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. People have the right to free information. Some people above said the page was biased - change it to be unbiased don't just delete it. Sangle1234 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per Warofdreams, sourcing establishes notability. Jdcooper (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment to Warofdreams and Jdcooper. Sourcing is publicity. Sourcing is not notability. Publicity is not notability. What have they achieved prior to the election being called, which, as of writing, it has yet to be? doktorb _words^deeds 23:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination states that this article fails WP:GNG. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't see how this article fails any of those criteria, my subjective take on "what they've achieved" aside. Jdcooper (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

But what have they done Jdcooper? The sources prove they exist. They sources do not prove achievement. They're a political party with no candidates, no campaigns, no votes, no MPs, no councillors, as far as you or I are concerned no leaflet delivered, nothing. Is this the bar we set ourselves for inclusion on Wikipedia, that they have a lot of sources? What have the NIP actually done? doktorb _words^deeds 23:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Let’s be clear they have a candidate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not really much of an achievement or establishes notability. Every minor/insignificant party that intends to stand in an election has to have at least 1 candidate. — Czello 10:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Not quite true Eraserhead1. They are not registered with the Electoral Commission so cannot use their own name yet, on any possible ballot paper, ad until the Statement of Persons Nominated is published, they have no candidate. doktorb _words^deeds 10:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the party lacks clear notability other than trivia-related references to it in the media, and as other editors have commented, only exists in a very rudimentary state for now. If the party does gain momentum such an article could be recreated. --RaviC (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. They are no less notable than the Yorkshire Party, the North East Party or the North Party. Unreal7 (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment This is against WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. doktorb _words^deeds 10:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

OK then. They've had substantial coverage and are notable enough now that they're standing in a by-election. Unreal7 (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:ORGCRIT and of interest to our readers. A resounding (more impactful than strong?) keep, now that the party was incorporated, is running, and receives plenty of attention. Laters, gidonb (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:GNG as it did on the last occasion. ItsKesha (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Point of order The article was deleted through AfD last time, and should possibly have not been recreated doktorb _words^deeds 18:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi doktorb, isn't the very establishment and first participation in an election a substantial and even defining change for a political party? Forget for a moment the keep/delete discussion, this change makes it fair to reestablish the article for community consideration. gidonb (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Seems they're about to run in a by-election, they have made some waves on social media.Zellfire999 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Being active on Twitter is not a valid AfD argument doktorb _words^deeds 20:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - the article is decently-sourced to several newspaper stories specifically discussing the party and its candidacy in Hartlepool. Even if it comes to nothing more than this, coverage seems enough to establish notability. (Ladbrokes are currently listing them - an admittedly distant - third to win Hartlepool, and a former Labour MP has expressed support for them; so I would suspect there is more to come, but what exists now seems sufficient for the basic bar of having an article.) TSP (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of coverage and they will likely be registered and stand in the Hartlepool by-election. JJARichardson (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• KEEP Standing in by-election, no valid reason to delete except to stifle debate. UK politics currently fractured and suffering from in-fighting, including spurious deletion attempts by political parties of the entries for other parties. TiredAndConfused (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TiredAndConfused (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
• KEEP Article is sourced with several reputable references, passes WP:GNG and Ladbrokes are now putting them ahead of Liberal Democrats in odds for Hartlepool by-election. Have also been endorsed by an ex-Labour MP. I would also like to note significant bias from doktorb whose own bio notes them as a Liberal Democrat and a "deletionist." Ohperdita (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ohperdita (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • @Ohperdita: Please assume good faith. Doktorb's political views are irrelevant to this discussion. — Czello 22:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Czello: On the contrary, I'm a trained historian, looking at bias and motives is absolutely critical to any kind of primary and secondary source analysis. It is difficult to assume good faith when the evidence points to the contrary. And no, I have not been canvassed to partake in this discussion. How about we assume some good faith there? I would also like to add, just because someone rarely edits, does not mean they cannot add to a discussion when they see fit to do so. I thought Wikipedia welcomed input? -- Ohperdita (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Ohperdita: That's not how we operate on Wikipedia. We discuss the merit of people's arguments, not trying to interpret their intention by looking at their political views. And I didn't add the canvass tag to your post -- you should take that up with whoever did. — Czello 07:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
        • @Czello: Yes, and we are attempting to determine the merit of whether this passes WP:GNG, are we not? The article clearly does, and the commentary to delete, which is what I am referring to, not the content of the article, contains bias in various comments from editors. It is fair to note that an editor has taken it upon themselves to be dedicated to deleting smaller Party pages, as it reflects significant bias, because WP:WIN and let's face reality here, how about the user previously mentioned WP:Admit at this point?-- Ohperdita (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
          • @Ohperdita: Determining the merit of whether this passes GNG can be done without trying to figure out someone's motivations. I don't think this article clearly does -- if it was that clear then there wouldn't have been people (myself included) who voted to delete. It's looking like it's going to be a keep though -- which is fine, that's just the way some AfDs go. But the comments of people who voted to delete (including OP) are just as valid as yours. His political leanings are irrelevant (and this is precisely the reason why I don't state my political leanings -- because it leads to accusations like these). — Czello 17:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
            • @Czello: You have invalidated your own argument, because you clearly understand that stating political leanings does cause issues. I also in my OP referred to said person self-describing as a "deletionist," which is in and of itself problematic, because that sets an agenda for how you are assessing anything. If you describe yourself as a "deletionist" (which is an agenda), you are stating that Wikipedia is about winning, when we know that WP:WIN and WP:BATTLE. It makes it difficult to assume good faith when an agenda has been clearly set out that is about winning. This is a quote from doktorb's user page "However, the increasing number of successful AfDs proves me correct and my opponents wrong." How can this not contradict WP:WIN? -- Ohperdita (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
              • @Ohperdita: At last someone who reads my profile! I'll happily respond to this point. Over the years, I've nominated many, many political parties for AfD, and faced tonnes of accusations. I've faced people saying that I must be biased, I must be judgemental, I must be anti-democratic. I really am not. Wikipedia is based on notability and yet political parties seem to get almost a free pass. I tried, years ago, to create a policy for political party inclusion, you'll find it on my page or talk page somewhere. We're still in need of an agreeable policy. My opponents, as I phrased it, are the same editors who would vote "Keep" without engaging in any details. They just saw me as an irritant and voted Keep every time. I am happy to be on the winning side of the argument. I am happy to see non-notable articles being deleted. I don't hide from being a deletionist. doktorb _words^deeds 23:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ohperdita: That doesn't invalidate my argument at all. What I'm saying is that people will stop reading what I'm actually arguing and will instead try to assume ill will based on my political views, when in fact there is none. — Czello 07:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete what changed in December between the last AfD and now, that would serve to justify its recreation? The fact they're running a candidate? It still fails WP:NORG (no, a couple regional news articles don't cut it in spite of all the POV-pushing going on here), and should be salted to avoid any future disruption. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer - "regional" sources are explicitly counted as counting towards sources that pass WP:AUD ("Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability."). There might well be vote-stacking going on here, but that doesn't change the fact that this appears to pass WP:NORG. FOARP (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

How exactly does it pass WP:NORG? There are only two new sources since the last go-around, one is for what looks like a blog with 2,000 subscribers, the other is the local Hartlepool paper. I can't believe we're allowing this clearly promotional article on the basis of a couple regional news reports. SportingFlyer T·C 11:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

1) You're assuming the previous AFD came to the correct decision. Each AFD has to stand on it's own legs. The decision seems to have been a reaction against (deeply unwise) vote-stacking by supporters of the party. 2) Again, regional coverage (e.g., significant coverage in a source covering north-eastern England) is a pass for WP:AUD - and only a single instance of this is necessary besides a local source ("at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary"), which is also present. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There's 8 sources in the article with an access date of February or March this year... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment– I’d like to point out that the previous decision to delete was controversial and the number of delete arguments was much smaller than the number of keep arguments. While no formal deletion review process was carried out on that AfD decision, it would be a mistake to treat it as at all decisive- so the “delete now because it was deleted then” argument does not hold water at all. I would consider launching a deletion review of that December decision, but it seems unnecessary given the current AfD. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• AfD isn't a vote but a debate in which strength of arguments matter. The article appears to have been re-created from a mirror page based on a couple of the access dates in the article, meaning there are WP:G4 issues and attribution issues. And the only thing which appears to have changed is the fact that there's now an article or two saying they're running a candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 17:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• • It is, however, unusual for an AfD closer to close in favour of the outcome far fewer people agreed with, and it would be reasonable to argue that the closer did not choose the fairest outcome of who "won the debate". Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • They’ve had regional and national press coverage specifically about them. That’s generally more than enough for an article to exist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    • There's clear POV-pushing from people trying to have this kept, both at this AfD and the last AfD, even though the notability is exceptionally marginal at best. Just because the closer takes a minority viewpoint doesn't mean it's wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 11:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree that there clearly is an attempt at vote stacking going on. However, I think this article is still a keep even discounting the content-less support votes. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Entire categories of articles such as secondary schools have been considered notable enough for articles since the beginning yet have vastly less prominent coverage than this political party which has had national press articles on it as the subject as well as lots of regional press articles as well - and this covered both the parties launch and its by-election campaign. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Czello 16:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Is firstly only an essay, and secondly makes much more sense when we are talking about individual articles that are counter-examples rather than entire categories. It's not like secondary schools have slipped through the net. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps they have slipped through the net. Perhaps some of them should be deleted. Either way, the argument to keep this article should stand on its own merits without comparisons to other, supposedly less-notable articles out there. — Czello 16:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Aside from public schools and other high profile private schools I'd expect 99% of all secondary schools and high schools in the UK and America have less prominent coverage than this political party. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay? Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The prominence of coverage of those schools is irrelevant to this discussion. As I say, perhaps some of those school articles should be deleted. — Czello 16:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that the vast majority of secondary school articles that have existed for 10-15 years or more should be deleted? And there are plenty more entire categories of articles where the coverage is extremely limited and revolves around mentions in specialist books etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that their existence is irrelevant to this article's existence. That's precisely why WP:OTHERSTUFF was written. It's a fallacy to suggest that this article should exist simply because they do (why is doing it that way round the default, and not the alternative -- deleting both?). Also the length of the article's existence doesn't matter either. At one point we had an article on every single Pokemon and it was generally accepted that was the norm -- but after several years that changed and they were deleted. As I say, the justification of this article existing has to stand on its own merits without saying "but what about x and y". — Czello 16:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Individual Pokemon never had national press coverage or it's equivalent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you missed my point there -- I'm saying they existed for years and were eventually deleted, meaning the length of schools having articles doesn't matter. Ultimately, before we get too off-topic, what I'm driving at is that it's not a valid argument to say "there are less notable articles out there, therefore we should keep this article". — Czello 16:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but individual Pokemon were much more an exception as an article category than secondary schools, articles we have on small villages, small train stations etc generally also have exceedingly limited coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the point or focusing on the wrong thing. — Czello 20:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The point which perhaps I’m making poorly is that half the articles in this whole encyclopaedia have worse sourcing that this one, so unless you propose an extremely radical cull this one meets GNG. Now sure it’s possible when there was the initial excitement that the guy who founded this party would get immediately bored and nothing would happen, so I get why it was deleted the first time. However it’s clear he’s submitted to the electoral commission and given the current excited now that seems highly unlikely - and even if he did quit someone else would build on what he’s done already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

so unless you propose an extremely radical cull this one meets GNG. That's not how this works. GNG isn't some average bar that raises or lowers based on how well sourced other articles are. Again this is precisely why WP:OTHERSTUFF was written -- how well sourced other articles are is irrelevant to this debate. — Czello 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say that how WP:GNG is interpreted in practice is very relevant. I think this article does satisfy any reasonable interpretation on its own merits btw.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Czello, if we want to be strictly literalist about WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It is the nom + others who are adding extra "what have they done?!" bars for notability beyond that. And I get why, my keep vote is kinda weak. But if GNG is so sacrosanct, as written, then this article clearly passes that bar. Jdcooper (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• keep. It has become more notable since it was founded, it might not have passed WP:GNG in the past, but it does now. I would add that regional level media sources are acceptable to establish notability if no better ones exist. It is simply stated that national level ones are preferable. As a regionalist party, regional level media seems appropriate for satisfying WP:GNG. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• More national level sources, from "The Chartist" and Red Pepper. There is also a link to the London Economic that for some reason WIKIPEDIA thinks is spam, not sure why, but hey ho.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. I question why some coverage in some tiny news organisations (with questionable reliability I might add) makes the party notable in any real sense. As has been pointed out by the OP, "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties." Alssa1 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain which sources you consider to have "questionable reliability" and why? Otherwise it is simply an assertion without any weight, and can simply be ignored for the purposes of the deletion debate. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: Firstly, for the avoidance of doubt, you are not the one who determines or defines which positions can be "ignored" during a deletion discussion. Secondly the mentioning of this organisation by some small far-left publications does not make the organisation notable or credible under the WP guidelines; for the same reason we don't make a page for every minuscule neo-nazi party mentioned in far-right publications. Thirdly, as has been stated, wikipedia is not a gazette for every conceivable political organisation in the UK or beyond, and therefore you're going to have to come up with a pretty good reason as to why we should waive our guidelines in this case. Finally, given the fact that the organisation has effectively engaged in canvassing in an attempt to prevent its deletion (again), I would say the organisation has undermined its credibility further. Alssa1 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are decided on the basis of arguments, your first post was not an argument, it was an assertion. However, your recent post does contain argument, so it merits an answer. I assume you are referring to the sources I added? Red Pepper is RS for notability, by any reasonable standards. It is also not the only source, there are about 7 on linked on the article. Wikipedia is a gazette of everything that meets its guidelines on notability, which is to be given significant coverage in RS, which the NIP has. If the organisation is engaged in canvassing, please link to where this is occurring. Even if this is the case, I personally feel it to be matched by opposition on this page which is motivated by political animosity rather than any genuine concern about notability. But tbh, it doesn't matter particularly, as WP:GNG is clearly satisfied in this case. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The independent isn’t a small left wing publication. It’s a major UK national newspaper. And the Northern Echo is a regional paper. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep- I believe this article meets the threshold for notability, it's received widespread news coverage in a variety of mainstream and credible sources and given the pace it is growing on social media the only way is up.- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, notability established. As always, some people have a hard time understanding that the notability of a party or some other political project does not depend on political preference or feasability. --Prügelprinz (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Articles about the party in The Northern Echo, The Scotsman and the Sunderland Echo are Sufficient for the WP:GNG as all three are significant (ie the party is the main topic of the article) reliable (these are long-published local/regional newspapers in the UK) independent (it would be more-or-less illegal for such coverage to not be independent) sources. As it stands this article is undoubtedly at the bottom level of notability, but (1) it still passes the test for me and (2) the balance of probability lies in notability increasing signficiantly in the next 6 weeks with their stated intention to stand at a forthcoming parliamentary by-election. But in case I get accused of crystall-balling, it already passes GNG for me. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep meets GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Clearly meets (actually substantially exceeds) the requirements of WP:GNG. The organisation having mentioned this AfD on their Twitter feed does not affect the question of whether the organisation is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not. The organisation being listed or not listed on some Register of Political Parties does not affect the question of whether the organisation is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not. There being or not being a COI issue does not affect the question of whether the organisation is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not (and can be addressed elsewhere). The article in its current state does not look overtly promotional to me; and in any case such issues can be resolved by ordinary editing and do not affect the question of whether the organisation is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not. MPS1992 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Don’t delete it! This is a political party and it is helpful to have all the information in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.12.203 (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. With coverage in The Independent, a major paper with international readership, and several regional papers, the organization would appear to meet the notability requirements at WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV. While canvasing is concerning, equally concerning is the willingness of the nominator and those crying deletion to ignore a clear policy based rationale for keeping the article. With sources at this level, there is no policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree, I find this whole discussion baffling. There seems to be a desire to discard GNG on the basis that the N.I.P has not satisfied subjective criteria of relevance that supporters of deletion are loath to clearly define. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This party has attracted significant attention, which is obvious in the media coverage it's getting. And the NIP is just over a month away from contesting a parliamentary by-election in Hartlepool. Extua (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Midnight Memories. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Happily (song)

Happily (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. Its coverage comes from only album reviews. Some chart entries. One review of the song in particular that could be added to the album article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Midnight Memories--no indication of notability apart from album reviews. HĐ (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Midnight Memories - Fails WP:NSONGS. Found just another capsule review by The Independent, which can well be included in the composition section of the album. Both Billboard and the Daily Mirror sources are album reviews- which does not establish notability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Bob East

Bob East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of coverage in independent, third-party sources, much less any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The majority of the article is sourced to the subject's profile page on his publisher's website (Cambridge Scholars, a self-described independent publishing company, not to be confused with Cambridge University Press). The rest of the sources are Amazon (referencing the existence of his books) and passing mentions of him as a political candidate, but nothing that comes to close to meeting the GNG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for writers, academics, nor politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I have significantly rewritten the page, removing irrelevant material. I also added 3 IRSs. I have left the list of Publications and Articles, although I could not find any references to them, including from a search via the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspaper articles (which is much broader and deeper than Google). The IRSs I found all related to his brief commentary on a single kidnapping event in 2011, and while he is referred to as an expert, they are far from substantial and I don't feel meet GNG. I could mount the argument WP:TOOSOON but the subject has been 'expert' for over a decade and not obtained IRS coverage in that time. I would be inclined to delete the page.Cabrils (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and I wouldn't exactly say too soon, but probably never. The books are almost un-noticed, and he is one of a number of victims. The general arcticle on the terrorists is more than enough--and in fact, needs considerable pruning of the section of him. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to clarify, unless I'm missing something, East is NOT "one of a number of victims"-- he is cited as an expert commenting on the victims, so I'm unsure what you're referring to here. Cabrils (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. His works appear to have citation counts in the low single digits, not enough for WP:PROF#C1. Writing multiple books is not enough for WP:AUTHOR; we need multiple reviews of those books and I found only one review of one book [21]. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete As as been said, doesn't seem to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Affinity Federal Credit Union

Affinity Federal Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:N, not backed by enough WP:RSs, not a large enough union to merit an article. SenatorLEVI 10:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Interestingly, the nominator is also the creator and contester of the previous PROD. Looks like the page has not been significantly contributed by others per authorship status (the more significant ones have not contributed actual content), so G7 may apply here if the author wishes to do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ajoy Bairagi

Ajoy Bairagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

With Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy foremost in my response, it does appear that Mr Bairagi *is* a member of the BJP and *is* the current State President of BJP Andaman and Nicobar Islands state unit. In the WP:BEFORE process, I found a number of media outlets that do not have English language Wikipedia articles; none of them were critical of Mr Bairagi. I do note that they have been used on Andaman and Nicobar Islands-related articles, but that is out of the scope of this discussion. It would however appear the subject of this article does not meet the WP:NPOL criterion, as he is a party official and not an elected politician. In the alternative, any number of notability policies and guidelines - WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO - would appear to apply here. As always, happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Non-elected politician. Could have worked if we had phenomenal significant press as a local leader. We have too many pages on these party presidents coming up! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete "state" level presidents of political parties are not default notable, especially when we are talking about very under populated union territories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom, does not meet the WP:NPOL criterion. Current coverage fails in GNG too. Setreis (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL, No substantial coverage--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. due to persistent lack of participation. A third relist would not be appropriate. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ranz Kyle

Ranz Kyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Kbabej (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:ENT. Should have been WP:CSD. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Totally not notable JavaHurricane 16:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete definitely fails to meet WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: I found some reliable sources about him: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29]. He and his sister were among the nominees of a certain category in 2019 Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. The article needs a lot of clean-up. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:ENT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • 1 isn't reliable IMO. 2 is an interview. 3 is not significant coverage but more like a puff piece just listing some videos. Can't judge reliability of 4 due to language barrier. 5 is WP:MILL and not sigcov. 6 doesn't look like sigcov. 7 is not sigcov, doesn't discuss in detail. 8 is not a reliable source in my experience and also looks a bit like a puff piece/video listing, again. JavaHurricane 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Ranz and Niana. Meets WP:ENT with sources presented by Astig. The duo seem notable, but not as individuals as per WP:INHERIT. SBKSPP (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Passes WP:NPOL is the Speaker of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (non-admin closure) - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 12:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Vipin Singh Parmar

Vipin Singh Parmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It is in Hindi Language and in it's original form also it lacked sources. If it is a notable topic it should be rewritten but at present, i think it should be deleted. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Two minutes of BEFORE would have solved the problem here: an anonymous IP added the Hindi text, reverting to last stable English version is a simple task 30 second task, 90 seconds on Google provides ample sourcing to confirm notability as an elected politician.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Abdul-Lateef Adeniran Akanni Ojikutujoye I

Abdul-Lateef Adeniran Akanni Ojikutujoye I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The article has been edited and still improving as some other references has been cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleayanda (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete When I read the article, the terms of monarch and Olofin (god) make me think this person has to be notable. But when I go to Ado-Odo/Ota it narrows it down a bit, I think he is leader in the same way a city mayor is leader. I think the hurdle is WP:POLITICIAN and the references on the article to not support that. My own search did not find anything to add. Jeepday (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - the monarchs of Yoruba kingdom can't be compared with town mayors, there is definitely a greater notability as the monarch fills both political and communal functions. --Soman (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as per Jeepday — subject does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Since he is a local leader, he must have "received significant press coverage" which he has not. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep agree per Soman — traditional rulers of territories are generally considered notable, and plenty of significant coverage per search [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. WP:GNG is met. VocalIndia (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above show a clear pass of WP:GNG so that there is no valid reason for deletion particularly as the subject also has major claims of significance, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Atlantic-North Sea Continental Divide

Atlantic-North Sea Continental Divide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. The author has taken information from many sources, compiled it, and created two new concepts: the Atlantic-North Sea Continental Divide and the North Sea-Baltic Sea Continental Divide, which haven't been scientifically discussed or defined and for which thus no WP:RS exist. This in no way means that these two concepts are false, or that the research that went into them isn't diligent: but Wikipedia isn't the place to publish your research, it's a place to summarize research from reliable sources (scientific journals, geography books from renowned publishers, ...).

Also nominated is North Sea-Baltic Sea Continental Divide. Fram (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep (tentative). I feel that this is the battle between WP:OLOGY and good sense. Good sense says that the more notable, interesting, and most importantly true, information in WP the better. Unfortunately WP:OLOGY says that any old junk is absolutely fine, just as long as it has been scraped from a proper printed book (PPB). Your delete summary is generally reasonable, yet it really is not true that the author has created a new concept -- the concept is there already, being a "watershed" (not in the weird American sense). Perhaps the author has invented the name "xyz continental divide", and I think this is decidedly dubious; it does not meet WP's own definition, since the Atlantic and the North Sea are not "different oceans". I do hope there can be a reasoned discussion about this. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  Obviously "continental divide" or "watershed" aren't the new concepts, but these specific ones. Continental divides end where they meet the sea or an ocean: yet these ones continue right through the sea (hard for a watershed), which is not correct (or at least generally accepted) and thus not really "good sense". Fram (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, what exactly is a "concept" then? I agree that "continental divide" is not correct the correct term, but watersheds can and do go through sea crossings; the Continental Divide of the Americas hops over to Tierra del Fuego, for example, and the watershed between the Sea of Japan and the Pacific has to cross at least Shimonoseki and Tsugaru straits between Kyushu, Honshu, and Hokkaido. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The concept is the "Atlantic-North Sea continental divide" (and the other one) as explained here, not the idea of continental divides in general. If no one else (I mean, in reliable sources) has defined these 2 specific continental divides, then they are WP:OR. If it is taking multiple "existing" continental divides together into a new "Atlantic-North Sea" one, then it is WP:SYNTH, creating something new (in this case, a geological / geographical term, concept) out of existing ones, and presenting it as generally accepted science when it isn't. Fram (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is a map from 1992, based on something earlier, showing the watershed, as the boundary of the drainage basin to the North Sea: [36]. I understand the objection to creating something which is not "accepted science", in the sense of a claim (however clearly justified) that something is true when it is clear that the relevant experts would not in general necessarily accept it. But no person with the tiniest understanding of topography would refuse to accept the existence of a watershed between the Atlantic and the North Sea. Insisting otherwise is well into lawyer territory, and I cannot tell you how much I loathe and despise lawyers. (I'm not going on with this; it would not be productive. Someone else can find other old references to this particular watershed.) Imaginatorium (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That map gives a completely different location for the North Sea-Baltic Sea Continental Divide though, just like this one gives a completely different line for the French and English watershed, and for the Baltic one. So no, this is not accepted science, this is WP:OR. The same or a similar larger drainage basin is given here. The European Encironmental Agency depicts a drainage basin which is closer to the two discussed here, but not the same either[37]. And none seem to call it a "continental divide", which seems a rather grandiose term for what this is. Fram (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Agree this is probably WP:OR but just as relevant is WP:GNG and even WP:V given the poor state of sourcing for this topic. Wikipedia editors cannot simply decide for themselves that an assembly of ranges amounts to a notable continental divide or watershed. Here in the UK no-one would think of referring to this feature as an Atlantic-North Sea divide, rather, we would refer to the ranges of hills and mountains that make up the watershed, which coincidentally is not even really an Atlantic-North Sea divide since the Irish sea and English channel receive a good portion of the water shed from it. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This seems like a pretty clear example of WP:SYNTH to me - indeed, much clearer than the usual candidates for that deletion criterion, because the term is not even in use. Coining names for and describing components of putative geographical/geological features is not within WP's ambit - we wait until someone else has done so. This entire thing may be a reasonable consistent and defensible construct, but we are not the forum for it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree with the comments above. This is original research and WP:SYNTH, because this doesn't seem to have been a topic that has gotten scholarly attention. Agree with Elmidae - there may well be a real drainage divide here, but until outside reliable sources have confirmed this name and written about it, it's beyond our purview to have an article on this subject. Hog Farm _Talk 02:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Thank you for considering the accuracy of these articles. This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate the intent to keep Wikipedia accurate. The concepts discussed in these two articles exist in the world, according to reputable sources responsible to manage water, cartography and geography. The term 'Continental Divide' is defined by National Geographic in the following articles [38] and [39]. A further discussion of the term can be found by the US Government nationalatlas.gov. Here, the article discusses what makes up a divide, which is a border between river drainage basins that flow into different major bodies of water. The names of these two divides can also be referred to as 'Watersheds' which seems to be the generally accepted term in Wikipedia for continental divides in Europe, although I have not found any references that support this assertion. The term watershed is actually referring to the whole drainage basin and not the divide between them. However, this can of course be updated in the name of the article. In Scotland, the Scottish watershed article references multiple historical sources for the continental divide separating the Atlantic and North Seas. The article Atlantic-North Sea Continental Divide documents the continuation of this watershed, as continental divides are geographic, not political features ending at national borders. A different standard to referencing is applied to these articles versus other generally accepted articles on Wikipedia. In the Continental divide the main image depicting global continental divides is a composite image is generated by the author using the hydrosheds.org dataset, which is a low resolution map of all of the river drainage basins throughout the world and then labeled by the author. Similarly, the sources for these two articles are governmental agencies who map river drainage in their countries at a detailed, topographical level. Anyone can take these source maps and verify that the statements made in these articles are accurate. Regarding the discussion of whether the continental divides run 'through' a salt body of water, the articles already depict the continental divide between the bodies of water run through different land masses, but still divide the same bodies of water. If the government of France says that there is a divide separating the Atlantic and North Seas and the government of the UK also makes this claim, it stands to reason that the divide exists in both land masses. However, the articles can be strengthened to not imply that the divide runs through the water. Sledbird (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails GNG. No coverage in any reliable independent source and unlikely to be found any time soon. Everything else is irrelevant for the purposes of an AFD. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• The terms and concepts from these articles exist in other European languages, both in public knowledge and scientific study, especially in German. In German, the 'Nordsee-Ostsee-Wasserscheide' is currently in general use, as well as historically. There has been an article on WP on this topic for almost 14 years. Currently this watershed is marked at physical locations. See tourismus-dammendorf-trennt-nordsee-und-ostsee, wasserscheide_flyer, Görlitz Sign for examples of these markings. Additionally, the term is discussed in scientific literature, both historically and currently. See K. Olbricht (1909) and Bussemer(2016) for examples of scientific works. The German word 'Wasserscheide' can be translated as either continental divide or watershed. From the discussion and WP precedent, watershed seems to be more fitting for describing these geographical features in Europe, though in American English it is generally referred to as continental divide. Additionally, the beginning of the divide separating North Sea and Baltic is located on the border between Poland and Czech Republic on Trójmorski Wierch (PL), meaning 'Three Sea Mountain', referring to the triple point between North Sea, Baltic Sea and Black Sea. This meaning indicates the historical significance of the concept. Similarly, the Scottish watershed depicts the history of these features. In that article, the referenced sources also refer to the 'Divide' or 'Great divide' for this feature. Finally, it is important to note that my contribution has included a verification of claims about the course of these divides in several existing articles - both in English and German - by adding source documentation provided by local agencies, as already indicated. Previously, all of these articles had limited to no reference documentation, meaning the articles have been strengthened from a reference perspective. From the deletion discussion, the consensus opinion indicates that the WP:OR would apply if there were no supporting documentation for these terms, which seems to thus far be the case. Therefore, only the newly documented extensions to these watersheds would meet this standard, but not the originally and well-documented terms already in WP. Given this background, I would propose the following solution. 1) North Sea-Baltic Sea Continental Divide - move to my userspace. Create new page 'North Sea-Baltic Sea Watershed', limiting the content to the European Mainland (and thereby not implying the divide goes through a waterway or continues on the Scandinavian Peninsula.) 2) Atlantic-North Sea Continental Divide - move to my userspace. Merge the content from the 'Course through Great Britain -> Scotland' section into the existing Scottish watershed article, citing the new source of the SEPA. Sledbird (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  Additionally, I would add the following English language references of the Baltic Watershed, all depicting the border with the North Sea as described in the North Sea-Baltic Sea Continental Divide, further strengthening the case for rename and keep, with the proposed name change from 'Divide' to 'Watershed'. I believe these references also indicate that the assertion that this divide runs through the Scandinavian Peninsula is also strengthened, but will of course accept consensus opinion on that. See Bartáková(2018) for images of the drainage basins between North Sea, Baltic Sea and Black Sea. See Hänninen(2015) for images of the Baltic drainage basin, including its continuation into the Scandinavian Peninsula. See Vuorinen(2014) with an image of the Baltic drainage basin, clearly depicting the divide with the course as marked in the article in this discussion, including a clear representation of this divide running 'through' the Kattegat Channel and into Scandinavia. Sledbird (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, clearly WP:SYNTH. Note to Sledbird: the validity of the concept isn't relative to this conversation in any way. Please limit your arguments to how this article meets the Wikipedia policies the nomination claims it fails. (WP:RS and WP:GNG) 174.254.193.199 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely WP:SYNTH, and there are articles which are clearly synth, but have some semblance of passing GNG, but this isn't even one of those. That being said, I found the concept interesting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Clearly WP:SYNTH.4meter4 (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hafeez-ur-Rehman (cricketer)

Hafeez-ur-Rehman (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep has played in first-class matches, so passes WP:NCRIC. This user is now making a campaign of harassment/stalking following their lack of good-faith shown in a recent ANI thread. They also stated that they'd reduce their AfDs from 40 a day to five, in this is their seventh AfD listed in the last 24 hours. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Federally Administered Tribal Areas cricket team Has played 4 FC matches, but while coverage may exist offline and in Pakistani sources I couldn't find any. A Hafeez-ur-Rehman has played in the recent Abu Dhabi T10 league but I think he's a different person despite linking to this person. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. If he is the player in the Abu Dhabi T10 league, please ping me and i'll reconsider my vote. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22: ESPN Crininfo is listing him as the same 26 year old left-handed player in this article on the Deccan Gladiators squad https://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/squad/1248809.html and they're usually pretty reliable about internationally televised competitions, so I think it is the same player. DevaCat1 (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Has played 4 FC matches so passes WP:NCRIC and also seems to have an article career still, playing in the most recent addition of the Abu Dhabi T10 league so more coverage will likely come. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we stop predicting future coverage please? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete The article fails GNG which is the minimum required for any article. It is actually Lugnuts who is out of line fighting to keep hhundreds of articles in clear violation of GNG. Wikipedia needs to be cleansed of these junk cricket articles now, we are not cricketpedia, or at least not supposed to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, Lambert, start an ANI thread. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. For players for whom only statistical match information exists, a better way to present this information is in a list article. There's not enough here for a stand-alone article. WP:SPORTCRIT specifically says mere statistical coverage does not establish notability. Reyk _YO! 16:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No significant coverage to be found, only wide-ranging databases built on scorecard data and passing mentions in various weekly roundup reports, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This trumps the trivial pass of WP:NCRIC, which is by consensus unreliable predictor of coverage for cricketers such as these who have played very few matches, in this case for a lesser regional association. Played far more cricket for Rawalpindi in non-FC age-group cricket, and for Humak Engineering in Grade-II and lesser cricket, so a redirect to List of Federally Administered Tribal Areas cricketers‎ may be undue, although it would be an accepted ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He has played 4 first class matches, which is more than a 'trivial' pass of WP:NCRIC. And he was actually fairly successful, with 12 wickets at about 30 each, adding notability (although he would have passed in any case irrespective of performances after this many games. Article needs to be expanded. DevaCat1 (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The player was actually covered in the UAE media after playing in their domestic system. He was also drafted to play in 2021 T10 League but never played. I dont think that is enough to be notable. Human (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Isn't coverage in the UAE media exactly what would be required to pass WP:GNG? Coverage doesn't only matter if it's in the US or British media. DevaCat1 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, a requirement for sports bios. SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Adelita (turtle)

Adelita (turtle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

De-PROD'd after I PROD'd it earlier today with the following rationale: Zero independent sourcing. No indication the turtle, or the project, are notable enough to require a standalone article, and insufficient independent sourcing to justify a merge.

One source was added after the de-PROD, a PBS interview with Wallace Nichols (the guy who initiated the project). But one source, especially an interview, is not sufficient for a GNG pass. I wasn't able to find anything else significant on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep There's lots of coverage – see links above. See WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's generally regarded as customary to actually link to specific sources, if you have any. I did a BEFORE search and found nothing that satisfied all three dimensions of independence, significance, and reliability. Unless of course you mean we should cite the children's picture book...? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Davidson drops this quote on nearly every AfD he !votes on. Coverage /=/ Significant and independent coverage. And no amount of editing can fix a lack of notability. SK2242 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• It's the nominator's job to search and list sources per WP:BEFORE. There are multiple children's books and I gather that's because thousands of schoolchildren were involved in tracking the turtle as it crossed the Pacific. So, yes that counts for notability. And so does the PBS documentary, which is 55 minutes long. And so does the NASA page. And so does the article in National Geographic. And so does the article in Ocean Conservancy. And then there are conference papers and contemporary press coverage such as the Arizona Daily Star. This animal experiment was quite ground-breaking and was extensively covered in a variety of media. It's an easy pass of GNG and so my !vote stands per policies including WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The interview is not sufficient. Links above?? Saying that editing can improve the page without editing/imrpoving it... CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient coverage. Also that Automatic Andrew Keep Bot is looking more and more feasible as time goes on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, have to backtrack here - there apparently exists good material to merge some specifics to Loggerhead_sea_turtle#Distribution, as suggested below. The NASA dataset, specifically, and the PBS instalment might be mentioned (neither of which I found). (I'm sticking with the AndrewBot suggestion, because of course that !vote was made "on principle" before making any searches either...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah well, so I was not the only one thinking of some kind of bot.... CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Merge This led to a significant scientific breakthrough. There is an article for Magnetoreception already, so just merge there. Dream Focus 00:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect to Loggerhead_sea_turtle#Distribution where content is already included (not that this is a likely search term). The individual animal is not notable, rather what was learned about the species is, and its own article is not warranted. GPS wildlife tracking could certainly use improvements too. Reywas92^Talk 01:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG - I was able to find and add a variety of coverage, including from CNN (1999), Kirkus Reviews (2020) (a book about this turtle), National Geographic (2011) (this turtle was a starting point for additional research), Underwater Times (2006) (this turtle continued to be celebrated ten years after their tracked journey), Deep Sea News (2009) ("one of the most famous sea turtles in the world") and DePauw University (2007) (indicating additional secondary sources WP:NEXIST). Beccaynr (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Changed my vote to keep based on sources found. The article is short, but still a valid article, with information that would not fit in another article. Dream Focus 02:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep obviously meets WP:GNG. Nomination without WP:BEFORE. Sun Creator^(talk) 12:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep obviously meets WP:GNG. Not the article it was when nominated for deletion. Based on sourcing NOW, WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Scotts, West Virginia

Jeff Scotts, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Topos just show an undeveloped point on the railroad; WP:BEFORE brings up a few passing mentions in railroad directories but nothing describing the place or anything representing significant coverage. Seems to fail WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Talk 04:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete GNIS is the only source and we know that to be unreliable. found nothing in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• delete Topos and aerials show so significant settlement. Fails geo-verification. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Orode Doherty

Orode Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the sources are giving the subject enough significant coverage. They only make some mere mention about her. All of them are talking about something else rather than this person. I also did a WP:Before and could not find anything. This might be written for promotional purpose. Clearly fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Contribution to scholarship is negligible. Not enough other stuff for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC).
• Delete fails both academic notability and GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Current coverage fails in GNG. Setreis (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly doesn't meet NPROF C1–6 or GNG. Also clearly doesn't meet NPROF C7 (or C8), as the only examples of her giving "expert advice" in the news are this tiny article from The Punch, a few articles from The Guardian (Nigeria), and a trivial namedrop in the NYT here. JoelleJay (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and seems to have written as WP:PROMO breaching the neutral tone. Abishe (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet GNG or NPROF and it would have to be completely rewritten even if it did fulfill notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ramzan Muhammed

Ramzan Muhammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A contestant of a reality show who fails GNG. The subject has acted in numerous roles in some movies, but do not had any significant roles as of now and sources fails to establish WP:NACTOR. Also, the reliable sources provided are only just a review about the movies he was a part of. Other sources about the subject are unreliable ones like Bookmyshow and Imbd. This person do not have any significant coverage to establish notability, when considering him in other aspects.Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep : Actually, I don't understand how does it fails WP:ENT or WP:NMODEL?

1. He has significant roles in multiple television shows like Bigg Boss Season 3 and D 4 Dance.

2. As mentioned in the WP:ENTERTAINER notability criteria, he has a large fan base as well. This is his verified Instagram page and official verified Facebook page

3. I didn't use IMDb as sources/ reference here. I used book my show as reference for just a movie there. If Bookmyshow is not a good reference source, I'll definitely use another.

4. You can find Ramzans' Freebase or Knowledge Panel here.

5. The reliable sources (ref) given for Filmography session contains reviews about the movies he was a part of.The reviews too proves that he was a part of that film. I didn't add any other film sources contents for the rest of the article other than Filmography session. WikiShakeshere (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Strike: Confirmed sockpuppet of Phoenix man. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply to WikiShakeshere:, the thing is that, we dont look whether this person has huge fan base or not. What we are looking is whether he has been covered in depth in multiple independet reliable sources. Can you specifically show here any sources which gives him significant coverage in depth? And this [40] was the IMBD source that I removed from the articlez which was added by you. You may also have a look at another similiar article which got deleted. [41]. The same points like he has a huge fan base and a fan army in social media was also brought up in this case also (not in this 2nd AFD). And just being a part of a film does not make anyone notable. He must have done some significant roles in some movies. You may have a look at WP:NACTOR also. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kichu : As per WP: NACTOR, the points which I mentioned above are valid.

1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

As per WP: NACTOR, he has significant role in television shows and as per the second point of WP:NACTOR,he has large fan base too. WikiShakeshere (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiShakeshere, let the other users decide. Please come to my talk page. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to D 4 Dance which is the only claim to notability. Fails WP:NACTOR. GSS ^💬 08:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No main roles in any of the listed movies. I could find any support for WP:NMODEL. Kolma8 (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - WikiShakeshere is WP:SPA. Kolma8 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: The number of followers on social media is not a reliable reflection of the notability of a person as it is possible to purchase followers via ads or black hat sellers, nor being contestant in a television show grant presumptive notability. The subject has not had significant roles in any of the films he featured in multiple notable films and thus doesn't warrant an article under WP:NACTOR. WP:GNG is also not met due to absence of significant news coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Uma, what are you saying actually? Both the social medias attached are verified with blue tick mark. Not only that, he has significant role in the mentioned films. In the movie Dance Dance, Ramzan is the main lead! Kidu Movie as well!! WikiShakeshere (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiShakeshere, we dont consider blue tick mark in social media as a criteria for notability here. We need reliable sources and I already told you in the talk page to learn about it in the first place. If every person with blue tick have an article, this encyclopedia would be fully filled with thousands of them (may be lakhs) Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• delete per all of the above. Everything has been covered, nothing new to add. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The article about the reality show participant Ramzan was created shortly after the person entered another Reality show called Bigg Boss Malayalam Season 3. As alleged earlier, this page seems to be clearly for promotional purposes, the sources are not sufficient and most of them are not reliable. Maybe it has been created by promotional agents or PR workers.The notability standards are also not kept, hence this page should be removed from Wikipedia as it does not suite it's basic criterion. AARYA SAJAYAN (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep For some reason, this was put onto my watchlist, although I have not edited the article. The first five references are profile articles, that come from Instagram, apart from the one. He certainly fails WP:NACTOR, but there is quite a lot of coverage, possibly passes WP:SIGCOV, although it is the same content in most of them. It may be WP:TOOSOON though scope_creep^Talk 15:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 04:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Stated above. Fails WP:N. SenatorLEVI 07:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Martins Corner, Nottoway County, Virginia

Martins Corner, Nottoway County, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Y'all probably know the drill by this point: "corners" in Virginia that are PROD-ineligible because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia, a procedurally closed bundled nom. These two had no individual discussion at that AFD. Topographic maps and WP:BEFORE strongly suggests that these were just road junctions named for the people that lived there, not legally recognized communities; WP:GEOLAND does not seem to be met. Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Clays Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Speedy delete all The previous misguided closure kept unverifiable and non-notable articles lacking either significant coverage or establishment that these were actual communities beyond a few neighbors, if at all. Reywas92^Talk 05:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete All - Keeping the bundled results was wrong in the first place. Please refer to this vote as a standing vote to delete against ALL of these "corners" in any future AFD involving them. The failure of various people to allow a bulk solution to GNIS stubs has created a massive back-log of individual cases clogging up AFD and PROD processes that should have been foreseen. FOARP (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I recommend to delete all similar articles without reliable citation. Google map shows it is a cross section only. Why all editors have to go AFD for these 1 line articles without any notable reference.Shahram 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerry Becker

Gerry Becker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; he’s only had one significant role as Andy Kaufman’s father in Man on the Moon. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And multiple performances in the same role on Angel, Ally McBeal, C.P.W., and Medium... And Maximilian Fargas in Spider-Man. Could be the same as 1 Gerry Becker who performed on Broadway. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Reviews: 2 3 4 5 6 to start. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

2-page Chicago Tribune feature 7 and 8 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Another review: Christiansen, Richard. "Barry adds author's touch to 'Doubt' role." Chicago Tribune (1963-1996); Chicago, Ill. [Chicago, Ill]05 Aug 1992: L16. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per my own HEY work that demonstrates meeting NACTOR and GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom, only a single significant role. Reviews of non-notable productions in local papers do not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune, while I suppose a local paper to Chicagoans, is a major daily U.S. newspaper (Philly ain't exactly Hooterville either). Chicago a U.S. theatre hub. It has (or had) numerous metropolitan area newspapers that reviewed its professional theatre scene. Whatever. I'll spell it out in the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment to future voters and the closer I have made some improvements to the article in the past few days. I know that the article now is not a full view of his career. A deep dive into his work in Chicago and a time-consuming searches of his name against all of the movies he was in is the idea. However, I have a job, and a life, and other adventures in the AfD space in addition to a list of articles I want to write. Key points to consider as other editors examine this AfD and as a closer closes it:

1. Received much positive attention for his 1990s role in Woody Allen, David Mamet, and Elaine May one-act plays from The New York Times, New York Daily News, and other publications (including some I have not (yet?) added due to lack of time). (FWIW, there is enough information about Death Defying Acts for it to qualify for its own article on WP).
2. Variety wrote about him in its review of Once in Doubt in Chicago. For the uninitiated, important theatre productions are produced by theatre companies from all over the country, and national publications like Variety will review some of those productions. Broadway productions are not the only ones that matter.
3. Received much notice in and around the Chicago area for his work with Remains Theatre and Steppenwolf Theatre Company.
4. Original Broadway cast of The Song of Jacob Zulu.

In the event that this AfD gets little more attention from editors, and gets closed by vote and not in consideration of the article's present state, I will ask that the article be draftified for me so I can continue the work. Thanks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In particular, further discussion may consider the new sources that were brought up after the last comments by other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning keep as improved. The subject has primarily had small roles on screen, but he has had a good number of these in some very high-profile works, and larger roles on stage. BD2412 T 04:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. He is not famous, but had a number of decent-sized roles in professional film productions. His notability also shows in the fact that he has articles in other languages. --Clibenfoart (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Spunky Puddle, Ohio

Spunky Puddle, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This location does not appear on topographic maps; its GNIS entry is sourced to Dr. H. F. Raup's Ohio place names book. Unfortunately, I could not find a copy of Raup's work online to see what it says about this, but my WP:BEFORE only found passing mentions in lists of unusual place names, an appearance as part of a joke in a book of jokes, and a few obviously satirical references, such as stating that lost USPS mail is actually sent to Spunky Puddle, Ohio. I'm seeing no indication that WP:GEOLAND is met; page creator had a history of creating dubious place stubs before exercising their right to vanish. Hog Farm _Talk 04:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy delete While creator focused their mass-creation on Kentucky and West Virginia, their articles in other states were mainly those that had funny names, like this and Monkey Box, Florida. These likewise lacked any care for WP:V or WP:N and their contents are not necessarily factual or appropriate for articles. Reywas92^Talk 05:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - no coverage beyond "lol spunk!!!" in lists of odd places, which absolutely does not constitute significant coverage justifying an article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Not wide coverage, hence fails BASIC and GNG. Setreis (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Please delete , stop and prevent from mass-creation 1 line articles without any verifiable source. This show it is historical place. It generally means that the community no longer exists. However, it can also mean that the community might still exist, but was significantly larger or had a more 'official' existence in the past than it does now. Unfortunately our sources of data have proven to be unreliable.Shahram 19:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minecraft. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Mooshroom

Mooshroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Inadequately sourced page about video game thing whose notability cannot be verified because of the lack of sources. Copied without attribution from Draft:Mooshroom. The proper place for an inadequately sourced page whose notability cannot be verified is draft space, but already exists in draft space, and so needs deleting from article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Minecraft, Wikipedia is not a gameplay guide. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect Seems a silly page to me, but if it's a valid search term redirect then. Govvy (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notabale video game creature with no reliable sources discussing it in depth. It should not be Redirected to Minecraft, as it is not even mentioned on that page and it is not even close to being notable enough to merge there. Rorshacma (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable gamecruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. A redirect doesn't seem plausible since it's not a well-known aspect of the game. Namcokid47 16:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect per firefly. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 20:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Minecraft: Prefer redirection per WP:ATD-R. Also, none of WP:R#DELETE applies here. WP:R#K5 may apply here remotely. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Agree that a redirect is not plausible, plus the rest of the article's history is in the Draft space. --MuZemike 15:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Minecraft: Definitely WP:GAMECRUFT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Minecruft, I mean Minecraft. the wub "?!" 18:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  Nice joke! Now I am tempted to create WP:MINECRUFT as a redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Inappropriate content. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Minecraft, no notability established.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prodege. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

InboxDollars

InboxDollars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD [42]. Not enough here to meet WP:NCORP/ORGDEPTH KH-1 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - coverage appears to be merely passing mentions in list of "ways to make money online" articles rather than in-depth writing about the organisation itself. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prodege, which acquired it in 2019. "Acquisition Gives El Segundo Rewards Company Access to 100 Million Consumers, InboxDollars", Los Angeles Business Journal
• Redirect to Prodege as above. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect per reasons above - company was bought, any relevant information can be contained to Prodege page. Redoryxx (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ferenc Nemeth (musician)

Ferenc Nemeth (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, no chart, no gold, no award, no rotation Noah ^💬 00:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 00:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 00:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Reviews: https://www.allaboutjazz.com/freedom-ferenc-nemeth-dreamers-collective https://jazzdagama.com/music/ferenc-nemeth-freedom/ https://www.jazzspeaks.org/ferenc-nemeth-javier-vercher-imaginary-realm/ https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100153872 https://downbeat.com/news/detail/loueke-biolcati-nemeth-identity-gilfema Interviews: https://modernjazztoday.com/features/ferenc-nemeth-one-of-a-kind/ http://jazzbluesnews.com/2020/05/03/ferenc-nemeth/ This constitutes WP:GNG at the very least. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Walter Görlitz. BD2412 T 04:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - enough coverage in jazz media to satisfy WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Gilfema

Gilfema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NBAND, no chart, no gold, no grammy. Noah ^💬 00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Covered by All About Jazz, AllMusic, NPR, DownBeat, Vancouver Sun, The New York Times, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - whilst the albums may not have charted and the artist doesn't have a Grammy, this band appears to have enough coverage to meet notability guidelines as per Caro. For example, The Guardian, New York Times, Jazz Times and Financial Times so meets #1 of WP:NBAND as their works have achieved significant coverage. I also believe that #5 is met as they have released three albums on record labels that are notable themselves. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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