Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 17	March 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Stockport County F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the team was in the fifth tier and didn't do anything exceptional such as gaining promotion or winning a title that year. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @GiantSnowman: Over two hundred citations and you still say no evidence of notability! Are you sure there isn't a little ikkle bit of notability there!?? Anyway, I think I would be more an abstain vote, I am neither for or against it's deletion, as Redman pointed out, it fails NSEASONS, but GNG? It's all very routine, but it looks all correct, so... Govvy (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE / WP:NOTNEWS - transfer news and match reports and stats. Where is the significant coverage? Giant Snowman 15:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - where's the significant coverage of many team seasons in League One or League Two? Do you think, for example, that 2011–12 Burton Albion F.C. season got more in-depth coverage than the article being debated? Yet that one would get a "per NSEASONS" free pass because they were in League Two rather than the Conference....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and feel free to nominate for deletion if you believe it's not notable. Giant Snowman 11:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm neutral here. There is some non-routine coverage but I'm not sure there's enough. There is this lengthy Independent article and then some more local coverage about Sale Sharks moving out of their stadium and getting a loan from the council due to financial difficulties. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 12:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too many of the 200 sources in the article are primary, but even when you remove them this clearly passes WP:GNG with every game played and transaction receiving media coverage, making WP:NSEASONS irrelevant. We need to stop deleting season articles that pass WP:GNG because of a bad policy. SportingFlyer T·C 12:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Looking the references over a good portion of them are primary, otherwise trivial, and the whole thing comes off like ref bombing. Also, the Review and Team sections are written in an extremely convoluted, newsy way. If you cut them out or otherwise clean them up to fit Wikipedia's article standards there wouldn't be much left to the article though. That said, I'm on the weak side because maybe someone could chop it down to the few good sources and get rid of the newsy cruft, if so I think the article is probably salvageable, but until that happens I'm leaning more on the delete side. Especially since this season is already mentioned in the main Stockport County F.C. article and there's no reason a little more about it couldn't be added. So this is really an un-needed, way overly detailed and referenced content fork. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There still hasn't been any argument that this detailed article fails WP:GNG (all of the games were covered by the BBC, the season news was covered by Manchester area papers) apart from the fact it's not from a league covered by WP:NSEASONS, which isn't exclusionary, especially since other AfDs from the same league are trending keep at the moment for this very reason. SportingFlyer T·C 10:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-written article with plenty of coverage and more than just a stat-dump (compare with the Burton Albion article, cited above). Easily meets WP:GNG and with a bit more work could become a GA or better. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes there's a lot of sources and the article is well written but I don't think there's consensus that there are sufficient sources presented discussing the Season as a subject in itself as opposed to a synthesis of routine match reporting. Either way there is still no clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced, and notable. Even if a team played badly, constitutes no WP article? Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relist rationale is flawed because it assumes the season has to be discussed as a whole as opposed to being discussed consistently over the course of the event. The season clearly passes the "was consistently reliably covered by media" test. SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most sources are primary, but there are also multiple secondary sources. Thus, as also exposed by a user above, if to remove the primary sources, the article will continue to meet WP: GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to FC Chernihiv. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Sinitsa[edit]

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

BLP of a Ukrainian businessman that seems highly promotional while the notability of the subject is uncertain. The material about FC Chernigiv can be covered in that article, and nothing in the rest of the content makes him look notable to me. Mccapra (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Chernihiv. Seems to be more about the team than the executive. Miaminsurance (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Before you get to the football bit you already have 12 cites, I feel there is enough to pass basic GNG, it all adds up. Govvy (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FC Chernihiv - the only decent source in terms of coverage is this although (translated into English) it reads like a puff piece anyway. The rest of the references are fairly trivial in terms of coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It looks like without any detailed elaboration and source analysis, which is not going to happen as far as I can see, there will not be a consensus on whether the subject meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG (or WP:BASIC, which is also relevant here but has not been mentioned). There may be a lack of consideration of existing sources that are not in the article. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amrish Ranjan Pandey[edit]

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

A non notable young political figure who serves as the secretary of a political party. He has been never elected into any assembly. The sources provided also does not pass WP:GNG if we are considering about signifact coverage Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amrish Ranjan Pandey is National Youth Leader of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashingpro (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN .— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Present amount of sources are not enough to meet WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per second point in WP:Politician, he has received coverage in newspapers as IYC media incharge. Can remove unreferenced sections from the article. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content is irrelevant in determining notability; AfD is not clean up. Meets NPOL; head of a national organisation claiming 20 million members. Multiyear RS coverage. --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :Head of the youth wing of a party and have coverage from multiple sources.Poppified ^talk 13:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES - we have deleted every other youth leader whose BLP comes up. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, the subject fails WP:NPOL, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability can be stablished on the provided sources. Kolma8 (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verena Katrien[edit]

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

Lacks WP:BIO, participated in a Model TV Show but that's all. WP:BEFORE gave me only some Yellow Press Mentions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject does not meet WP:NMODEL with no coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NMODEL.-KH-1 (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed. I'm not sure what this person's alleged claim to fame is, but if it's modelling, that doesn't come even close to notability; the other things even less. Borderline speedy, IMO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMODEL Devoke water 10:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Urdu. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Urdu Language[edit]

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

Doesn't warrant its own Wikipedia article, too niche of a subject. Suggesting a merge with Urdu if the information is not already included or a total deletion. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Urdu. If there is no cited content not already at Urdu, then redirect. Cnilep (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Urdu As per nom. --Kemalcan (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grinnin' Records[edit]

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

Badly fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG; I couldn't find even one decent, independent source covering this record label. Aside from that, it also hasn't got even a slim chance of passing WP:NMUSIC either. The article creator edited Shaheen Jafargholi to show that he released an acoustic album through this label; I can't find a source to verify this in any case but, even if it is true, it still doesn't make this an important or notable record label. Certainly not one that should have an article in a general encyclopaedia.

Wikipedia is not a company directory. We should only cover topics that are clearly demonstrated to be notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please. Not a single reliable, independent source as far as the eye can see. As an aside, I'm surprised WP:NMUSIC hasn't laid out specific notability guidelines for record labels. In light of that, I'd argue that WP:INHERITORG still applies: a label is made notable by coverage of itself, not necessarily the artists signed to it. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's as simple as I can't find any independent sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that an article sourced only to the subject's own website has survived 6 years would be a sad comment on Wikipedia except that articles without any sources at all have survived 16 years, so this is nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 10:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 01:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Jensen (sociologist)[edit]

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

Appears to be promotional for subject. Article was created with text from their university profile, the citation for "known as" links to training they offer commercially, and substantial edits since notability tag added in 2016 have been adding more bibliographic entries, in some cases made from IPs whose only other edits have been adding references to the subject's work to other articles. Xnn (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find adequate citations on GS to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bartlett (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Also does not have significant press coverage as a local elected politician, meaning he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of cities with populations under 50,000 are rarely notable, especially when they are in the same country as a city with over 1 million with multiple other cities over 100,000 in the county.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Monrovia CA is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on its mayors or city councillors just because it's technically possible to verify that they existed — to be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, he would have to either (a) have another, much stronger notability claim (e.g. having also been a state legislator at another time in his career) that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway, or (b) be referenceable to a depth and volume and range of reliable source coverage that marks him out as much, much more special than most other smalltown mayors or city councillors. But neither of those are on offer here, so just minimally verifying that he existed as a local officeholder isn't a magic bullet. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devoke water 10:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be consensus that there is only 1 in-depth source (LA Times), but disagreement whether that satisfies GNG or not. GNG clearly specifying multiple sources, this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel López (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, fails WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is WP:TOOSOON. The LA Times article is excellent coverage. However, there seems to be basically no other coverage. I think they will be notable after three or four independent reviews are written.--- Possibly (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This Chicano artist from Boyle Heights is in the early stages of their career, yet they have received enough significant coverage (not just mentions) from the likes of the Los Angeles Times, ~~Juxtapoz magazine~~, the Los Angeles Music Center and more, and their work has been included in two museum shows. He meets WP:BASIC. I've improved the article since the nomination. Netherzone (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC) I also wanted to mention that it was just created today by a student editor (who did a pretty good job) and I think we should support these educational initiatives. I'm hoping the editor will continue to improve the article as well. Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of agree with Netherzone here, but perhaps we can update WP:NARTIST a bit an explain what an emerging artist is, what an established artist is and why an encyclopedia typically has entries on one but not the other. I'm sorry for the well intentioned folks who try to write articles about emerging artists only to find their efforts rewarded with an AfD, but perhaps try to focus on subjects with a significant body of work instead. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: The Music Center piece contains no original reporting: it's an artist statement and a biography. The Juxtapoz piece does not mention him at all. Am I missing something? I appreciate the work you did on cleaning up the article. But the fact remains that only two of the ten sources is actual independent reporting, the LA Times and an independent blog (rafa.la) that does not look like a great source. The rest are announcements, boilerplate and trivial coverage.--- Possibly (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, the Music Center piece is a documentary they produced/featured on him. That spotlight is pretty significant to my way of thinking. You are right about the Juxtapoz article - my goof, it covered the museum show, but he's not mentioned in the article. I really think we need to look at the work of an artist like López contextually within the framework of Chicano culture and the Chicano Movement within East L.A./Border Art - which does not fit neatly into "artworld" paradigms (shiny white walls in pristine spaces of New York, London, Paris, Dusseldorf - you know what I mean.) I remember having a somewhat similar conversation with you some years ago about the New Mexican-Chicana/Latina muralist Bernadette Vigil when her article was up for deletion. Neither artists are exactly "outsider" artists, but their work does exist outside of the big-bucks power dynamics of the mainstream "art world". López (or Vigil) do not fit nicely into low-brow art because the work is not ironic or campy, it's sincere. And they are recognized - not exactly as a bridge between these worlds, but for their contributions within their specific vernacular. I stand by my !vote that he meets WP:BASIC and that the article should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: You are one of my favourite editors on Wikipedia and in this rare instance, I do not agree with you. The Music Center piece is simply them lending their web platform to local artists-- can you point me to the original content? their page says as much ". More than 35 artists in total will be featured with a platform to express their views of Los Angeles that are relevant and reflective of the current time through music, dance and visual culture." The part of you argument abut him being Chicano and seeing his work contextually is just an instance of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The fact remains that there is only one in-depth independent source.--- Possibly (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, and you are one of my favorite editors, and we disagree (respectfully of course!) on this. The Music Center series was curated - see the LA Downtown News citation just added. IMO the MC video is analogous to an article in this case - the citation states that he was a featured as a launch artist (launching the series). He's getting alot of attention for an emerging artist who doesn't fit neatly into art world boxes. He's not an outsider artist, he's an outlier -- so my argument is not about righting great wrongs as it is that outliers are pretty much ignored by art world power dynamics, I'm saying that we can try to examine his work as best as possible through the lens of his culture. I agree he's borderline N per WP guidelines, but I don't think its TOOSOON. I think retaining the article is a net positive for the encyclopedia and to delete it would be a loss. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: The Music Center isnot independent then: the content was entirely written/created by the article subject. So that leaves one good source in the article. I'm not immune to your arguments here, but it's WP:TOOSOON. --- Possibly (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Netherzone. The Los Angeles Times article adds to the notability of this artist working, living, and chronicling the nature and events of East L.A. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does say multiple sources...--- Possibly (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moving the article to draft is a possible resolution here. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbarmadillo, that is an idea, in the event that the AfD goes in the direction of delete. The draft could be moved back to the student editor's sandbox; I also volunteer to incubate it in my sandbox. May I ask why you nominated it for deletion less than an hour after creation by a good-faith student editor who was assigned this local artist? Should not student editors' efforts have a microscopic chance especially at this time when so many are struggling with non-in-person interfaces with their teachers? It was AfD'd about 35 minutes after the student created it, and they even stated in their edit summary that they were still "experimenting" with learning how to edit. What a buzz kill; another new editor bites the dust. I apologize for ranting. I stand by my !vote to retain the article, as I'm convinced that this emerging artist, with two museum shows, several group shows, an article in the LA times, a curated commission from the LA Music Center, and other attention meets WP:BASIC. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: come on, you know that WP:BASIC only mentions "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" and not all the other things you are giving as a reason to keep? --- Possibly (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, Lest you think I’ve gone nuts or am worthy of a slap with a slice or two of baloney, I have already said it’s borderline notability and offered an alternative to deletion (draftify/userfy) if not kept. I realize I’m being uncharacteristically generous but I do feel the article has merit. A notability maintenance tag would have been a better option than AfD. These sources are not as strong as the LA Times article, yet they are all independent from the artist and each other and thus, to my mind count towards WP:BASIC. I agree that he does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST.
Downtown Los Angeles News – This was and may still be a print publication since 1972 – it’s probably now online only but I don’t know for sure if they stopped the print version. More info about Downtown LA News here: [1] This source is fine and counts towards notability.
The Eastsider – Yes it is a neighborhood news blog, and it has been named the best of neighborhood news blogs by L.A. Magazine and L.A. Weekly. More info about the Eastsider here: [2] I think this is fine can be counted toward notability.
Boyle Heights Beat – Not for profit community news source. More info about Boyle Heights Beat here: [3] I think its independent and can count towards notability.
RAFA.LA – a blog that does not contribute to notability as it has a sole writer info about the blog writer here:[4] However, I think the RAFA.LA citation that is currently in the article should stay in the article.
Curate.la – It’s an event listing/press release, so does not contribute to notability, but it has some good info for the article. Netherzone (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last reply as I'm getting tired of pointing out the inaccuracies in claims: this supposed source does not even mention Lopez.--- Possibly (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, That was info about the writer of the blog, sorry if that was not clear, I stated that it (the blog) does not contribute to notability. The link here was provided for info about the blog writer not Lopez. Netherzone (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Possibly. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from User:Nstrathman and User:Ian (Wiki Ed) who are listed on Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University,_San_Bernardino/Art_History_Methodologies_(Spring) as Instructor and Wikipedia Expert, respectively. And of course from the creator of the article, User:Mylissa_I. Vexations (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: on principle, I don't weigh in on the merits of student articles (I think there would be COI concerns if I were to). In this case, apparently the student moved their work to mainspace prematurely, and I'd have moved it back to their sandbox had I discovered it sooner, but since it's at AFD that isn't really an option. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian (Wiki Ed), in that case, the outcome of this AfD, if it is not keep, ought to be at a minimum to userfy the article, per WP:ATD-I. Deletion is not acceptable to me. The student who should have the opportunity to continue to participate in the course, and deletion would prevent that. Vexations (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy is a good idea. I also did not realize this got AfD'd 35 minutes after it was created.--- Possibly (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per points made by Netherzone. The subject has had several exhibitions, including a solo gallery exhibition, plus the Los Angeles Times is significant coverage to show notability. Passes WP:BASIC and meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Netherzone's points are good ones, unfortunately they highlight the fact that this is most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, currently does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:SIGCOV. There is really only one excellent source, and ultimately this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I would be ok with moving this to draft space where the author can continue to build the article as new sources emerge. Once there is some more coverage to pass GNG, it can then be moved into main space.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. Mahendran[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. As for WP:GNG, The Hindu article is half about him, but beyond that, there's not much, an interview or two, announcements, his nice house.[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my views on deletion I do not think that this article should be deleted. He is a politician who is Vice President of an Indian political party— while he may not be as notable as other politicians, such as Sarah Palin (just an example), he is still important. HelenDegenerate (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NPOL. Subject of article is unelected and has not received substantive media coverage. --RaviC (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but this article does not demonstrate any credible evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons independent of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails per nomination Sauzer (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noureldien Hussein[edit]

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

Vanity article on a non-notable computer vision researcher; the sources do not establish WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources required to demonstrate notability. Links to the subject's papers and patents don't count. Also, for a CS academic, his citation count of 126 is decidedly unimpressive. Msnicki (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @DoubleGrazing: Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I would like to mention two reasons for the notability of this subject. (1) The subject has won two international awards, which are not trivial. These awards, as mentioned in the page, are (a) "first place in Microsoft Imagine Cup for Mobile Development" (PC Magazine 2012), and (b) "the 3rd place in Imagine Cup Grant" (TechCrunch 2012), see also "Imagine Cup Grant 2012" (Microsoft News 2012) (2) The second reason for notability is that the scientific contribution of the subject is demonstrated by a few U.S. published patents (scientific inventions), see "US20200302185A1" and "US10496885B2" -- PTraumatic (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF and doesn't appear to pass any other relevant criterion either. The book seems to be self-published, and more importantly unreviewed. Minor awards are (very) minor, and patents aren't grounds for notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @DoubleGrazing:, @XOR'easter: Two independent reviewers voted for a delete. Then most likely they are right. Do you vote for moving it to the draft untill the subject becomes notable? I know that notability takes years. But let's move it to the draft. I for one, would not work on it anymore. I will keep working on ther subjects. What do you think? -- PTraumatic (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space is not for indefinite storage of pages on non-notable topics. There's no point in moving this article over there when it'll just be deleted under G13 in six months anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scopus has 3 published works for a total citation count of 33, although there are at least 5 preprints on the arXiv which Scopus doesn't index cites for. Regardless, way too soon for this article. JoelleJay (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Computer vision is a very high citation subfield of computer science, itself a high-citation field, so the citations to his works are far from WP:PROF#C1. Having publications and patents is not by itself enough for notability, and the contest wins presented in the article appear too minor to count for much. That leaves book authorship, which is also inadequate. One book, by itself, is almost never enough for WP:AUTHOR, and we would in any case need multiple published reviews and I can find none. From what I can find on the web the book appears self-published but I suspect that technically it may not be; it looks like a Dutch Ph.D. dissertation and those are usually printed in small batches by publishers specialized to that purpose. In any case the publication status is less important than the lack of multiple reviews for multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Team Hawaii. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Soccer Team[edit]

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

This is far WP:TOOSOON. The team hasn't ever played, don't even have a uniform and have virtually no meaningful coverage. VAXIDICAE💉 19:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Team Hawaii My immediate thought when I saw this in the deletion sorting was the old NASL team, which would almost certainly be more notable and seems like an appropriate target. Otherwise agree that the article is WP:TOOSOON. Jay eyem (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence provided that the BPL is fully-professional, hence I find the 'delete' arguments more persuasive. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sheikh Bablu[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence to suggest that he meets our notability criteria. He has never played in a league listed at WP:FPL so does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL; he also has not played in an international fixture (being called up is not sufficient on its own). National Football Teams does not list him at all.

Searching his name "মোহাম্মদ শেখ বাবলু" only seems to bring up one source, which is just a routine announcement anyway. No evidence that WP:GNG is met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak remove Bangladesh Premier League doesn't meet WP:NOTFPL and seems it fails also WP:GNG, although Bengali wiki says he is a top player. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Bangladesh Premier League is the top-tier professional football league of Bangladesh. It is run by the Professional Football League Committee of Bangladesh Football Federation. As Mohamed Sheikh Bablu is a professional footballer, played for Bangladesh Police FC in Bangladesh Premier League, so I think it satisfies the second point of WP:NFOOTBALL. That's why I will suggest you guys to keep this article. Still, if you guys think it fails in WP:NFOOTBALL, then you guys can delete this. Thanks. – Waraka Saki (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to show that the league is fully professional? It has been raised before at WT:FPL but no sources have ever been presented to show this and there has never been consensus in favour of adding it. The last discussion was a while ago, though, so if you do have sources, please start a new discussion at WT:FPL. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our already ludicrously broad inclusion criteria for footballers. We are close enough to being footballpedia just with those guidelines, we do not need to head closer to being it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He played in the Bangladeshi top tier league which is a professional football league. For me, it passes NFOOTBALL. Diptadg17 (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide sources for this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Kovács (footballer, born 2000)[edit]

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

Soccerway and World Football (both referenced in the article) have no appearances listed that would qualify him under WP:NFOOTBALL. This is supported by HLSZ and MLSZ, who both keep exhaustive records of such things.

A WP:BEFORE search was tricky as Kovács Péter is a ludicrously common name in Hungary (for an illustration of this, see how many are registered on MLSZ). In my searches, I can only find passing mentions in match reports like this so I believe that WP:GNG is not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, not enough for both GNG and NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Péter Kovács has played for Hungary's national youth teams, with Hungary under-19 Kovács has played in 2019 UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualification. Recently he has been called up in Hungary under-21 for 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship. On other hand, Kovács signed his professional football contract with Debreceni VSC in 2017–18 season (when Debreceni VSC was a team of Nemzeti Bajnokság I, Hungary's tier 1 professional football league). I hope you guys will make a decision with keeping all these in consideration. Thanks. – Waraka Saki (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the youth team appearances and I was aware that he was on the bench once for Debrecen but never played. Signing a contract isn't enough for WP:NFOOTBALL. There is strong consensus that playing in senior international fixtures will pass the guideline and justify an article but players with only youth appearances that don't meet WP:GNG are almost always deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both GNG and football notability guidelines are not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirav Shah (politician)[edit]

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

A difficult AFD. Shah is Mayor of the city but that doesn't qualify WP:POLITICIAN. Most of the coverage seems sensationalism and hence fails WP:GNG. The article fails WP:NPOV. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might be notable: Surat is a major city, and it would be surprising if Shah doesn't pass WP:BIO. But in its current state, the article looks like a whitewashed promo piece, and TNT may be a good idea. Need to see if a neutral version exists to revert to. Java Hurricane 03:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nuked. Java Hurricane 03:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 03:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the key is good sourcing. Maybe getting rid of this article will convince people to stop giving default passes to undersourced leaders of other major cities. For the record Surat has over 6 million people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone really believe that an article about the verified deputy mayor of a city with a population of over 6 million anywhere in the western world would be deleted? We give an automatic notability pass to the many legislators of US states with a lower population, let alone their deputy leaders. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's enough coverage regarding the lockdown incident here to pass WP:BASIC imo. As Shah is a major city's deputy mayor, WP:1E is passed too. Java Hurricane 01:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable and has recieved enough coverage. He has been also elected as the mayor of a major Indian city.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?}
Keep: As a creator of the page. The subject is very much notable as he was the deputy mayor of a major city of Gujarat which is ranked 2nd cleanliest city of India. --Sankoswal (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lachante Paul[edit]

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

Paul's 17 minutes against Lionesses in the cup don't count towards WP:NFOOTBALL nor do any of the Leicester appearances. Nothing logged for national team either.

She gets routine coverage from Leicester's own website and very occasional passing mentions elsewhere. I can't see any WP:SIGCOV from any sources independent from Paul so I can't see how this article meets WP:GNG, sorry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, not enough for both GNG and NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not at this time meet GNG. He is 18 so that could change, but we wait until it does to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This my first created article on wikipedia, so I apologise for the unfamiliarity with all the rules. After reading the policies the article did not meet, I would understand if the article was deleted. However, this is a young, promising, female footballer who has played well over the last season and a half. Lachante Paul's team, Leicester City Women, are on the brink of promotion which would see them enter a professional league. If she enters a professional leauge, which appears to be imminent, coverage will increase and her name will potentially be named more frequently, depending on her performances. I also believe the four policies listed under 'when to use the deletion process ^[1] are met within the article. ^[2] ^[3] Markjbodey (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As John Pack Lambert says above, it's probably best to wait until Paul meets a Wikipedia guideline before recreating. If Leicester do get promoted and if Paul does play in the WSL next season, then this can definitely be created. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, see WP:CRYSTAL. We can't absolutely guarantee that Paul will debut in the WSL next season and it's not our place to make such predictions in an encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I am not claiming Wikipedia to be a crystal ball, at no point in the article have I predicted anything. Whether or not she does make her debut in the WSL, her performances during the 2019/20 season, as well as this season (which have not been added to the wikipedia page due to the frequent changes) are certainly more than just notable. This page was created for future expansion as her career progresses, and the article meets all of the other criteria necessary. We shouldn't be so quick to delete articles covering women in football as it suggests their achievements aren't as significant as their male counterparts. In writing this article, my aim was to expand our knowledge of women footballers so that people who are interested can learn more. One article will not change this, but keeping these pages up is certainly a good starting point. Markjbodey (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the signficant coverage of her? Taking the coverage from her own club Leicester out of the equation, there's nothing really more than a couple of transfer announcements and some passing mentions in match reports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, female footballers can be notable even if playing outside of professional leagues but they need to have significant in-depth coverage from independent sources. For examples, see Sammie Wood and Sara Mérida. I'm not seeing that level of coverage for Paul. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11, G12). MER-C 15:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders of Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence Group[edit]

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

Organization with very little coverage. Does not meet GNG, and certainly not NCORP. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding GNG: Mention of Leaders of Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence is Reference 1 found at Máté Hidvégi, a page that predates it. -BigDataOntologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDataOntologist (talk • contribs) 03:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kingston[edit]

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

No indication or evidence of notability. The sources used do not justify a stand alone article. I see no change in notability since the last deletion discussion. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He makes nice photos but does not meet our criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WPGNG inclusion in the encyclopedia. No record of exhibitions, museum collections, significant awards, etc. Was deleted in 2018, and there has not been much change since then. Netherzone (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still does not meet WP:NARTIST, nothing has changed since previous afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bergman[edit]

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

Supposed brochure article for BLP, for own company. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ACADEMIC scope_creep^Talk 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, e.g. USA Today 2019, People Magazine May 2019, People Magazine Feb 2019, New York Times 2020, Windy City Times 2019, LA Parent 2019, HuffPost 2015. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beccaynr. Some of those sources are better than others, but some are quite good. I don't see how this article is a brochure; it seems pretty neutral and matter-of-fact. Could take out the "number of surrogacies", though, as that seems to be the only promotional aspect. -2pou (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely when a magazine with the reach of People (whether print or digital) writes a profile about someone, that constitutes significant coverage? Add to that the sources that Beccaynr has highlighted. The tone of the article seems fine, so I'm not seeing how it's a 'brochure article'. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Brandenburg[edit]

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

Brochure article for supposed BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 14:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and with few reliable citationsMiaminsurance (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual in the design industry. Just because someone has a job does not mean they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find sources to make a case through any current criteria. PK650 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brijan Tours[edit]

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

Article fails our main notability guidelines for organisations and companies, WP:NCORP (not WP:GNG).

There are two independent references in this article, ref 4 (Hampshire Chronicle) and ref 5 (Daily Echo).

Reference 4 is trivial coverage as described in NCORP - "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business"

Reference 5 is also trivial - "of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance"

Both sources also fail WP:AUD for being only of local reach. I could not find sources that meet the NCORP requirements from a WP:BEFORE search. SK2242 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that OBE is not automatically conferring notability, and therefore I find the SIGCOV arguments persuasive. References helpfully provided by Necrothesp to identify why he received the OBE, will themselves not qualify as SIGCOV. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest James Scott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, presumed notable under WP:ANYBIO, as the recipient of a significant award or honour, namely an OBE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked whether there's any other reason for notability, but being an OBE is certainly not one, per countless previous AfD discussions. He would need to be at least a CBE before WP:ANYBIO could come into play. (And, I am enough of a pedant to point out, one doesn't receive an OBE, but becomes one.) Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not finding SIGCOV, OBE doesn't seem notable enough. Zawed (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primary sources only. An OBE isn't a significant award or honour. A CBE might qualify, but definitely not an OBE. They are a dime a dozen, as are MCs. And one is appointed to the Order. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An OBE is not sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, although it certainly contributes to notability. A CBE would be sufficient, as they're much rarer and we have always held them to be sufficient. However, you would have thought that someone appointed OBE for services to a sport would have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. A purely local sports figure would usually only qualify for an MBE, which suggests he was heavily involved in water polo nationally. I wonder who he was? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And here's the answer. He was an international water polo referee who refereed at the 1952 Olympics. He was president of the Amateur Swimming Association in 1967/68[6] and a member of the International Water Polo Board.[7] The London Water Polo League Referee's Cup is named after him.[8] -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Road[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "Adding more information and references, Ann Road is a major thoroughfare in the Las Vegas Valley with multiple places in its namesake along it." However, I can't find enough in-depth coverage of the street itself to pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 03:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing provided is routine coverage about construction projects, and I cannot find anything else to show that WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas da Silva Cruz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The player's team plays in Série D which is not included in the list of fully professional leagues. It also fails WP:GNG. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our ludicously broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Let me know if I've got that wrong as the Brazilian system can be confusing... Giant Snowman 18:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: It includes up to Série C. Série D is out. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, not enough for both GNG and NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Did anyone else notice that a whole bunch of pages started by the creator of this one are recreations of mass-deleted pages from the long-term sock? --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article belongs to a professional player who has already played in professional leagues, and this has been confirmed in the attached sources ^[4]^[5].Lilianasri (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the bio plays for Cabofriense wich competes in Série D, the fourth tier of the Brazilian football league system. Only Sèrie C (third tier) and above are included in the list of fully professional leagues, so the player does not meet the criteria for inclusion of WP:NFOOTBALL. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the nominator is correct, this does not meet any of our guidelines. I couldn't find any significant coverage of this player. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youness Lacchab[edit]

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

Fails NFOOTBALL having only played in the Spanish 3rd and 4th tiers, no other indication of GNG being satisfied JW 1961 Talk 11:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 11:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Present sources doen't passes WP:GNG and his career has yet to show to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article concerns a professional player who played in almeria and Murcia clubs and the required resources were added and he has already played in professional leagues such as Tercera División and Segunda División B Lilianasri (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is some coverage in the local Murcia paper La Verdad but I don't think that it's enough Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GL Bajaj Institute of Technology and Management[edit]

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

Does not satisfy ~~WP:schooloutcomes or~~ WP:nschool or wp:org. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking WP:RS, failing WP:NSCHOOL. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university. DMySon 18:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article clearly lacks reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranhita (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources in the article are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, more database and directory style listings. The keep votes above do not list any sources to check, and the reasons listed are opinions not supported by guidelines. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. // Timothy :: talk 12:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval table

Source	Evaluation
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ent…	404 page to the events and entertainment section of a newspaper. From the URL the article was titled something like "students-get-emotional-at-the-convocation-ceremony" Very doubtful this is SIGCOV about the subject, but it fails V so nothing here
www.Shiksha.com. "G.L. Bajaj Institut…	Database style page
"Top Engineering Colleges in Greater…	Link to promo page on school website
"Gl Bajaj Institute Of Technology And…	Search page results with no info or articles about school. Not SIGCOV
"Gl Bajaj Institute Of Technology And…	Search page results with no info or articles about school. Not SIGCOV
"G L Bajaj Institute of Technology an…	Database style page

Delete private colleges are treated no differently then any other private organization when it comes to the notability guidelines, and this college clearly fails them due to the lackluster state of the sources. So, deleting the article is the correct, policy based thing to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 07:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskar Educational Group[edit]

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

Except for the institute website, the rest of the sources are not WP:RS. Does not satisfy ~~WP:schooloutcomes or~~ WP:nschool or wp:org. Vikram Vincent 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schooloutcomes should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. Vikram Vincent 11:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Here is my argument for similar institutions. DMySon 18:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor is saying WP:other stuff exists Vikram Vincent 07:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 07:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post clean up it does not pass WP:HEY Vikram Vincent 08:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could not find any sources to satisfy GNG. Also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG. Editors who haven't read SCHOOLOUTCOMES in awhile, will be surprised to see that the language of that policy changed after an RFC in 2017.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Management & Technology[edit]

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

Does not satisfy ~~WP:schooloutcomes or~~ WP:nschool or wp:org. Most of the links in the references are either deadlinks or primary sources. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university. Here is my argument for similar institutions. DMySon 18:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- wp:other stuff exists ain't valid in an AFD. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: written like an advertisement, would require TNT to clean up if sources could be found to establish notability. Sources in the article are collection of database style directory entries, lists, surveys, promos, content from school websites. Its one of the most impressive lists of sources that do not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth in any article I've seen. The sources also reflect that this is an advertisement, not an encyclopedic article. I did a BEFORE and didn't find anything that meets SIGCOV; given the refs in the article, I don't think the author would have missed an opportunity to have an actual source with SIGCOV, so I don't believe there are any. If I missed something, please let me know, I'll be happy to change my mind if someone shows SIGCOV, but even if sources exist there is still the actual article which needs TNT to change it from an advert to an article. The above keep votes do not provide sources and are personal opinions unsupported by guidelines, which I believe these have been spammed indiscriminately to a variety of noms without actually looking at the articles. // Timothy :: talk 13:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I totally agree with everything said by TimothyBlue in relation to the article. It's written like an advertisement, the sourcing is horrible, it would take a fundamental rewrite based on sources that likely don't exist to meet Wikipedia's quality/notability standards, and the people who voted keep have been spamming the same exact messages everywhere without considering the quality of the articles or basing their "votes" on actual policy. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did a clean up of the page and yet it does not pass WP:HEY. Vikram Vincent 08:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG. Editors who haven't read SCHOOLOUTCOMES in awhile, will be surprised to see that the language of that policy changed after an RFC in 2017.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Management Studies, Ghaziabad[edit]

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

Does not satisfy ~~WP:schooloutcomes or~~ WP:nschool or wp:org. WP:RS absent. Vikram Vincent 13:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't anything about this school that isn't trivial or written like a non-neutral advertisement. So the article clearly fails WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The accreditation thing aside, from the article I got the impression that it it's a private educational institution. As far as I'm aware private educational institutions have higher standards to follow for them be notable compared to public ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schooloutcomes should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. Vikram Vincent 11:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the old management institutes in India. Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Here is my argument for similar institutions. DMySon 18:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG. Editors who haven't read SCHOOLOUTCOMES in awhile, will be surprised to see that the language of that policy changed after an RFC in 2017.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vignana Jyothi Institute of Management[edit]

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

No WP:RS to establish notability. Does not satisfy ~~WP:schooloutcomes or~~ WP:nschool or wp:org. Vikram Vincent 13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Single source in article is to a 404 page; from the url it is a WordPress blog and the page is a PDF listing of schools. Very doubtful this is SIGCOV and it cannot be verified in anycase. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, all directory style database listings and nothing that supports most of the article's content, so it is probably OR. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. Since it is almost all OR unsupported by sources, nothing to merge, but no objection to a redirect if there is support for it. // Timothy :: talk 10:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bajaj Institute of Technology Wardha[edit]

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

Does not satisfy ~~WP:schooloutcomes or~~ WP:nschool or wp:org. The references are not WP:RS. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also a case of WP:TOOSOON. Vikram Vincent 17:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking WP:RS, failing WP:NSCHOOL. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep– I have added few more sources that I found online. I remember reading about this institute several times in newspapers. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says we should consider the fact that offline news may exist before proposing for deletion.Aishaa14 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
general note: Aishaa14 is the creator of the article. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states educational institutes have to pass either general notability criteria, or notability guidelines for organisations. The subject fails both. All the sources provided, including recently, are listings/yellow pages/press releases. They do not establish notability. The keep arguement above states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES says we should consider the fact that offline news may exist before proposing for deletion. Actually, SCHOOLOUTCOMES states References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD. It talks about references like books, journals, and similar stuff. Even if we include news, according to the article, [the college] afer getting approvals from AICTE in 2017-18, academic sessions were started. Even if it was covered in news, it wouldnt be difficult to find these news online. SCHOOLOUTCOMES also says we should avoid bringing up SCHOOLOUTCOMES during AfD. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a school. Not every school deserves a Wikipedia page, and there is nothing notable about this one. See WP:NSCHOOL. Ira Leviton (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable and fails GNG. Agree with Ira Leviton Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 01:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting our minimum guidelines for having an article on anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes, which is merely a reflection of existing consensus as to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university. This is no worse than the many hundred similar articles on colleges in India and elsewhere ( I know this is a very weak argument---what we ought to do is deal with the other similar articles also, but I see no point in singling this one out). DMySon 17:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This argument sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Vikram Vincent 19:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSCHOOL. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 15:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete prior consensus and the guidelines are pretty clear that private schools have to follow the same notability guidelines as any other type of organization and therefore do not get a special pass from things like WP:NORG. Which, as a private organization, this college clearly fails. Otherwise, the people who think the article should be kept are free to provide WP:THREE usable, in-depth, independent sources and I will be happy to change my vote to keep. In the meantime though, I haven't found any and no one has bothered to provide them. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG. Editors who haven't read SCHOOLOUTCOMES in awhile, will be surprised to see that the language of that policy changed after an RFC in 2017.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. After the rubbish was removed from the article it is essentially a WP:1S. Fails WP:ORG. Kolma8 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dalia seera[edit]

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

This article was prodded after an objection to my merge proposal on the talk page, citing concerns about notability. Further research showed the objection was well-founded, but it was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson without explanation. I found few reliable sources, but best as I can tell, the term appears to be a composite of two languages: Marathi (sheera) and Hindi (Dalia). Looks like editorial bungling. "Sheera" is a halva made with suji/rava (semolina), and "lapsi" is a type of porridge made with dalia (bulgur). There are no reliable sources for the construction "Dalia sheera". Spudlace (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spudlace (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is sheera made with cracked wheat instead of semolina. In other words, it's a wholemeal form of the dish. This is best dealt with by merger rather than deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. The best target seems to be Suji ka Halwa rather than halva but maybe that should be merged too – it's a large family of variations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. That halva can be made without water is a defining feature of the dish, which originated in the desert. Lapsi is a whole grain. Unlike most porridges, lapsi is toasted in ghee before adding water, but it is cooked by the process of absorbing water. It is somewhere between a halva and a porridge, but substantially different from halva. If we look to reliable sources, we would find that there is no term "Dalia Seera" in use, outside a handful of non-notable food blogs - even leaving a redirect would be inappropriate. This should not have been deprodded. Spudlace (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have pinged @Knightoften: as a participant to the merge discussion. Correcting that oversight. Spudlace (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge into Halva. It can be summarized in one paragraph. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treating this as a merge propposal is problematic because concerns were raised under the existing merge proposal (still open on the talk page) about the ~~verifiability~~ notability of the content under discussion. There is opposition to the merge proposal on the talk page it should not be split to an alternate merge proposal at AfD where the knowledgeable editors who watch halvah are not aware of a discussion taking place. Spudlace (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge and Agree to Deletion Spudlace, Thank you for pinging me, otherwise I would have been unaware of this discussion. As stated by Spudlace, there is a discussion on the Halva talk page. I oppose merging on grounds of notability and lack of citation. That is my only problem with it; if the article can be brought up to standard then it can be merged. Frankly, I don't really know too much about Dalia seera myself, this is going off the original article. Knightoften (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not have SIGCOV, its basically trivia and there is nothing properly sourced to merge. Strong objection to merging unsourced content. If someone wishes to research this and add properly sourced information to another article, they certainly can, but there is nothing here to merge and the merge proposal was objected to previously. // Timothy :: talk 00:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge discussion appears ongoing elsewhere. Unclear there is a consensus to delete independently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Oppose Merge. Fails WP:SIGCOV. We can let the editors hash out where and how to address dalia seera at the ongoing talk page discussion at Talk:Halva. At this point, a merge appears to not be the best option due to poor referencing.4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Reina[edit]

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

non-notable actor/director, there is nothing in the way of any meaningful coverage VAXIDICAE💉 11:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. Found no reliable sources that shows significant coverage that demonstrates notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 11:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Two relists through and no evidence has been presented to support the statements in this discussion that the page demonstrates notability. I therefore find the delete !votes the most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Sherelh'yqo[edit]

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

Article about a family. No evidence of notability. One possibly notable member of the family. Sources in the article are a dead link and an article that doesn't mention the family. Nothing found that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find no sources discussing the family/house in depth. I could be failing to find because of poor romanisation of the name/searching in English, although I doubt it given that I found very little at all. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Adigabrek: who might know more about this. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 19:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Circassian "houses" are one of the, if not the, most important parts of the society and history of the Circassians, in Caucasus or diaspora alike. These "houses", also called "clans", sometimes as large as hundreds of people scattered all around the world. Mostly, they ruled land in Circassia. A lot of land. The house of Ṩərəl'ıqo^{[Note 1]} is a noble house probably known by all Circassians, and I know they've produced a lot of people. Overall I think most Circassian "houses" are noteworthy, especially ones such as this. But I doubt there will be any sources about things such as this in English, just like most things Circassian, as most sources about Circassians are in Russian, and we English speakers only have access to translated works, if any. Also keep in mind there is no standart romanisation of the Circassian language, and everybody just uses what they like, making it even harder to find what you're looking for. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 07:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adigabrek, Do you have any English or Russian sources to back up your statements above? What you're arguing for seems to fails WP:V. // Timothy :: talk 22:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The family is a ruling noble house of the Shapsug princedom - that is noteworthy. While the first source of the article may lead to a now-dead link, the source itself is still written out. The other source mentioned above does mention the family, if section 3 of the article in question is viewed, navigated to below the linked page. Also, as our fellow Wikipedia member above has mentioned, most of the sources about Circassians are either completely in Russian and/or only on paper documents. It is like an iron curtain of literature and we work hard to make them available to English-speaking readers worldwide. -Yahya Kuadzhe — Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Yahya Kuadzhe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Comment Neither of the two Keep votes above cite any sources supporting their claims of notability. The sources added to the article are not about the family (they mention the name), so they are not SIGCOV addressing the subject (the family) directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 00:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Sherelh'yqo" spelled in accordance with the latin script in the page Adyghe language

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Circassian royal family per above. Has members like Kizbech Tuguzhuqo. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ambrosiawater do you have any sources to support the claim that this is a notable family, notabilty is not inherited from individuals. So far no one has been able to provide any sources, let alone sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LIST and WP:MILL - there's a single notable member of this family, which was never ruler of a sovereign country. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: an indiscriminate list of non-notable individuals—no indication they pass WP:ANYBIO—and which likewise fails to assert, let alone comprehensively demonstrate, collective notability. I note that at least two out of the three keep !votes above are from relatively inexperienced editors, and while of course their voice is as welcome as anyone's in these discussions, the lack of a policey-basis to their vague assertions should be duly weighed by the closing admin. ——Serial 12:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely no evidence has been presented that shows that the family itself is a notable topic. Whether an individual member or two are notable is irrelevant. We need sources showing coverage of the family for us to have an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PharmaRusical[edit]

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

Stub that is unlikely to pass WP:NEPISODE and WP:GNG. There is little information that goes beyond a synopsis of the episode. It has sat as a stub for several months. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I wish Lil-unique1 had expressed concerns on the article's talk page or at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race before nominating for deletion. I believe there's enough sufficient secondary coverage to flesh out this entry and vote to keep for further expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not create articles on the "expectation of notability" or "future notability when someone gets around to expanding it". The mainspace is not for drafts or partially complete articles. That's what sandboxes and the user space is for. We do not need articles for the sale of articles. Additionally, its not just about the lack of detail on the page, page views show it is unlikely that readers will find/come to the page. They're much more likely to find the information on the parent season's page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The main space is not for partially complete articles? Are you kidding? Wikipedia is full of incomplete articles. Nor do page views speak to notability. Next time try assessing secondary coverage WP:BEFORE nominating. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for keeping something. We have notability rules for a reason - to establish what is factual and warrants an individual article. In this case, the article serves no purpose in its current format as it duplicates what is already at the parent season's page. I search news sources and felt what was available still would not make the topic eligible for its own page per WP:NEPISODE. Page views are a good indication of whether a sub-topic is worthy of existing as a separate page or not. Yes low or high views do not necessarily indicate whether or not something is notable but they provide a good indication for how audiences are accessing content about a particular topic. That's the bit I'm most interested in - making it as easy as possible for casual viewers to find the information. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sitting as a stub is not a valid deletion reason; please review WP:IMPATIENT. As for notability, the subject has coverage currently used on the page from Billboard, A.V. Club, Vulture, and Metro Weekly. Coverage not used on the article in its current form includes In Magazine here; Wussy Mag here; Pajiba here; and others. --Kbabej (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple in-depth sources clearly establishes GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles G. Ridgeley[edit]

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

Apparently a US Navy Captain in the early 1800s with no significant awards or decorations. Page has been unreferenced since 2009 and while there are a few sources I don't believe they amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Comment I think captains count as 'field grade officers' rather than 'flag/general officers'. If so, WP:OUTCOMES state that field grade officers must demonstrate notability independent of their military rank. If captains are flag/general officers, then they are notable in their own right. But, assuming that my intuition is right that the subject is a field grade officer, I don't think the subject meets general notability. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag/general officers have no inherent notability, they must satisfy WP:GNG. 11:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bibliopole5795: I found a source that describes the subject as a flag officer, for what it's worth. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete this unsourced article has existed for over 16 years. Holders of the office of captain are not default notable, and even if they were we would need a reliable source to at least verrify what is said.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It turned up in my search that the subject had sort of received the Congressional Gold Medal (which would qualify normal recipients as notable under WP:ANYBIO#1). A 1923 book plainly said that Ridgeley received it.^[6] However, the 1805 Congress citation had the medal presented to Commodore Edward Preble, and through him to the officers, petty officers, seamen and marines attached to the squadron under his command^[7] and presented swords to each of the commissioned officers and Midshipmen who had distinguished themselves in the several attacks.^[8] Ridgeley was a recipient of the medal in an indirect sense, but probably not directly enough for ANYBIO#1.
However, if Flag officers, general officers and their service equivalents (e.g., Air officers) are generally considered notable (common AfD outcomes, pointed out by Bibliopole5795), it is worth noting that he was explicitly described as Flag Officer Charles G. Ridgeley.^[6]
I found a few other minor mentions in reliable sources (e.g. Small Boats and Daring Men: Maritime Raiding, Irregular Warfare, and the Early American Navy, Appendix M - Inventory of the Naval Records Collection of the Office of Naval Records and Library, Freedom's Mercenaries: Southern South America and A History of the United States Navy from 1775 to 1901) that describe parts of his career. The first source, for instance, describes his service (under the spelling "Ridgely") under Preble at the Second Battle of Tripoli Harbor (which led to the Congressional Gold Medal). They aren't substantial enough for WP:GNG though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- More tangential, but his name appears to have been originally "Charles Ridgely Goodwin" and was legally changed to "Charles Goodwin Ridgely" at the behest of his uncle Charles Ridgely III, who did the same to another nephew in Charles Carnan Ridgely.^[9]^[10]^[11] There are lots of small biographical details out there. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ridgely was also the Commandant of the Brooklyn Navy Yard from 1833 to 1839.^[12]^[13]^[14] There may be a case for notability here, with the indirect Congressional Gold Medal, being a flag officer, and being commander of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a biography in The Biographical Dictionary of America (wikisource) that mentions all of the above: his service under Preble in the First Barbary War, receipt of a sword (attached to the Congressional Gold Medal), service as a flag officer in the West Indies, service as Commandant of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and service as a flag officer in Brazil.^[15]^[16] Besides my previous comment about WP:ANYBIO#1 and WP:OUTCOMES#Military, that is also a case for notability under ANYBIO#3. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found significant coverage (9 full paragraphs) on Ridgeley here: Johnson, Robert Erwin (1963). "Chapter 3: From Ship to Squadron". Thence round Cape Horn. United States Naval Institute. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "WSL Goes full time". Women's competitions. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
^ "WSL Goes full time". Women's competitions. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
^ https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tVP1zc0TLIorsq1TK80YPQSKc_PTc1TL1ZIzkjMLcjMzyvOyCwAAOBeDL4&q=women%27s+championship&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB883GB883&oq=womens+championship&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j46i10j0i10l4j69i60l2.5292j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#sie=lg;/g/11j6yrcmfh;2;/g/11b8szm9gy;st;fp;1;;. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Douglas da Silva Cruz". playmakerstats.com.
^ "Douglas da Silva Cruz". tribuna.com.
^ ^a ^b Bradlee, Francis Boardman Crowninshield (1923). Piracy in the West Indies and Its Suppression. Essex institute. p. 133. ISBN 9780598618450. In 1828 the United States West India squadron was commanded by Flag Officer Charles G. Ridgeley (for his gallant services during the war with the Barbary corsairs this officer had received the congressional gold medal of honor)
^ "Edward Preble Congressional Medal, Bronze". Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved March 18, 2021.
^ "Edward Preble". Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved March 18, 2021.
^ Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers Volume V
^ William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, Volume 8
^ Annual Report, Volume 16, American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society
^ "The Brooklyn Navy Yard – Its Early History and Present Condition – Who Have Been Commanders – Vessels Pitted Oat – The Workmen and the Buildings". The New York Times. March 13, 1870. p. 8. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved March 18, 2021.
^ "Photos Will Greet Him". New York Daily News. October 11, 1908. p. 46. Retrieved March 18, 2021 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Ridgely, Charles Goodwin, 1784-1848". Redwood Library and Athenaeum. Retrieved March 18, 2021.
^ Johnson, Rossiter; Brown, John Howard, eds. (1904). The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans. Vol. IX. Boston: The Biographical Society. p. 112.
^ Johnson, Rossiter; Brown, John Howard, eds. (1906). The Biographical Dictionary of America. Vol. IX. Boston: The Biographical Society. p. 112.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an obvious keep due to the plethora of material since presented by MarkH21 above. This person is notable on several points. - wolf 03:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided in evidence above. Nominator should consider withdrawing their nomination. 4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Balanas[edit]

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

Possibly non notable musician Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not delete. The performer is internationally known and meets WP:NOTE. Sure the article can be improved with additional sourcing but deletion is not at improvement over the status quo ex ante. XavierItzm (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Respect wikipedia criterias: 2- The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. 7- The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Based on the source: "ROYAL ACADEMY OF MUSIC HONOURS ANNOUNCED". Royal Academy of Music. Archived from the original on 27 March 2018. Associate of the Royal Academy of Music (ARAM) - Awarded to former students who have made a significant contribution to the music profession [...] Kristine Balanas Violin. Beeper (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO, because she has "received a well-known and significant award or honor," including the ARD International Music Competition (3rd prize, 2017) and the ARAM noted above, and per WP:NMUSICOTHER, because she is "frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture," including The Strad, The Violin Channel, and Classic FM. Beccaynr (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria with the awards. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC with multiple reliable sources coverage and winning a notable music award, so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't delete this article, I was very happy to find that there was a wikipedia page on this violinist. It's very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.105.250 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to persistent lack of participation. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination. However, the merge mentioned below should be considered first. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niana Guerrero[edit]

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

A7 borderline eligible article on a non notable Internet personality who fails to satisfy WP:ENT & generally, lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus fails to satisfy our general notability criteria for inclusion. A before search links me to user generated primary sources which are unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no assertion of notability here. --Kbabej (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found some reliable sources about her: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. She and her brother 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)[reply]
- As much as my keep stands, there may be a concern of WP:INHERIT here. A merge with Ranz Kyle into one page is possible since they both share some coverage with each other. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ranz Kyle under Ranz and Niana. She and Ranz meet WP:ENT with sources presented by Astig as a duo. They're rather notable as a duo than as individuals as per WP:INHERIT. SBKSPP (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems just about notable enough to remain. Nominated for an award in 2019 with Nickolodeon? ^[1] LindaSaunders (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://cnnphilippines.com/entertainment/2019/3/25/kathryn-bernardo-kids-choice-award-2019.html

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

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

The result was redirect to 2021 St. Louis mayoral election. No objection if someone just takes this to draft but a lot of the keep votes are assertions, plain votes and just not policy based. The consensus isn’t that we keep this page - There isn’t a case made that the person passes GNG independently to the election and unless they win it they are not wikinotable under POLITICIAN. In terms of outcome, its not explicitly overwhelming to put this in draft and with an election in place a redirect to the election page is a longstanding and credible alternative to deletion as anyone searching will go to the page that might have something on the candidates, and, should she win, its incredibly easy to just undo the redirect and get to work. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Spencer[edit]

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

promotional article for non-notable political candidate. This is essentially a campaign advertisement. Routine newspaper notes, no substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is notable. Added more sources to the unfolding story of novel use of approval voting and attempts for recalling of the political candidate due to views. Clearance Wood (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Every single aldermen in the city of Chicago has a Wikipedia page. None of those and none of the other alderman pages in St. Louis are pending deletion. Aaronjhunter (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The biography of living political figure engaged in active news worthy political race using a novel new democratic process. Clearance Wood (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a textbook WP:BLP1E argument. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not voting yet, but I wanted to let Clearance Wood know that they ought to align their word with a vote of keep as they believe it should be kept. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and thank you for the note Clearance Wood (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a city alderman/woman isn't especially notable. If she wins the mayoral election, she would be. Perhaps draftify it until then, lots of sourcing here used. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it matter her competitor in the race has a page and was also up for deletion? Tishaura_Jones Clearance Wood (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tishaura Jones was a member of the Missouri House of Representatives for four years, which automatically qualifies her for an article per WP:POLITICIAN (never mind the fact that she's been even more prominent since then). I also can't find evidence that her article was ever AFDed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Jones has also been the Treasurer of St. Louis, so it's not like she has a Wikipedia page just because she's running for mayor. In addition, I don't think a new voting method establishes the notability of the candidates. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A viable candidate for mayor of a major city, who has held local office before and has significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. Although an article may function as an advertisement I see no neutrality problems in this one. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An elected official who has recently advanced to a runoff election for mayor of St. Louis City. There has been active news coverage of the candidate and the election, including national coverage. This article reads no more like an advertisement than any other public official - including her opponent. All copy is properly cited. Neither article should be deleted, as Wikipedia is an important resource for residents to learn about candidates. Jmurry821 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other members of the board of aldermen have wikipedia pages. An attempt to delete this one a few weeks before a major election seems politically motivated. Lock27 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks alleging ulterior political motives. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per others. Notable and well-covered. Ckoerner (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ per criterion two of WP:POLITICIAN. I think it's safe to say that Spencer has received "significant press coverage", and I don't think it's WP:CRYSTAL to say that of course she will receive even more through the mayoral election runoff. However, there are currently only four other articles on people who have only been members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen and not higher offices as well: Shane Cohn, John Collins-Muhammad, Antonio French, and Lewis E. Reed (the board's current president). I'm a glass half full kind of guy, though, and I see the need for improving coverage of this legislature rather than removing what we have. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to follow this up after some extended debate by echoing another sentiment I've heard: a troubling amount of keep comments are from problematic users, as mentioned by SportingFlyer. This factor should very much be taken into account by the closer and indeed by anyone else who would like to keep/comment/delete from here on out – this discussion remains very close. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to draftify per Bearcat. If she wins the election, we shouldn't lose what we have, and if she doesn't, we probably shouldn't either, just in case. I think any proposed expansion of articles related to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, which I personally am not opposed to, should be done in class-action format rather than have some articles which are likely kept for political purposes (not casting aspersions, see above). Bearcat's argument is the best I've heard, and the nature of several of these keep votes is very suspect, enough to make me reconsider. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems notable enough, and with a page that is well referenced. Stuhunter83 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how she's notable as a local candidate - all the coverage of her outside of her alderman role is that she's running, local officials are generally non-notable, and running for office alone doesn't make someone notable. I know WP:IAR, but keeping this kind of goes against the rules. I know this will get kept based on all of the votes above, but I still wanted to vote in order to make this easier to re-nominate in the future if she doesn't end up winning. (I'd be fine with a draftify.) SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like the closer to note most of the voters in the discussion are local to St Louis, some of them are directly involved in the page, one voter (Lock27) has only made one edit, and one is a very new user who jumped head-first into AfD. The page was declined at AfC last year for being "essentially a political advertisement," and the user who moved it into mainspace is now blocked for being a sock. There are clearly good faith votes in this discussion, but it also appears as if it's become political due to the nature of the upcoming local election. SportingFlyer T·C 13:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make accusations of ulterior political motives. Your comments make me feel like my contributions are being unfairly judged, which is not cool. Being involved in editing a page is what we want! :) Being in physical proximity to a subject of an article are neither here nor there when it comes to evaluating to keep or delete. As for the new folks? Maybe talk to them about the rules instead of looking down your nose at them. Drop a note on their talk page. Say hello. They're human, they're trying. We all have to start somewhere and it's better to make a good first impression. Ckoerner (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question, SportingFlyer: What's your ideal outcome? Do you not expect people with an interest in St. Louis or politics to interact with this AfD (or, more broadly, people with an interest in anything to participate in those relevant AfDs)? If you want absolute laymen to decide whether or not this article should be kept or deleted rather than people with an iota of knowledge what they're talking about, we can page some railfans and K-pop stans, I suppose... who will then not chime in to this AfD out of sheer apathy, because of course they won't. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any vested interest in this particular topic apart from maintaining consistency at AfD. We generally don't find political candidates to be notable for several different reasons. City councillors can be notable, but I'm not convinced she is just for being a councillor. Looking through the history this article seems like it was created specifically to promote her mayoral campaign as opposed to having an encyclopaedic article on a notable city councillor, which really is the point of Wikipedia. It also may have been incorrectly moved to mainspace. As I've noted, my goal here really is to note that this AfD is being discussed in context to her as a candidate, that there may be voters here with a direct interest in the topic (which really isn't abnormal for AfDs during a political campaign), that most of the !voters here may be impacted by the campaign somehow, and that this may be eligible for a second AfD in a few years if nothing new happens. Of course, she could win the election and this could all become moot. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my point that Lock27 only had one edit all-time on Wikipedia, Clearance Wood may be closely related to the subject and has WP:CANVASSed this discussion: Special:Contributions/Clearance_Wood SportingFlyer T·C 13:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears Jmurry821 is a single-purpose account related to Cara Spencer. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a city alderwoman is NOT notable enough to qualify for WP:POLITICIAN. Her election is a novelty and might be notable, but that should be on the article about the election, not about her. SunDawn (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a city alderwoman can be notable enough per criterion two of WP:POLITICIAN. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only if and when the person can demonstrate a strong reason why they should be seen as significantly more notable than most city councillors. Many have tried to claim that, but few have actually succeeded. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was with the blanket statement "being a city alderwoman is NOT notable enough to qualify for WP:POLITICIAN." That's just not true. I understand it's not universal to the point that every member of a board of aldermen or city council should merit a page, but some do. The question is then whether or not Spencer reaches that threshold. Let's base our decisions, whether for keep or delete, on actual policy here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FWIW, every member of the New York City Council currently has a page. I doubt every single one of them are notable to an outsized degree, unless they are just by virtue of being in NYC. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment : In my opinion, this article also have lots of WP:PUFFERY as lots of the listed actions are actions of the whole board, or even the actions of the mayor, not her own actions.

So fix it. This shouldn't be a rationale for deleting a page outright. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, without prejudice against returning the article to mainspace if she wins the mayoral election. St. Louis is obviously a city where the mayor would be accepted as notable, but it is not a city where the councillors would all get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as city councillors — as witness the fact that other than Cara Spencer, only three other members of a 28-seat council have Wikipedia articles and even two of those are potential deletion bait for not clearly fulfilling NPOL requirements either. And people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections that they have not yet won, either: people have to win election to an NPOL-passing office, not just run for one, to be notable on NPOL grounds. And no, the fact that some campaign coverage exists does not exempt her from NPOL on the grounds that she passes GNG on the campaign coverage, either: every candidate in every election can always show some campaign coverage, because covering local elections is literally local media's job. So the bar that she would have to clear to be notable on that basis is not "some campaign coverage exists", it is "she has so much more campaign coverage than the norm that she has a credible claim to her candidacy being much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies", and it's not at all obvious that she's cleared that bar. Furthermore, the fact that the city is using a novel voting process does not augment the notability of the individual candidates on the ballot over and above the notability of individual candidates being elected under some other process. So yes, if she wins on April 6 then she'll be notable without question — but merely being a candidate does not already make her notable now, because it is not our role or mandate to be a repository of campaign brochures for as yet unelected political candidates. Bearcat (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete running for mayor does not make one notable. If she is elected than she probably will be notable, but not before.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree that we should be expanding access to information of our legislative body and elected officials rather than suppressing the ability to access information. This page has averaged over 300 views per day in the past 30 days.. Speaking of suspicious activity, I find it suspicious that this aldermanic page is nominated for deletion with the insinuation of non-notability; however, pages of other sitting aldermen who are not currently receiving active media coverage and not engaged in a city-wide race within the month - are not nominated for deletion. STLPublicI (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. Always has, always will – it's not something to base a vote off of. If you think they should also be deleted, be bold and start a WP:AFD there. It doesn't affect the discussion here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep arguments above convince me this is a person of note, adequately cited, treasurer of a major city in a major country, candidate for mayor, her opponent (incumbent)is equally valid from cites. If election outcome is imminent, improve article meantimeKaybeesquared (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Spencer is not the treasurer. I believe you are confusing her with Tishaura Jones, her (more notable) opponent. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, she isn't the treasurer of the city — her opponent is. But even if she were, that isn't an NPOL-passing office in and of itself, and neither is the fact of being a candidate in a current election — Tishaura Jones has an article because she's also been a state legislator, not because she's treasurer of the city or because she's a current candidate for mayor. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 St. Louis mayoral election. This is an appropriate outcome for a candidate advancing to the general election in a notable municipal race. A redirect is an WP:ATD and recreating a draft of the article may lead to problems (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). --Enos733 (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful for commenters to address the notability arguments through the lens of WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG rather than spurious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. We don't yet seem to have reached a consensus on the first prong of that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 10:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify with the view to reinstating if candidate wins the election as she'll automatically be notable and warrant an article then, per Bearcat's argument. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, St. Louis is not a big or important enough city for its councillors to pass WP:NPOL purely through being councillors, and this person does not seem like they have received anything more than the local coverage that all political candidates receive. However, this person could win the election, and this article would be a good basis for that outcome, so it should be draftified. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Notable elected official receiving active news coverage. Jmurry821 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This user has already !voted. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SIGCOV requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. Even if there is not consensus that an alderman in the city of St. Louis is notable on position/title alone, the list of citations indicate that this individual has has done more while in office than a typical alderman, many of which do not sponsor any city-wide legislation and only vote on bills presented. There is significant coverage over an extended period of time with over 30 references from 2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, and 2021. The sources are reliable in that they are independent of the subject and come from a variety of established media outlets. Lock27 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Bearcat.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel P. Myers[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced (passing mentions, trade mags regurgitating press releases, etc.) vanity piece on a non-notable business exec, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carlyle Group per WP:ATD-R. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some citations are clearly PR news releases and written by the subject. Also never ran a company though he worked for some big conglomerates.Miaminsurance (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Citations show that he is a businessman of stature. He has helped run multiple multi-billionaire companies. The links show his involvement and interviews. Being VP, running boards, and his involvement in the international business world clearly show his involvement.Getlostwithlindsay (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to explain, nobody is questioning whether this person has held executive roles; I'm sure he has, but that doesn't make him exceptional or noteworthy. And in any case, the point isn't whether the subject is 'important', but whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability (see WP:N). The sources cited here fall far short of what's required. Hope that helps. (PS: And don't say 'per nom' when you're arguing against the nomination; it's confusing.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Against nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getlostwithlindsay (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more discussion about a possible redirect might be helpful. I have a bit of trouble seeing how, given the title of the page, that would be particularly useful? Conversation does appear to be moving towards some form of deletion, though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 10:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose redirect. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I fail to see the benefit of a redirect in this case, as the individual could easily redirect to other companies in his employment history. With multiple possible redirect targets, a straight deletion with no redirect is preferable.4meter4 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect nothing in terms of coverage outside of churnalism. I agree with 4meter4 that leaving no redirect is the best option. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Recovering Motorcyclists[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this organization, I imagine this organization may have been popular when it was founded but, I cannot find much history about it. Fails WP:ORG JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick search on newspapers.com turned up significant coverage, including full- and half-page spreads, and wire stories. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. By the way, when I read the article title, I first thought that this was an association of riders trying to kick their motorcycle habits... --Usernameunique (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 09:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this association meets WP:SIGCOV. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per the sources presented above by Usernameunique. The first reference in the article also suggests notability^[1], but unfortunately, I cannot access it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Associated Press (24 July 1989), "Motorcyclists unite for the tough road back", Wisconsin State Journal, p. 1B

Northamerica1000, the article you mentioned is available from newspaperarchive.com; I clipped it and added a URL above and in the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Shomareh-ye Seh[edit]

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

PROD rationale was Not verified/ no reference/uknown place/it is not a village and was placed by User:Shahramrashidi.

I contested this as I saw that this village is at least alleged to have had a population at some point. Following further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion as well as the creator's talk page, I now realise the issue and that maybe I was wrong to obstruct deletion.

The PROD was reapplied by User:Salome mi after I had already contested it. This article is no longer eligible for PROD as I contested that. I hope that this discussion can establish once and for all whether this was ever a community and whether it meets WP:GEOLAND. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to those who took part in the previous discussions on this and other villages created by the same user. @Joe Roe:, @4nn1l2:, @FOARP:, @Reywas92: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Translates literally as "Well number 3". Probably just a well within a larger community and as such fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a consistent pattern of behaviour. FOARP (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is tricky. The population is quite high: 264 people, in 56 families. It is eligible to become a village with a proper name, because every ābādī with a population of at least 100 people or 20 families can potentially be a village. But still there is no evidence that this ābādī has become a village. Indeed, its population has decreased considerably over time and may have scattered altogether. This ābādī with the census code of 086707 had a population of 264 people in 56 families in the 2006 census, 221 people in 60 families in the 2011 census, and only 64 people in 21 families in the 2016 census. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as last talking about these articles.Shahram 10:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one too. I have not found any evidence on which shape this place is currently. Creating the article should we be with more precision (as well as avoiding original research). Salome mi (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a population, and http://www.geonames.org/6980592/chah-e-sevvom-jadid.html has an alternative name Chāh-e Shomāreh Seh and a Persian name identical to that in the article. There are some buildings at that location, and it looks like a populated place. Peter James (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That also has "Chah-e Sevvom" as an alternate name, which redirects to Chah-e Vagazari-ye Shomareh-ye Seh. The coordinate for that, since this article doesn't have any, point to a neighborhood near a "Beshne" which doesn't seem to have an article (and is not the same as Beshneh). Reywas92^Talk 19:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure which is the correct Chah-e Sevvom, could it be that it has been split into two areas for the census? Or could it be the same as http://www.geonames.org/6980579/chah-e-sevvom-qadim.html as that appears to be missing from the census unless it is under a different name. Looking at the place labelled as "Beshne", Geonames.org has a populated place "Maḩdūdeh-e Shahrak-e Boneh Kalāghī" and a police post "Pāsgāh-e Entez̧āmī-ye Boneh Kalāghī" This could be the same as Shahrak-e Boneh Kolaghi - Boneh Kalāghī (or Boneh Kolaghi) is also labelled as a populated place but seems to be the name of the area which consists of several places as both Geonames.org and Google put the label in slightly different locations both without buildings. Peter James (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Sevvom means third well. chah-e-sevvom-jadid means new third well. chah-e-sevvom-qadim means old third well. Chāh-e Manūchehr Khān Seh in its history means the Well No.3 of Mr. Mauchehr Khan. All of them are not village or populated. Can you confirm geonames? It hasn't more information than this article. Article in WP has a dead and none notable reference but in Geonams even the author and etc. are not known and it has no any evidence or reference. It may uses an unknown database. Also you may see easily alternative names of well in your links in Geoname and translate it. You easily find it is a well only. Shahram 23:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Chah-e Vagazari-ye Shomareh-ye Seh in PDF document mentioned by Peter James have been indicated 8 no.s of Chah-e Vagazari (means Assigned or endowed well) including well No.1 ~ 8 (Item 56~ 63 )and Item 64 is Chah-e Vagazari Mr. Faraj Allah Yar Ahmadi (means Assigned or endowed well of Mr. Faraj Allah Yar Ahmadi). Also Chah-e Shomareh-ye Seh (item 52) has been indicated separatly.Shahram 07:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Beshneh, it is known and notable village see here, here and here. Also Shahrak-e-Boneh Kolaghi is notable. look here and here but they are not related to notability of wells around Them. Maḩdūdeh-e Shahrak-e Boneh Kalāghī means around Shahrak-e Boneh Kalāghī. Can we confirm any shop, well, pump, gas station or like around them as notable village!?Shahram 23:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The places in geonames are locations of groups of buildings, and within them the buildings look more like houses or farms than anything industrial; if they were in the UK they would probably be described as villages (or hamlets in some cases). What I don't know is whether this is one of them, possibly under a different name. The names used by geonames.org are not always accurate and it is not significant coverage or even a reliable source as anyone can add places (the names I linked to were imported from GEOnet Names Server), it's just that it can be useful for connecting names in lists to places on maps. Based on the population I would expect there to be something wherever this is, even if the census uses a well instead of the name of the village, and if it's a village, even if it is small, then if there are census statistics there can be an article. https://www.amar.org.ir/portals/0/census/1365/abadi/abadi65-jeld096.pdf mentions it in a list (on page 28 of the PDF), but I don't know what information there is, or if it is on any of the maps there. Peter James (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind information. As you told Geoname.org in not reliable source and we know it is right. About PDF document, thanks really for it. I hadn't seen it until now and was interesting for me. But i cant know how did you read page 28 of it? (it is hard for me too). Anyway the PDF document is for 34 years ago and an old census. On page 6, all of Abadi and village have been mentioned as Abadi including farm, village or etc. Then it don't gives enough information that we to know it is farm or village or any. But in newer census Abadi has been described and clearly separated to village, farm and etc. Also in newer Censuse, most of these places have been removed or reported as farm, ... similar places without poplulation which are no notable and we have talked more about Abadi in last mentioned discussion.Shahram 07:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well... as per the pdf, it's population has doubled, 264 (2007) compared to 122 (1986). My concern in general would be: what else info do we have for such places, only population rate?. Do we want to create a few hundreds of such short articles? I would combine all the articles under Rizab Rural District. Though some of the farms/districts might become important to have a separate article later in time as more geographical, cultural or agricultural details become available. Salome mi (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mojamaveh-ye Mowtowr Hay Chah-e Rihan[edit]

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

PROD rationale was Not verified/ no reference/uknown place/it is not a village

I contested this as I saw that this village is at least alleged to have had a population at some point. Following further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion as well as the creator's talk page, I now realise the issue and that maybe I was wrong to obstruct deletion.

The PROD was reapplied by User:Salome mi and User:Shahramrashidi after I had already contested it. This article is no longer eligible for PROD as I contested that. I hope that this discussion can establish once and for all whether this was ever a community and whether it meets WP:GEOLAND. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to those who took part in the previous discussions on this and other villages created by the same user. @Joe Roe:, @4nn1l2:, @FOARP:, @Reywas92: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably just a mechanic/engineer's office. Part of a consistent pattern of beviour. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi. This is not a village. This a complex of some water pumps (for farming). Iranian ābādīs must have a population of at least 100 people or 20 families to be eligible for designation as village. Of course, the population may decrease over time but the village won't lose its status of "village", so Iran has villages with a population of less than 100 people or 20 families, but at some point the population has definitely been above 100 people or 20 families. Most villages (but not all of them) have a council and a head and local elections will be held there. In absence of any way to differentiate villages from ābādīs in the census documents, I think the only practical way is to delete all ābādīs with a population of less than 100 people and 20 families. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as last talking about these articles and also confirm explains of 4nn1l2Shahram 09:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mass creation should be stopped though. Agree with 4nn1l2 that all Abadis better to be deleted under certain population.Salome mi (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized proper time[edit]

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

Newly created page based solely on unpublished pre-prints by David J. Jackson. [17][18][19][20]. As such, it badly fails notability. Another problem is that these pre-prints are all in the "gen-ph" section of the arXiv, reserved for crackpots. Tercer (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Physics ideas belong on Wikipedia only after they have become celebrated for being good or infamous for being bad. Unpublished preprints on gen-ph are neither. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:The description "reserved for crackpots" demeans everyone, including the person who wrote it. The fact that Dr Jackson, who has done two successful postdocs in particle physics, has ended up posting manifestly serious and well written preprints in a venue described by wikipedia editors as "reserved for crackpots" says at least as much about the state of the theoretical physics community as it does about the validity of the work. The article does currently fail the standard criteria for notability. What motivated posting it is that so few of the links in the other theories of quantum gravity section actually describe theories of quantum gravity. The fact that one of these preprints does that makes it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynof (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 10:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Giant Snowman 11:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hammad[edit]

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

~~Fails NFOOTBALL. No proper RS~~ -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the nomination meets NFOOTBALL as per soccerway link. My bad. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL per Soccerway, which confirms 5 apps in I-League. Has nominator @Jammumylove: bothered to comply with WP:BEFORE given that claim to notability and supporting source are both already in the article?! GiantSnowman 11:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GiantSnowman, My Bad. Withdrawing this. i missed out checking the Soccerway link. Thanks. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw : Withdrawing my nomination, meets NFOOTBALL as per soccerway. My Bad. Thanks -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Six[edit]

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

I don't think this satisfies WP:NMUSIC, they don't have any charts/awards, and most of the sources are from Discogs or their official website. Noah!^💬 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete One of the sources not from Discogs or their website is a permanent dead link, although there is an article of one of the members. -Cupper52^Discuss! 18:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think band meets WP:NMUSIC

1: Per WP:NMUSIC point 1. Has been featured in multiple articles such as:

https://www.metaltalk.net/voodoo-six-simulation-game-makes-the-band-fully-fledged-contenders.php
https://ramzine.co.uk/news/voodoo-six-are-simulating/
https://www.therockpit.net/2020/album-review-voodoo-six-simulation-game/
http://www.rockbandsofla.com/voodoo-six-liar-and-thief/
https://planetmosh.com/voodoo-six-set-to-release-new-studio-album-simulation-game/
https://www.hrhmag.com/2021/02/16/album-review-voodoo-six-simulation-game/
https://totalrock.com/voodoo-six-announce-new-album-simulation-game/

2: Per WP:NMUSIC point 4. Has received non trivial coverage of an international concert tour with the band Iron Maiden.

https://maidenrevelations.com/2013/05/27/on-tour-maiden-england-world-tour-2013-kicks-off-in-spain/
https://www.withguitars.com/voodoo-six-confirmed-as-main-support-to-iron-maiden-at-londons-o2-arena-on-saturday-august-3rd/
http://www.metalforcesmagazine.com/site/album-review-voodoo-six-songs-to-invade-countries-to/
https://susanvirkkala.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/voodoo-six-uk/
https://www.rock-city.co.uk/gigs/voodoo-six/
https://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/180150/9
https://planetmosh.com/voodoo-six-all-set-to-tour-europe/
https://www.ironmaiden.com/tours/maiden-england-tour---2013

Has also featured in the lineup of 5 mainstream Rock Festivals being that of Download Festival and Sonisphere Festival as already references in the original article. - Deadhell 19:54, 10 March 2021 (GMT)

Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio and coverage in Classic Rock magazine, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In particular, editors may discuss the sources that were brought up later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Deadhell. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Deadhell, the article definitely needs better referencing but reliable sources about the band are not hard to find. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 18:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G4 based on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zeyan_Shafiq. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeyan Jeelani Shafiq[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, Notable for one event i-e Kashbook. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as this has already been through a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeyan Shafiq. I have tagged the article accordingly. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil Bridger, Oh lol, the tag has been reverted tho. should i nominate it for CSD G4? -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone thinks in good faith that it doesn't meet the criteria for that then the article shouldn't be renominated, but this discussion should be allowed to continue. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Phil Bridger, But it does, as per CSD G4, It shouldn't even be discussed i guess. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 definitely per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeyan Shafiq. This AfD is unnecessary forum shopping ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shirt58 I don't understand your declining the G4 request. The article looks as the complete identical copy of what was deleted per previous discussion. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 18:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaq Abbasi[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear notability fail. There's no information that source for his single important game is reliable in the first place. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NCRIC having played in a first-class match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Presumption of notability is not the same as actual notability. Being included in the scorebook of a single cricket game does not automatically mean he as a person has multiple significant sources that confer notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sukkur cricket team Has played 1 FC match, but I couldn't find any coverage. Sources may exist offline or in Pakistani sources but I couldn't find any in a search. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY were a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and there is a suitable WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage or reason to expect any exists so fails WP:GNG. This trumps any trivial meeting of NCRIC criteria, by virtue of playing one match in one of the 6 (six) first-class competitions held in Pakistan during the 1975/76 season. List of Sukkur cricketers would be an accepted ATD redirect target but this only exists as a redirect. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG is clearly not met. No prejudice against a redirect to List of Sukkur cricketers at a later date if that article can be established. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Sarwar[edit]

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

not a notable actor. Hasn't played main lead roles yet. Side roles only. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless you can provide information that the sources in the article are bad to the point where he no longer has any significant coverage in multiple sources, then being a "side" role actor doesn't mean anything. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG requires reliable and indepdent sources, not just sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I think the nominator has not done proper WP:Before and the argument that he has not played any major lead role yet is completely wrong. I did WP:Before and found the actor had some notable roles in multiple number of movies and webseries. See [21] [22] [23]. And this source [24] clearly says You must have seen Bollywood actor Mir Sarwar playing important roles in several films like Bajrangi Bhaijaan, Jolly LLB 2 and Kesari apart from featuring in some web series including The Family Man, Bard of Blood, Bhram and Special Ops. Now, he is all set to collaborate with Akshay Kumar for the third time in Laxmii . I also have concerns regarding the attitude of the nominator towards Kashmir related articles. See [25]. Here he nominated it without doing any WP:Before just like he did here. Also see this [26] and this [27] Im not saying the nominator is completly wrong. But he/she has some Pro-India sentiment for article's related to Kashmir like he declared in his userpage. An article does not have any reliable sources doesnt mean we should delete it. Proper steps like WP:Before should be done first. Jammumylove, please dont nominate any articles no more for deletion without doing any proper steps just because you dont like it. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NACTOR; actor has multiple signficant roles in notable productions as clearly stated in that 4th source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NACTOR; significant roles doesn't have to be a lead roles. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick search confirms that this actor meets NACTOR. Kolma8 (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mairaj-ul-Hasan[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NCRIC having played in five first-class matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has played 5 FC matches, but I cannot find any significant coverage. Sources may exist offline or in Pakistani sources but in a search I have been unable to find any. Because his 5 FC matches were for 3 different teams there is no suitable WP:ATD in this case so using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY were players with one or a few matches, but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbyfan22 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has played five first class matches. Another example of an article which could definitely do with improvement, but passes WP:NCRIC. Hard to find sources for an otherwise notable subject shouldn't be a reason for automatic deletion, it should be a reason for editors to work harder to improve, rather than to destroy others' work. DevaCat1 (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article completely and totally fails notability guidelines.18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete WP:NCRIC is notoriously bad at determining when a sports bio will pass WP:GNG. This is sourced to a single statistical page, clearly failing WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. speedy deleted by Shirt58 under WP:CSD#G3, G4, and G5. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teejay Karthi[edit]

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

Per WP:NACTOR, WP:NDIRECTOR and WP:TOOSOON – some very minor roles at best at this point. I'm also not entirely clear on what precisely a "Film Publicity Designer" is supposed to be. AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – forgot to check for previous nominations; in that case speedy delete per WP:SNOW. AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability. Sources listed don't even name him. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the article is a hoax, it is identical to the one previously deleted and the user is a sock evading an indefinite block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are some decent sources but consensus is that it's not enough for a GNG pass. However, if additional sources are located, ping me for undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Borg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. During WP:BEFORE search, I found no new sources via Google that passed GNG. Some sources were mentioned in a previous AFD. This NYT article is not significant coverage of Michael A Borg, but rather significant coverage of a controversy involving Hackensack University Medical Center and a newspaper. The book Communicating When Your Company is Under Siege -is- significant coverage of Borg (7 paragraphs about his struggle with alcohol). The Columbia Journalism Review I accessed through Gale in the Wikipedia Library is significant coverage of The Record newspaper in New Jersey, not of Malcolm Borg. The Mediaweek source I accessed through EBSCO in the Wikipedia Library is significant coverage of The Record newspaper, not of Borg. With only 1 GNG passing source, I do not think this individual is notable. A possible redirect target is North Jersey Media Group. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I got access to this source through ProQuest: The Borg Equation. Sabik, Cathy A. Business Journal of New Jersey; Jamesburg Vol. 3, Iss. 12, (Aug 1986): 56. Although one could argue it might not be independent, I think it probably passes GNG. If somebody can find a third GNG passing source, I will withdraw my nomination. As of right now, I think we only have two GNG passing sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be interesting for someone to truly research him. I believe the family was very significant in publishing and I bet the backup is out there. This seems to be a common situation. Likely notable person not backed up by the info on the page.Miaminsurance (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a truly long line of non-notable businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meenakshi Vijayakumar[edit]

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

This page does not seem to cover a person who is notable for Wikipedia, nor does it rely on reliable sources. It does not seem to meet the WP:BASIC standards set forth, as all mentions of the person seem to be from one primary source. Iowauniguy (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Badly written articles don't dissolve notability. The 1st and 14th sources listed looks to be enough on their own to establish multiple sources of significant coverage (albeit with the 14th reference being in Tamil not English, but I don't think that matters). Badly needs a clean up crew though. The article itself is poorly written and a quick glance at the pictures suggest a complete failure of the uploaders to have submitted properly licensed works, which may also require intervention on Wikimedia commons with certain uploaders seemingly disregarding licensing entirely. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see where notability may qualify. Definitely needs clean up and a look at the images. I am mainly concerned that it seems to be autobiographical in nature, especially looking at the captions in some of the images that uses first person language and that they may not have correct licensing. Iowauniguy (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being first helps. But definitely needs a major rework. I am also concerned about too many The Hindu sources. Too many sources from same publication may indicate a connection (some sort of influence). Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like being only first in something helps as I see most of the awards and achievements are not notable. And needs to be rewritten per WP:NOTABOUTYOU. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This first x to do y is getting ludicrous. Wikipedia is not a place for people to post their bio and a bunch of pictures they want to preserve.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many "first x to do y" articles scrape the barrel, but I don't believe that the first female fire officer in India (which last time I checked had about a sixth of the world's population) is among them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Until reliable sources stop putting out significant coverage of "first x to do y" subjects, they'll be notable under GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Article needs a re-write, but AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not redirecting as I am swayed by the arguments about implausibility of this particular search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Former Arctic Monkeys members[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork of Arctic Monkeys. There's only one real former member, and he has his own article. Whoever Glyn Jones is surely isn't adding enough to justify a whole page. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination. Whoever "Andy Nicholson" is, he may be notable enough based on his former association to be worthy of an article himself. In either case, both him and the other former member could be listed on the band page itself. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Simply to Arctic Monkeys#Band members. That is all we need on this. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arctic Monkeys#Band members --Devoke water 11:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree per nomination. A weak, unnecessary fork of content that could easily be contained in parent article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just duplicates information in the band article, and is an unlikely search term so no point keeping as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If an infinite number of Arctic Monkeys were at an infinite number of typewriters (or PCs), one would eventually produce this article. Apparently one did, but it was a waste of time. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article was originally Arctic Monkeys members; other articles were split from it and it was renamed. It could be redirected, but if not useful as a redirect the revisions up to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Former_Arctic_Monkeys_members&oldid=182219117 would have to be moved to Arctic Monkeys members or another suitable title before deletion. Peter James (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is not a likely search term, and while the article may have a certain history of splits and forks, its former usefulness (if any) is now elsewhere and this one serves no purpose. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely search term and Andy Nicholson already has his own article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Obvious consensus to delete this particular article. I see some agreement that the other 5k should be deleted as well, however, I don't think an individual AfD is the appropriate place to decide this. I echo Hog Farm's suggestion that a community discussion be held (AN or wherever else is deemed suitable) to see if there is a wide consensus for mass deletion or draftification. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. This is not a village, but only an ābādī. There are three kinds of ābādīs in Iran: 1) village; 2) farm; 3) site (such as gas station, mine, etc). Calling this ābādī a village is an original research done by the creator. The subject of this article is definitely a farm, as its name suggests. Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi means "Farm of Mr. Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi". The population of the ābādī was not reported in the 2006 census. The ābādī was not even registered in the 2011 census. Its population was reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. There are at least 7,092 more articles like this on the English Wikipedia. This is indeed a mass deletion request. Also see User talk:Carlossuarez46#Places in Iran. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported provides the full list of Iranian places with the phrase "At the 2006 census, its existence was noted, but its population was not reported". Although a WP search returns 7,092 results, that includes some duplicates and there are actually 5,576 articles at hand. Reywas92^Talk 07:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ A big mistake by the creator who has not shown so far that he can read or understand Persian. It may take several years to clean up this mess in all language editions of Wikipedia (including enwiki, arwiki, svwiki, and even fawiki). There are 98,000 ābādīs in Iran, of which only 46,000 are villages. Currently, there is no hard-and-fast rule to determine which ābādī is a village and which one is not. But the Iranian Ministry of Interior appears to be working on it; they are assigning unique codes to all villages and the like. There is no guarantee that the result of their work will be published online, so we should not wait for them. According to a 2017 RFC at fawiki, only villages are notable. That being said, enwiki should not rely on fawiki. As an established editor of fawiki, I know for a fact that that project lacks self-confidence and is completely dependent on the English Wikipedia from head to toe. Persian Wikipedia has shamefully deferred to the English Wikipedia with regard to the villages of Iran 🤦 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I've struck your delete because your nomination is implied to already be a delete. Reywas92^Talk 06:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Negligent mass-production assuming any name in the census is a "village", even if the name does not suggest that. Even if so, there is not automatic notability for a place with no known population. Although this location does not have coordinates connected, all of the similar pages without population I checked pointed to isolated farms. I believe these articles lack adequate verification that they are in fact villages, that very small human habitations are not necessarily notable, and nonetheless they do not pass WP:NGEO which exludes "maps and tables" in establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 06:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to this article, I recommend and nominate deleting all of Carlossuarez46's unreliable articles about village adn places which have no verifiable source and aren't village. Also i found many of article about places in other countries such as Gällö in Sweden which have been translated in FAWI and i am going to nominate all of them for deletion in next step Shahram 07:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All 7,092 - As has amply been demonstrated above, the mere existence of an abadi is not sufficient to pass WP:Geoland. It does not show a legally-recognised populated community exists (or ever existed) with that name, as a bare mention in a registry it also does not constitute significant coverage for the purpose of WP:GNG. That the entry for each one says that no-one was reported as living there shows that the edition of the census the author (Carlossuarrez46 in most, maybe all cases) consulted was not a list of populated places. We can either go through these 7,092 articles 1-by-1 - a process that will take years and clog up AFD/PROD - or we can deal with this issue properly in a single bulk deletion. Doing it in a single bulk deletion is justified under the principle of WP:TNT - these articles were created en masse, mostly by an admin, without caring whether they were at all notable, they are a complete mess and the only viable option is to start over. Just to emphasise this: Every single one of these articles literally states that the location is not known to be populated according to the source used.

This is the search used to identify these GEOfails. None of these articles appears to be longer than about 100 words. Selecting a 10 examples at random:

Kafeh Asaish Laleh. Literally "Laleh Asayesh Cafe". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2012. Appears to be a cafe.
Mowtowr-e Hoseyn Sohrabi. Literally "Mechanic Hoseyn Sohrabi". created by Carlossuarrez in 2013. Appears to be the site of a car-mechanic.
Madras Cooperative Farm. Created by Carlosssuarrez46 in 2012. I really don't think any further comment is needed on this one - a farm is not a presumed WP:GEOLAND pass.
Mazraeh-ye Najafabad-e Bazud. Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2014. Google translate renders this as "Najaf Farm Abadzud". Appears to be just a farm.
Tolombeh-ye Hajj Fathollah Mohammady. Literally "The pump of Hajj Fathullah Muhammad". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2014. No further comment.
Qaleh-ye Hajj Mirza Aghasi. Literally "Haj Mirza Aghasi's Castle". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2014. Not a community.
Tolombeh-ye Deh Alavi Fariyab. Apparently "The pump up [from?] the Alawite Faryab". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2013. No further comment.
Adareh Ghaleh-ye Kuhdasht. Literally "Kushdat Grain Office". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2012. No further comment.
Dam Tang-e Pir Murad. Literally "The old man's narrow tail". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2013. No idea what this is, it may be a geographical feature, it may be anything, it probably isn't a populated place.

It means Close to Mr. Pir Morad's StraitShahram 14:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poshteh-ye Ab Chendar. Literally "stack of water", maybe a water tower? Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2013.

What emerges from the above is a consistent pattern of behaviour that we have seen also in the mass-creation of stubs in California based on GNIS data - negligent article creation en masse. FOARP (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - impossible to disagree with the nominator's reasoning. I would suggest PROD for some of these mass creations and AfD for ones where there is at least a claim to notability (i.e. at least some assertion that it was at one point an actual community and not just a well or café). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone - I understand the hesitancy to mass-delete, but we’ve seen with California GNIS stubs also created by Carlossuarrez46 that AFD’ing/PROD’ing these stubs simply leads to both processes becoming clogged. The normal response of the admins who have to review all the PRODs is (paraphrasing) “why aren’t you dealing with these in bulk? Why are you doing them one-by-one and making my job impossible?”. In this case we have more than 7,000 articles all of which appear to be Geofails - even doing 20 a day that’s going to take an entire year to clear. Surely there has to be a point where we just say WP:TNT? It is farcical that an editor could negligently create thousands of articles spending maybe 1 minute on each, but we should spend a week or more in Prods/AFDs for each one on the off-chance that a few of them might be notable? Moreover these articles are actively harmful since they lead to supposed locations being created on e.g., Google Maps. FOARP (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone I suggest deleting all articles and if the author claims to be well-known, notable and reputable for each article, he can request a revival of the article for review, just like other articles.Shahram 14:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the problem needs to be addressed, one way or another and that the majority do need to go - there's no debate about that. I'm just concerned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater that's all. Even if 99% of them are junk, mass deletion would still take down about 70 articles on places that might actually exist, for example. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no concern about that 1% and if these 1% are known they will be created by users in the future surely. Creating 70 articles is definitely better than reviewing and talking to delete 7000 articles and editor's and user's time will be saved. It's like hiring a $ 1,000 security guard for a shop which is stolen about $ 10 a month. Which do you prefer?Shahram 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone - What Shahramrashidi says, plus in this case, that would be 70 articles that at present literally state that the source they're using doesn't even say they are or have ever been populated, all of which can be re-created by someone more familiar with the subject-matter. Actually, our experience has been that the very existence of these stub articles dissuades people from writing proper articles on these localities. I am very much not a deletionist, but the existence of many thousands of fake articles about supposed villages that don't exist, but which are then mirrored onto Google Maps and other websites and may lead to people to go to a place believing it to be an inhabited place when it is in fact an empty piece of land, makes me think that we should treat these articles as a serious problem. FOARP (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- These are all mechanically made but of course any with content added since creation could be excluded. It seems that including "At the 2006 census, its existence was noted, but its population was not reported" is a statement itself that there isn't notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Writing that is a direct admission that there's no evidence in the sources referred to that it was ever actually a populated place, must less a legally recognised community. Every one of these articles has a had a few edits since being created to fix templates and so-forth, but I haven't seen any with substantive content added. FOARP (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles regarding Iranian ābādīs can be divided into 3 groups:
1. Those that are unpopulated and the article itself confesses this reality. There are 7,091 such articles on the English Wikipedia. All of them should be wiped out with this very AfD.
2. Those with a population less than 100 people and 20 familes, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojamaveh-ye Mowtowr Hay Chah-e Rihan. These can be PRODed. The words Mowtowr, Chah, etc in their names show red flags. If one (such as the creator) believes these are indeed villages, the burden of proof should be on himself (i.e., the creator).
3. Those with a population more than 100 people or 20 families, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chah-e Shomareh-ye Seh. These should be reviewed one by one in AfD. Take Chah-e Amiq Shomareh-ye 28 Zurzamand for example. It does not have a proper name. It means "the deep well No. 28 of Zurzamand". But this ābādī has converted into a village with a proper name. Its new name is Bahar ("Spring" in the meaning of season) as you can see at fawiki: fa:بهار (جغتای). If one believes these are NOT villages, the burden of proof should be on himself (i.e., the AfD nominator).
Does this roadmap work for you? 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 4nn1l2's categories. These 7000+ articles fail WP:GEOLAND which states "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability"; their existence is sourced only to a census table spreadsheet. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 4nn1l2's suggested strategy. It really is well past time we did something about these mass-created location articles as they risk causing real-world harm (eg people going to a location thinking there is a populated settlement there when there isn’t). In this case we have a perfect example of 7091 articles that really have to go because they openly state that they are not notable. I’d also strongly advise against any close that fails to act on the consensus here for purely formal reasons (eg us not being able to add formal deletion notices to every one of the 7,091 articles). It is obvious that there are far, far too many of these articles for us to be able to follow fully the formal AFD/PROD process on every one of them and asking that this be done is simply saying that they will never be deleted. FOARP (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to commenters 4nn1l2, Shahramrashidi, FOARP, Spiderone, Dlthewave to notify about the list at the top of the page of the Iranian places whose articles are sourced to the 2006 census tables but do not include a population – removing duplicates there are 5,576 such articles. I also left notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran and Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Reywas92^Talk 07:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work Reywas92/Hog Farm! FOARP (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all that report no population. FOARP - IMO a single AFD is unlikely to delete all 5576 at once. But if this closes with consensus that the no population ones are all not appropriate article subjects, I think we ought to put in a batch request at WP:AN. Honestly, I really think the batch request is the best way to go. But I see no reason for the 5576 no population ones to hang around for very long. These are all blatant GEOLAND fails, and the page creator should have been aware of that. Carlos hasn't been mass-creating lately, or I would be opening a thread at AN to get their autopatrolled yanked. Hog Farm _Talk 14:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all that report no population. per Hog Farm. There really needs to be better control of these mass-produced articles. A few minutes work creates hours and hours of clean-up. Glendoremus (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I only checked a tiny fraction of the articles listed, but Chak Chak, Yazd has actual content and is presumably notable. There are probably a few other such articles mixed in with the rest as well. Is there a way of filtering out the articles that are over a certain length? 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an interesting case because it was created in 2004 by an IP editor and it already looked like this before carlos got to it. His edits actually changed the coordinates from the correct location to the wrong location. It's only 3 km away, but gosh, what a guy.... The new location is some sort of solitary structure (similar to the locations of some other articles), but not the article's actual topic. I did some basic filtering with AutoWikiBrowser checking for other articles with images or external links and found three results that weren't false positives: Herisht, a shrine similar to Chak Chak; Khanileh, Kermanshah, whose coordinates are not a village (this one also predates carlos); and Lavar-e Jamil, also not a village. Would have to investigate further to figure out how to filter by length or creator. Reywas92^Talk 07:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we filter the list for articles Carlos created? FOARP (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chak Chak, Yazd Is not village. It is a shrine of Zoroastrianism and you may find it at here in FAWIKI. The checking of these articles is easy. In language section of each articles you may click on فارسی for Iran articles. You may find it in FAWIKI. If it is a real location, then its content and citation will be different and more. For Chak Chak, Yazd check it. But if In Fawiki has been translated from EN, then the content and source will be same.Shahram

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus not to delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bowers Coaches[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per previous AfD which was closed as no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. Sourcing fails the requirements of WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge>>> Centrebus >>> (50% of High Peak Buses).Djflem (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More elaboration needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no merge: References 5 and 6 are to me just enough to be considered significant, and they are independent of each other. This is enough to confer notability. Oppose merging. One company buying another doesn't confer notability to the other, or remove notability from the bought company. All it requires is an addition somewhere in the article that describes the purchase of the company and links to the new owers. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No @Macktheknifeau: Those references are not significant per WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage - "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business". SK2242 (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that minor guideline and consider them to confer notability under GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may personally disagree, but NCORP is not "minor". It is the widely accepted standard for company articles that overrides GNG. SK2242 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not merge. Any reasonable merge would almost certainly go WP:UNDUE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge Coverage in multiple local and industry sources. Lilporchy (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD was initiated one week after the previous nomination had been closed as No Consensus. Both were initiated by the same editor. Per the renominating for deletion guide, it should not have been renominated for at least two months. Lilporchy (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is misleading; you are citing an essay while also conveniently leaving out that it was closed with no prejudice against renomination. SK2242 (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this AfD appears headed for the same result as its predecessor, are you going to keep on nominating it until you get the result you want? There does come a time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Lilporchy (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was closed with no prejudice against renomination, so I renominated it to get a consensus to keep or delete. Simple. SK2242 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Additionally, as a public transit service company with a lengthy period of existence, the public (and therefore wikipedia and other encylopedias) have a vested interest in documenting the history of public transportation. Think WP:5P1.4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP2Location[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only a passing mention in Wired – Thjarkur (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has WP:SIGCOV as it is being used in academic for Computer Science and Security. I found mentions in technical literatures or books published such as Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing GPEN GIAC Certified Penetration Tester All-in-One Exam Guide. – User:Alamak2020 (talk) 6:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH as the applicable guidelines for companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep agree, the nominator is blocked. I landed here randomly and hope I can contribute. Thanks SusanBlin (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate more policy/guideline-focused discussion about the article itself to determine consensus. The cited sources do not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV for establishing notability (see WP:NCORP).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Earwig (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Alamak2020. I also found a couple of books which have a section talking about the company: [28] and [29]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but is it good enough to pass WP:NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add, the first book has no information on the company other that saying it is a subsidiary of Hexasoft located in Malaysia and a remote office in Florida - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The second is from MSFN Magazine and describes the product with nothing said about the company, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The problem I see is that the *company* does not meet our notability guidelines for companies/organizations (which is NCORP) but the *product* of the same name probably does. I suggest the article is either draftified so that the topic becomes the product, or the article is Deleted if nobody is interested in fixing. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take up this topic and made some changes in the article. IP2Location has played an important part in the history of Wikipedia. Kindly review and give feedback. Mikecameroon (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draftify I don't see really any hope with the article at this stage. We need to review notability from the beginning. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic has notability. It has been been cited in more than 700 research and scientific publication from Universities to pass WP:GNG as "Reliable" and "Independent of the subject". I will review and try to edit the article. Mikecameroon (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mikecameroon, you need to look at WP:NCORP, not GNG. Much stricter. See my comment above - perhaps the topic should be the product and not the company. If you're offering to edit the article, please consider the option to Draftify. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, the product has been discussed, reviewed, described, etc, in many books and magazines but the topic is about the company and the references therefore must meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Nobody has yet managed to produce a single reference that discusses the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I keep seeing statements to the effect that this passes GNG but not NCORP, purportedly because the standards of NCORP are "more stringent". But looking at NCORP, it appears only that those standards are more stringent in that they demand independent, secondary sources. Someone mentioned its inclusion in a textbook, which sounds like an independent secondary source. Journal articles are independent but may be primary, although some could be secondary (ie reciew articles). NCORP gives an example of substantial coverage that would meet the requirements: "A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization". Does this not describe several sources already mentioned? I do not know enough about this subject to feel comfortable voting either way, but I am concerned about clarity with regards to standard guidelines. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I'll give you my take on the primary differences. NCORP guidelines are stricter in order to counter "echo chamber" articles and to ensure that "Independent Content" (as per WP:ORGIND) is available in order to determine notability. So, for example, when editors say things like "that's an independent source", they usually mean that there is no corporate connection between the topic company and the publisher and that there's no personal connection between the journalist and the topic company. With NCORP, there is also a focus on "Independent Content" which tends to not get a thorough examination when looking at articles through GNG glasses. There is also an emphasis that a topic company must have an article that provides in-depth information on the actual topic company itself (WP:CORPDEPTH) and not an in-depth review of their product with a one-line description of the topic company. So when you're examining references here, ask yourself whether the reference discusses the company at an in-depth and detailed level and whether the journalist provides their own opinion or presents or one from a third party and isn't simply repeating or commenting on an announcement from the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. The discussion since the last relist is trivially related to the article. Please !vote carefully and make sure the more appropriate policies are being applied.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to have multiple examples of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Thus it fails GNG, which is the only thing that matters. Anyone interested in keeping this article has had more than enough time to find and add such sources. Delete. Anyone who wants to keep it can hold a draft somewhere and if it ever gains significant coverage then recreate. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per HighKing or Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meon Valley Passing loop[edit]

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

Contested prod. The concern was "Most of this article is actually about the broader Watercress Line, there is no evidence that a 200-metre passing loop is independently notable." and the edits to the article since then (by an IP who is almost certainly the author evading their partial block) citing a YouTube video tour of the whole line do nothing to address this. Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 03:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. 03:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. this has multiple issues. A passing loop will virtually always be non-notable with 99.999+% probability; this is not the exception.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark:No to getting removed. That it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail and the fact that it can run with humans in the box and when in use the signal box must have a person in it, this makes it notable.^[1]--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I endorsed the prod with the comment "Minor feature without adequate sourcing - even the claimed length of 200 metres is unsourced." Since then, nothing has changed to rectify the sourcing. Many stations have psssing loops, and few of them deserve any sort of special coverage that we would not accord to, for example, ticket offices or platform canopies. Any sourced info may be placed in Alton railway station, but should not be a separate article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64:No to getting removed. That it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail and the fact that it can run with humans in the box and when in use the signal box must have a person in it.^[2]--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that fact makes it notable, it should be discussed in books... ----Pontificalibus 15:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that is verifiable in independent reliable sources, it would be an argument for an article about the whole interlocking installation not one small part of it. It would still need coverage in multiple independent reliable sources though in order to meet the general notability guide - the guide to what consensus is that Wikipedia should and should not have articles about. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an other source.^[3]^[4]--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source is about signalling on the Watercress Line as a whole and has no in-depth coverage of this passing loop. It does not verify your claim that "it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail". As far as I can tell, your second source does not mention either the Meon Valley Passing loop or the interlocking at all. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete It is exceptionally unlikely that a passing siding could ever be notable, and there's no such claim here. I did find it, and it's an unremarkable piece of trackage. Mangoe (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe:No to getting removed. That it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail and the fact that it can run with humans in the box and when in use the signal box must have a person in it.^[5]--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be keept as it's own article or merger with Watercress Line and Alton railway station and Medstead and Four Marks railway station and Ropley railway station and Alresford railway station (Hampshire) and Meon Valley Railway and Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth should we merge it to Medstead and Four Marks railway station and Ropley railway station? It's not at either of those stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it lets more trains run and impact the use of the signal box and there is a siding wich is used to store permanent way rolling stock on the old down line and the mainline is on the old up line..--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. On that basis we would describe Worting Junction at every station between London Waterloo and Weymouth, also on every route radiating from Basingstoke, which is ridiculous: we do not redundantly describe local features at every station along the line, nor on articles about other lines. The loop is at Alton station, a mere five chains from the western ends of the platforms. There are only two places that it should be described - either Alton railway station (for preference) or Watercress Line, but not both. It certainly doesn't deserve its own standalone article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay if it goes they should look at waterloo east which is combined into waterloo but has two different pages and should all be combined into one page and it should be Waterloo.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if you think Waterloo East should be merged, then start a merge discussion about it. But it is not relevant to this discussion. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any relevant info should be covered in an article on the line, anything beyond specific loop info (which is likely WP:TRIVIA) would just duplicate what the line article would say. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck:No to getting removed. That it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail and the fact that it can run with humans in the box and when in use the signal box must have a person in it.^[6]--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Watercress Line where it's already mentioned. No reliable sources so nothing to merge.----Pontificalibus 13:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it mentioned and how is there no reliable source?--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the track diagram below the infobox. The YouTube videos are not reliable sources because the uploader is not verified, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube.----Pontificalibus 15:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say when I said delete above I am also opposing a redirect, which is only appropriate if it was a likely search term. About the only case would be looking up a picture which mentioned "Meon Valley passing loop" which didn't mention Watercress Line or Alton. The thing is 10 miles from the River Meon source so the toponymy seems fairly obviously deriving from the defunct Meon Valley Railway and a non WP:UNDUE mention might just be appropriate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose the redirect as it will hinder people using external search engines from finding any information about the passing loop. We will not have any information on the loop, other than (possibly) it exists, and we should not be implying otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf:@Pontificalibus:Well if you say that the owners own YouTube video's are unreliable then who do you trusted?--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try the respected railway press, such as Heritage Railway, Modern Railways, Rail The Railway Magazine, Railways Illustrated, Steam World or Today's Railways UK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources, basically articles should be based on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." For further information on what "reliable" means read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is literally comical that we even have articles like this at all, but after a while the joke fades. It is ludicrous to compare this utterly non-notable feature to Waterloo East, which is an important and heavily-used station in its own right. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RobinCarmody:No to getting removed. That it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail and the fact that it can run with humans in the box and when in use the signal box must have a person in it.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@I Like The british Rail Class 483: please refrain from replying to everyone with the same sentence. Articles need multiple independent reliable sources discussing the topic in significant detail. This one doesn't. Delete. SK2242 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless actual reliable sources are found, this fails WP:GNG. Nothing to merge. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Appel Nissen[edit]

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

De-prodded. All 11 references are regular websites (self-published) or written by the article's subject (not independent). WP:BEFORE not turning up WP:GNG passing sources. Also, she doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC. h-index of 8, her most cited paper has 23 cites. [30] I think this was translated from another Wikipedia, and I appreciate that the editor took the time to do this, but sadly I don't think this person meets our notability guidelines. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete fails both GNG and academic notability as is well explained by the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Citation counts [31] not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1. Her Google Scholar profile lists multiple books, but all but one are edited rather than authored, and I couldn't find any reviews of the authored one (Nye horisonter i socialt arbejde: en refleksionsteori) so I don't think she passes WP:AUTHOR either. That leaves only one plausible claim of notability, being editor-in-chief of Nordic Social Work Research, WP:PROF#C8. But while I can verify this claim, I'm not convinced that this is a significant enough journal to use it as the sole reason for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ajshul 😃 (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Porter (footballer, born 1979)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG: all sources are just statistics sites, his team's site, or mentions him very briefly in passing. Also doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, as he never played fully professional or in a Tier 1 International Match. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – poor article that seems like it's done by a paid contributor or for other reasons, a cancer on Wikipedia. I could not find WP:NOTABILITIY Tahadharamsi (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple appearances in the Football League, see this. Nomination is fundamentally flawed @Ajshul and Tahadharamsi: - have you complied with WP:BEFORE? Very easy for me to verify. Giant Snowman 11:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Also doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, as he never played fully professional" - demonstrably untrue, suggest the nominator revisit his nomination....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the article is in poor shape and could be improved, however the guy has played more than enough top flight games to qualify under our WP:NFOOTBALL guideline, and if done up correctly I am sure the article should be able to pass GNG quite easily. As GS said, I don't think the nominator has done WP:BEFORE at all. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also worth pointing out that (IMO at least) there's literally nothing to suggest that the article was "done by a paid contributor".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, nomination is nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Comment: Are you sure he's never played fully professionally? At the level of teams he was playing for, he could very easily be only semi-pro, and infact, one of the teams (Bishop Auckland) are apparently totally amateur. I think this article could use some time with a project to properly establish notability or confirm a lack of notability and proceed to a second AFD. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Macktheknifeau: - he played for two different teams in the EFL. That is a fully professional league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note He has played a total of 12 top flight games, 7 for Darlington and 5 for York City. Govvy (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep/Nom Withdrawn. No delete votes and it's obvious keep now thanks to Gazal_world's research. Thank you. StarM 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikrushna Keshav Kshirsagar[edit]

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

While pre-internet life is an issue, I cannot find any evidence in any language that he was a notable author and the article itself doesn't even claim he was. There is no article in other languages to find sourcing from either. StarM 15:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are some potential sources here and here. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added one reliable source (en entry from Marathi Encyclopedia). As I belong to India and my special field of work is Indian literature here, I can say that his presidentship at Marathi Sahitya Sammelan is enough for notability. There would be certainly available many offline works about him. --Gazal world (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a detailed discussion about him in the History of Marathi Literature (S. K. Kshirsagar), and I also found an entry in Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature. --Gazal world (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the insights provided by Gazal world. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Straight delete with no redirect as there is no suitable redirect target (the list article is, itself, a redirect). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Ashraf[edit]

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

Another non-notable cricketer, unknown birthdate, nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't meet WP:GNG and also doesn't meet WP:CRIN. Very little info provided by any reliable secondary sources. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajshul, FWIW he does meet WP:CRIN as he's played 1 List-A match. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rugbyfan22, very sorry – although he has played 1 List A match, there's been very little coverage by any sources (fails WP:GNG), and his passing of WP:NCRIC is extremely close, and should be disregarded due to his clear lack of notability – per wjemather below. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – these types of articles need to be purged from Wiki, WP:NOTABILITY. Tahadharamsi (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sheikhupura cricket team Has played 1 List-A match however I couldn't find any coverage. Sources may exist offline or in Pakistani sources but I couldn't find any in a search. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage, and nothing in his known playing record to suggest any exists anywhere, so fails WP:GNG. The trivial pass of NCRIC must be disregarded here as that guideline has proven most unreliable in cases such as these. Redirect to List of Sheikhupura cricketers would be an accepted ATD, but that itself is a redirect to a list of notable cricketers (which this person is not) within the team article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Youth Power Hour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. I went through and recovered all of the dead links and only one of them is a real source with any content, but even that is a local news agency. I don't think a single news source and a short entry in a book I found makes this subject notable. Perhaps the content could be merged into Newcity or added to Political podcast. The subject hasn't even existed since 2013 and is unlikely to ever generate further coverage so I don't see how this article would ever be larger than a stub. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't meet WP:GNG and frankly seems promotional. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast aside from beiing talked about in 2 books: [32] and [33]. There may be more sources about the podcast, but they're hard to find. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxGpzbp2rk%7CAlton and beyond with a part about Meon Valley Passing Loop
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxGpzbp2rk%7CAlton and beyond with a part about Meon Valley Passing Loop
^ https://issuu.com/railmedia/docs/tre-january-15/75
^ https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/206498/response/511601/attach/5/FOI%207586%20Dixin%20attachment%202.pdf
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxGpzbp2rk%7CAlton and beyond with a part about Meon Valley Passing Loop
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxGpzbp2rk%7CAlton and beyond with a part about Meon Valley Passing Loop
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxGpzbp2rk%7CAlton and beyond with a part about Meon Valley Passing Loop
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i42-2cCsveE
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gcU3C7UEoU
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jArCxv8M2u8

[6] "Sherelh'yqo" spelled in accordance with the latin script in the page Adyghe language

[1] "WSL Goes full time". Women's competitions. Retrieved 24 March 2021.

[2] "WSL Goes full time". Women's competitions. Retrieved 24 March 2021.

[3] ttps://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tVP1zc0TLIorsq1TK80YPQSKc_PTc1TL1ZIzkjMLcjMzyvOyCwAAOBeDL4&q=women%27s+championship&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB883GB883&oq=womens+championship&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j46i10j0i10l4j69i60l2.5292j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#sie=lg;/g/11j6yrcmfh;2;/g/11b8szm9gy;st;fp;1;;. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[4] "Douglas da Silva Cruz". playmakerstats.com.

[5] "Douglas da Silva Cruz". tribuna.com.

[Bradlee-7] Bradlee, Francis Boardman Crowninshield (1923). Piracy in the West Indies and Its Suppression. Essex institute. p. 133. ISBN 9780598618450. In 1828 the United States West India squadron was commanded by Flag Officer Charles G. Ridgeley (for his gallant services during the war with the Barbary corsairs this officer had received the congressional gold medal of honor)

[8] "Edward Preble Congressional Medal, Bronze". Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved March 18, 2021.

[9] "Edward Preble". Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved March 18, 2021.

[10] Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers Volume V

[11] William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, Volume 8

[12] Annual Report, Volume 16, American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society

[nyt18700313-13] "The Brooklyn Navy Yard – Its Early History and Present Condition – Who Have Been Commanders – Vessels Pitted Oat – The Workmen and the Buildings". The New York Times. March 13, 1870. p. 8. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved March 18, 2021.

[nydn19081011-14] "Photos Will Greet Him". New York Daily News. October 11, 1908. p. 46. Retrieved March 18, 2021 – via Newspapers.com.

[15] "Ridgely, Charles Goodwin, 1784-1848". Redwood Library and Athenaeum. Retrieved March 18, 2021.

[16] Johnson, Rossiter; Brown, John Howard, eds. (1904). The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans. Vol. IX. Boston: The Biographical Society. p. 112.

[17] Johnson, Rossiter; Brown, John Howard, eds. (1906). The Biographical Dictionary of America. Vol. IX. Boston: The Biographical Society. p. 112.

[18] ttps://cnnphilippines.com/entertainment/2019/3/25/kathryn-bernardo-kids-choice-award-2019.html

[19] Associated Press (24 July 1989), "Motorcyclists unite for the tough road back", Wisconsin State Journal, p. 1B

[20] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxGpzbp2rk%7CAlton and beyond with a part about Meon Valley Passing Loop

[21] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxGpzbp2rk%7CAlton and beyond with a part about Meon Valley Passing Loop

[22] ttps://issuu.com/railmedia/docs/tre-january-15/75

[23] ttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/206498/response/511601/attach/5/FOI%207586%20Dixin%20attachment%202.pdf

[24] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxGpzbp2rk%7CAlton and beyond with a part about Meon Valley Passing Loop

[25] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxGpzbp2rk%7CAlton and beyond with a part about Meon Valley Passing Loop

[26] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxGpzbp2rk%7CAlton and beyond with a part about Meon Valley Passing Loop

[27] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i42-2cCsveE

[28] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gcU3C7UEoU

[29] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jArCxv8M2u8

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[Note 1]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]