Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

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 merge to 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Connecticut. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Connecticut's 4th congressional district election[edit]

2008 Connecticut's 4th congressional district election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Anything notable about this race can be merged into 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Connecticut. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:14, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Aamer[edit]

Shoaib Aamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in searches. Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep played multiple F/C and LA matches, so meets WP:NCRIC. As an WP:ATD, redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Has played 4 FC matches and 5 List-A matches, so very close to the 10 discussed on WP:Cricket recently. A search brought up no real sources, however sources may well exist offline or in Pakistani sources due to the career he had and the time of his career. He has though played for multiple teams so there is no real suitable WP:ATD per WP:XY. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant number of FC and List A games. As usual with User:Störm no details of what searches have been undertaken, whether which online sources or which hardcopy sources. "Non-notable cricketer" is no more than an assertion and reflection of the nominator's bias (whether conscious or unconscious), and isn't grounded in any evidence. No detail of relation of article to WP:NCRIC nor reflection of approach set out in WP:ATHLETE to provide extra latitude for subjects outside the Anglophone sphere where sources are more likely to have been missed. DevaCat1 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've never refuted my rationale. Provide a single good quality source and I will care about your comments. You will comment keep regardless bio passes WP:GNG or not. Störm (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage, only the usual scorecard databases, so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the pass of WP:NCRIC, with no performances of note to suggest coverage exists. No suitable ATD. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing found in my search, not even single article and as a sources only ESPN scorecard is there so strong reliable sources not found & not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92Talk 05:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't have enough notability. Gold ★ 786 13:39, 28 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) 23:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Coupe de France First Preliminary Round[edit]

2018–19 Coupe de France First Preliminary Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Useless article since I have create a page for each regional qualifier. DrSalvus (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. DrSalvus (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: The articles I mean are here DrSalvus (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary level of detail for such an early preliminary round in the competition. Unsure that we need all the regional articles as well. GiantSnowman 09:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a little unsure whats going on, is this duplication or the original content? Also like the others mentioned in that category, they are all terribly structured articles. Putting all that information in collapsable boxes is terrible and shouldn't be done. The whole lot should be constructed more like 2020–21 FA Cup qualifying rounds. Govvy (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: There are a lot of differences beetween FA Cup and Coupe de France. FA Cup is often contested by 736 teams unlike the Coupe de France which is contested by >7000 teams. The Coupe de France preliminary rounda pages need one page for each regional qualifying group and it could not be otherwise as the pages would be too large and difficult to navigate. Before I split the article it covered nearly 400,000 bytes. Dr Salvus 14:21, 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) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burnham Beeches Golf Club[edit]

Burnham Beeches Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a stub, and the only source is the course's website.TH1980 (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with all of these mass-created articles, the key is to identify the original source (in this case a list of the top 100 Golf courses in each county of the UK). Plainly not based on a reliable source and/or not significant coverage, possibly created by algorithm or at least just cut/pasted text given who created it. A search on GNews shows only local coverage, which makes this not a pass for WP:NORG since at least regional/national coverage is needed per WP:AUD. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Several sources have been added to the article that show national coverage. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There has been a little significant coverage. The club also lays claim to being the oldest in Buckinghamshire, and has hosted a Ladies European Tour event. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Wjemather † Encyclopædius 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided show the course has been discussed in some depth by various independent sources. A web search indicates that more sources and information could be added. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sourcing added after being put up for deletion are enough to pass WP:GNG, in my view. They might not be enough for other guidelines but, for golf courses, passing GNG should be sufficient. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer this AfD was inappropriately closed early and needs to be left open at least 75 minutes past 7 days to meet our minimum open deadline. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not the most notable golf course, but I'm finding additional blurbs on top of what's already in the article for hosting minor local professional matches in the 1930s. I'm not sure if Burnham Beeches is an article, but at worst it could be merged there. SportingFlyer T·C 15:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources added by Wjemather which show sustained non-trivial coverage over time. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 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 no consensus. Whether to merge and/or redirect can be discussed on the article talk page and does not require an AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Maharashtra[edit]

North Maharashtra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article for this Northern region in the state of Maharashtra already exists at Khandesh. This article was created by a persistent sockmaster. An administrative division covering the same general area is also named North Maharashtra, but this would mean a simple redirect from North Maharashtra to "Khandesh". I would say that some content be merged and finally redirect to Khandesh. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 20:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 20:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dunny29 (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @GreaterPonce665: I think you are not getting any responses here because the sources seem to support the article content. Is there anyway that you could demonstrate your line of thinking with some evidence or a refutation of this article's evidence? Not being a geography buff of this part of the world, it might helpful if you were to analyze what's wrong with the sources in this article and why the other naming system if preferable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Thanks for the comment. The issue is not that the sources are poor or that the topic is not notable. There's already an article about the topic, albeit with traditional name. The north-west region in Maharashtra state in India is traditionally known as Khandesh and there is already a pretty good article on the topic. In recent years, the state government has named regions by their location, i.e. they started designating Khandesh as North Maharashtra administrative region. This, however, means that "North Maharashtra" should be a simple redirect to "Khandesh" (or merge if people prefer that). Additionally, this article was created by an incompetent but persistent sock and thus should be removed per WP:BMB anyway. I hope this explains my reasoning behind listing this page. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 22:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Do you have a source with both names in it together, proving they are the same? Or two sources with a map showing us? I do totally believe you, but it would be easier to comment having the evidence in front of me rather than having to try and confirm what you are saying by hunting around for sources. That way it's an easy clear cut call to redirect. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @4meter4:, Here the first line of research article states that "The North Maharashtra region comprises three districts, namely Jalgaon, Dhule, and Nandurbar". In pre-independence British-era, these three districts were part of the Khandesh district; this page states that "[Khandesh district] included the present-day Jalgaon, Dhule and Nandurbar districts...". Additional info here. Hope this answers the question about those regions being one and the same. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 14:29, 28 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) 07:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiq Azman[edit]

Shafiq Azman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This footballer has played 1 min of professional football to scrape a passing of WP:NFOOTBALL. Also shown at GSA and Soccerway. I found no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG in a WP:BEFORE search.

There is clear consensus at over 100 similar AfDs that passing NFOOTBALL by a matter of a few minutes is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is long standing consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively here, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remark42[edit]

Remark42 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources used in the version with many of them ([1]) were blogs or brief blurbs in "top X" lists by non-notable entities, which themselves appear to be essentially blog posts. A search for better source material turns up nothing that can be used. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:56, 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) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Aziz (footballer)[edit]

Ibrahim Aziz (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appearances for Harimau Muda B (sourced) and UiTM (unsourced) wouldn't qualify him for WP:NFOOTBALL as he was not playing in a league listed at WP:FPL. Soccerway also has one substitute appearance in the national cup but that was against a third tier side, so also doesn't count.

I have also checked Soccerpunter, Football Selangor and Football Critic, none of which have any appearances. My searches did not yield any significant coverage, nor does his career give any indication that significant coverage would be likely. No evidence of WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Aizenpreisz[edit]

Lazar Aizenpreisz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable footballer. He played 6 mins of professional football back in 2017 but his career since then has been at very low levels and no databases show any sign of a career that has any reasonable chance of getting back to professional level. OEFB has him playing in Landesliga Burgenland last year which is way, way below professional level. Playmaker Stats, MLSZ and GSA also have very little about him.

Searches, including a Hungarian search, yielded zero significant coverage so WP:GNG is not met. 6 mins of WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough to ignore this concern, in my view. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is plenty of consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL from 1 or 2 appearances in insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found then please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom and GiantSnowman, 6 minutes at the second tier nearly 4 years ago and no GNG JW 1961 Talk 11:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another in a long line of non-notable footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non Notable football player and not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:16, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn due to more sources being found. (non-admin closure) pinktoebeans (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Adarsh Vidya Mandir higher secondary school[edit]

Shree Adarsh Vidya Mandir higher secondary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable small secondary school. WP:BEFORE produced no online sources mentioning this school. pinktoebeans (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-(1) I added references independent of the primary source (in fact, primary source do not exist except a facebook page). This is probably due to the poor budget of Nepalese school run by government. (2) Passes WP:NHS. I would like to ask the nominator what small secondary school is? and, what should be the size of school so that it can be kept in wikipedia? nirmal (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nirmaljoshi: Thanks for the addition of more sources and references - could you provide a few short summaries of the sources you've added? I'm not familiar with Nepalese, and if these cover the school beyond more than a passing mention it may be considered notable enough for its own article and I'll close this AfD discussion. Secondary schools must either satisfy WP:ORG, WP:GNG, or both, which there was no evidence of before your update. I used the word "small" to describe the school as my WP:BEFORE search yielded no coverage for it, which there might have been if there were more students. pinktoebeans (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pinktoebeans:Please refer to Talk:Shree Adarsh Vidya Mandir higher secondary school.nirmal (talk) 03:58, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fazrul Amir[edit]

Fazrul Amir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted 3 months ago due to WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL failure. These concerns still remain. This footballer still hasn't played in a league listed at WP:FPL nor is there any significant coverage. Sources outside of the ones in the article are just brief mentions in match reports like Goal, NST and Kosmo which is far from WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject meets WP:NPROF (presumably C1).

For concerns of promotion, the issue seems to have been addressed. (No actual consensus about promotion here, but editing should be preferred unless the article is purely promotional.) (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Ballon[edit]

Pieter Ballon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PR, notability lacking, product of paid editing: see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson_paid_editing Acousmana (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep no clear indication of WP:GNG if he is truly an "expert" on smart cities there should be some international coverage to support this. However, citations are decent in a low-citation field with 8 papers with 100+ citations so according to WP:NPROF I think he would pass the bar. --hroest 23:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chiro725 I agree with the citations, but how does he pass NPROF#6 ? I dont think that he "has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.". --hroest 01:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hannes Röst I am free to change my vote. I thought "Ballon is the director of SMIT (Studies on Media, Innovation and Technologies), a research group that is affiliated with VUB and IMEC, and the scientific director of the Knowledge Centre Data & Society" this may qualify for WP:NACADEMIC#6. Chiro725 (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chiro725 NPROF#6 is usually reserved for the president of a university (highest-level elected office), but this he is clearly not. Basically being the "director of a research group" does not mean more than just being a professor that gave his research group a fancy name. To fulfill NPROF#6 he would have to become president of VUB. Btw, he could meet NPROF#5 as a named chair. In either case, I think the citations may just be enough to clear the bar. --hroest 02:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hannes Röst understood and agreed. Chiro725 (talk) 02:10, 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) 23:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Anh[edit]

Kim Anh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Music PR, notability lacking, product of paid editing: see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson_paid_editing Acousmana (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide what that criteria is? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobmcpherson, the relevant page is WP:MUS. Note that this is just a guideline, and second-tier to our general notability guideline. Also, see WP:NBIO. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed music producers are missing from this page Jacobmcpherson (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would some of her contributions be notable by these guidelines? Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmcpherson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried doing a search on google for .be websites, not much of anything turns up there either. I few photos and such. Likely not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no SIGCOV, falls short of NMUSIC.-KH-1 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not passing WP:MUSICBIO with a few EPs and remixes. Her being ambassador of LA pride is not a noteworthy fact nor her being official DJ for GLAAD Media Awards. Chiro725 (talk) 00:32, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip McGough[edit]

Philip McGough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references other than unreliable WP:IMDB; while they might meet WP:NACTOR I wasn't able to find significant coverage in reliable sources to write a decent article (most of what my search turned up was simply copied from Wikipedia). Elli (talk | contribs) 03:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Added some refs as there weren't any. Not any real sigov other than Independent piece about radio 4 programme he conceived and starred in, and a Mirror interview which cannot be used as Sigcov, being a tabloid and an interview. However was a member of the RSC in 1979, and has held multiple roles in TV (including one of the best Only Fools episodes Chain Gang) which I think meets WP:NACTOR - just.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He does show notability by playing a villain (not quite Jim Fenner, admittedly) in Bad Girls, as a result being nominated for a soap award as well as being a baddie (kinda) in a Doctor Who Dalek serial. Goes to prove he has recognition.2A00:23C6:D884:6401:6D68:AD35:3C75:C74F (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would have thought his television career makes him notable. He had a regular role in Doctors in which is character was at the centre of major plotlines and appeared as an important character in several episodes of Bad Girls, both of which were major TV series at the time he was in them. In addition he played the main guest character in an episode of Only Fools and Horses. His stage and radio work also appears to be notable. That said, there is less online coverage of his career than I might expect. Dunarc (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out Go the Lights[edit]

Out Go the Lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No coverage found except some passing mentions in local media and neither does the article itself indicate in any way why this is a notable band. Lennart97 (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic red-flag for music/band deletion is when the only source is the band's own webpage. I found a bandcamp page and a seemingly inactive facebook page with 800 followers, which contains a post celebrating what appears to be their most-worth-bragging-about press: An "Olando Weekly" column that name checks/describes them among bands that performed at a local pub. Not nearly enough to pass wikipedia criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article had other sources and more content than it has now[2] but most of it was removed for a reason that is unclear[3]. Still not enough for WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Peter James (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:14, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Institutes[edit]

Global Institutes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy NORG as there are no RS. Created by a SPA. Vikram Vincent 13:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI cannot find any data to show it is a degree awarding institution. Vikram Vincent 14:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article and its website certainly say it is! Why do you think it isn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because they are affiliated to a University which awards the degree. These dont have degree awarding powers if I am not mistaken. Vikram Vincent 16:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • By "degree-awarding institution" we mean any college that teaches to degree level, not specifically only those that award their own degrees (this would, for instance, rule out British polytechnics, which did not award their own degrees). This has always been the case. Affiliated colleges still meet the criteria. This status is, of course, particularly common for colleges in India, and many of them have been kept on this basis, forming a rough consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that consensus is irrelevant! Not sure where you got that one from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! There is even a {{outcomes}} tag to state that :-) If you can find some data to support notability it would be great, Necrothesp. Best! Vikram Vincent 16:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is the whole basis of how we do things on Wikipedia. It is never irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You act like the notability guidelines and them being the standard came from magical fairy dust or something one day and had nothing to do with consensus building. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Vincentvikram is randomly nominating articles without any solid statement. I noticed, he provided almost same reason (Notability and non Reliable Sources) for all articles nominated for deletion. It seems like his edits are not constructive on Wikipedia. DMySon 17:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Does not satisfy NORG as there are no RS. Created by a SPA" seems like a pretty solid statement about why Vincentvikram did this AfD to me. Anyway, even if it wasn't 99% of AfDs are nominated because of a lack of notability and the articles containing non-reliable Sources. So, you must be of the opinion that no AfD is a "constructive edit." --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of the article and therefore the article itself lack the required reliable in-depth sources need for it to be notable. So, the only thing worth doing here is to do delete the article. Otherwise, the people who disagree can WP:THREE instead of Strawmaning the nominator and I'll be happy to change my vote to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not seeing how this organization is notable -- and the third-party, in-depth references are not forthcoming. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:48, 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. While by pure nose counting the keeps and deletes are equal, the delete arguments argue a lack of sufficient reference material to sustain this article, and the keep arguments do little to refute this assertion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITS Engineering College[edit]

ITS Engineering College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NORG as there are no WP:RS to support. The refs in the list are either primary source, paid advertisements or unreliable. Vikram Vincent 13:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Necrothesp! I noticed that you copy-pasted the same message on multiple AfDs. Can you please point out the data related to the "degree-awarding" aspect of this and other institutions you have responded to. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 15:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because the same point is relevant to all of them! Consensus has always been that we keep degree-awarding tertiary institutions, as outlined in WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Necrothesp So these are not degree awarding institutions as it clearly says. Rather they are affiliated to some university which awards the degrees. Would that also be covered under school outcomes? Vikram Vincent 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. By "degree-awarding institution" we mean any college that teaches to degree level, not specifically only those that award their own degrees (this would, for instance, rule out British polytechnics, which did not award their own degrees). This has always been the case. Affiliated colleges still meet the criteria. This status is, of course, particularly common for colleges in India, and many of them have been kept on this basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can you please link that guidelines which equates "degree-awarding" to "teaching at degree level". In India, we actually have private institutions which *do* award degrees and these are called private deemed universities. This and other AFDs you have been !voting on do not come under that category. Vikram Vincent 16:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I have said, this is consensus and has been applied many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that consensus is irrelevant! Not sure where you got that one from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used the {{outcomes}} tag. This is a private institution with no inherent notability. Vikram Vincent 14:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp From here, I found this, Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. Here, there are clear guidelines for notability of an organisation and I think any institution will have to show notability. You stating that your "keep" vote is based on past consensus is contrary. I would urge you to reconsider all your !votes if consensus is your only argument. Best! Vikram Vincent 18:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion stands. I've participated in hundreds of these discussions and I've seen the clear consensus to keep degree-awarding tertiary institutions. You're not going to change my mind by continually quoting ever more irrelevant bits of Wikipedia at me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognised university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical 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 18:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total rubbish level sources. It is time we start requiring all articles on educational institutions to meet our notability guidelines for organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like John Pack Lambert says the level of sourcing for this college is totally bad and the guidelines about private colleges (which were built on consensus BTW) are clear that should be treated no differently then any other organization when it comes to notability. So, there's nothing about this that warrants it being kept from either a guideline or consensus based (as if they aren't the same thing anyway) position. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty simple really, other stuff exists isn't a valid AfD argument. Period. Also, by continuing to go off about it your bludgeoning. Especially with the wall of links. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poorly nominated article. The article definitely needs clean up to sound less promotional. A better WP:BEFORE was expected. sources like [4], [5] exist. Chiro725 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you have provided are extremely trivial and otherwise do nothing for the colleges notability. Especially the second one. Which is a dead link and appears to be primary anyway. In no way does a dead, primary source help for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the first link, "Annual literary and cultural fest “Udghosh 2018” at ITS Engineering College " is based on a press release and cannot be used for notability. Vikram Vincent 08:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chiro725 I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination if you can show WP:THREE sources that satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Best! Vikram Vincent 08:22, 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 no consensus due to persistent lack of participation. No particularly strong arguments to keep or delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes, California[edit]

Hayes, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a bit of a train wreck, as it was originally about a spot in Fresno County, but was co-opted to talk about a spot on the west side of Los Angeles. Neither of these appear to be notable. The Fresno spot is attested to only by Durham and I see no reason to revert to that version. Topos show the LA spot to be a former rail location that has disappeared into So Cal sprawl. So, not a settlement, either way. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To unclutter for the review, I reverted the intro text to the Fresno location, which text was changed in 2016.[6]--Milowent • hasspoken 13:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have expanded the article some, including a link to a map (which appears to be public domain and can be added)[7] showing the location of Hayes, which seems to be more usually called "Hayes Station". There are lots of older book references to it as a location. People still live there, but the place name use for this rural area appears to have fallen out of favor in the decades since the post office closed. As the mass of Fresno County articles get sorted through, some like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodmill, California certainly don't merit their own article, but I'd say this one does. Kudos to Mangoe for figuring out the mess of the two separate locations that the article had devolved into.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Universe Puerto Rico#Titleholders. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estefanía Soto[edit]

Estefanía Soto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan page of a beauty contestant. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Current sourcing is mostly non-RS, with a primary source thrown in. Onel5969 TT me 17:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 17:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:27, 13 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 17:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cabayi (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Task Scheduler[edit]

Windows Task Scheduler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The only source in this article that's not a primary source is a news article covering the release of Windows 98. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notable component of a major product of a major corporation. Notability was established with additional references including published books. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A google book search returns uncountable secondary references. The nom has not done a WP:BEFORE check. Jeepday (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jeepday please AGF. I did do before and did see all the hits on google books. They are all how-to guides and manuals for using Windows, covering the basics of using this built-in program in a few pages max each. I didn't feel any of them meet WP:SIGCOV. These are the kind of sources that were added in the article by User:Ghettoblaster, and I've yet to see a RS that covers exclusively this program in details.
Ideally, I'd like to see this article updated [edit:with RS]. What happened to this program after Windows 7? Is it still being updated? Did Microsoft announce its discontinuation? Or did they just quietly got rid of it? The latter case would lead me to believe that this was never a notable program in the first place. Mottezen (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a book or another source that covers exclusively this program is required for it to be notable. The pure number of books and other sources on the web referring to this component is proof enough that it is a notable component. Also, it is still included in the most recent version of Microsoft Windows as can be seen in the additional reference I just added. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mottezen RE: "Ideally, I'd like to see this article updated." I stand by my statement that nom has not payed attention to WP:BEFORE "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." It seems like you brought the article to Afd because you want someone to update it. Jeepday (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What a pedantic comment. It goes without saying that I meant "updated with RS". Mottezen (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seemplez {{ping}} me 16:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources added to the article since nomination which pre-existed makes this questionable nomination and WP:BEFORE may not have been understood. If my addition is correct (and sometimes it isn't) the relisted has not shown competency in waited 168 hours to relist and may need to recuse from relisting as if it was left it could have been closed.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Need to ping Seemplez so they are aware. 13:27, 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. Cabayi (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Miller[edit]

Harris Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia WP:GNG and WP:BLP and WP:NOTABILITY standards not met. Minor unsuccessful political candidates are not notable. The previous AfD review occurred 15 years ago and this person has not achieved notability in politics or business since, and there is no indication of historically relevant notability. In addition, the article is written in a way that exhibits WP:COI concerns. ABT021 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Above content was appended to the previous discussion page from 2006. There was also no transclusion to the daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. @ABT021: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO and note that nominating a page which had been discussed at AfD previously (regardless of result) requires the creation of a new discussion page rather than adding to the old one. Thanks. --Finngall talk 16:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In 2006 loosing in a primary election was enough to show notability, we have since realized that such a standard was absurd and unsupportable, we need to delete this article on this person who is not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in political party primaries. To be notable enough for inclusion, he would have to show that he has other notability claims for other reasons besides the candidacy per se, such that he would have gotten over our inclusion standards for those other things regardless of whether he won or lost the election per se — such as having already held a different notable political office, or getting over our notability standards for his pre-candidacy career. But nothing here demonstrates that. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 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. Cabayi (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonita Davis[edit]

Jonita Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject (a freelance journalist) does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. All references to the subject that I've been able to find online have all been either author bios or articles written by her. Kyuko (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kyuko (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Kyuko (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Kyuko (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sufficient non routine coverage has been presented to satisfy gng. Fenix down (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleta Kingsley[edit]

Eleta Kingsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had a look, but I don't see any indication he has played a professional game to pass WP:NFOOTBALL, soccerway only has Bangladesh league which is not pro. And I really don't see enough to pass WP:GNG either. Govvy (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Do not delete. I think this player is quite popular and has good media coverage. Also he's a top flight player. Passes NFOOTBALL. Diptadg17 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Fails NFOOTBALL but passes WP:GNG. He has been extensively covered in Bangladeshi newspapers in full articles, article by The Independent, article by the New Age, article by The Business Standard, article1 and article2 by Prothom Alo and article by Samakal.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Please,do not delete.He is quite popular and has good media coverage. And he's a top flight player.P.H.TARU (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject clearly fails NFOOTBALL but the sources provided by Vinegarymass clearly address Kingsley directly and in detail, so WP:GNG is met, which supersedes NFOOTBALL. The sourcing is more than just routine transfer coverage and match reporting so I believe that there is enough of a reason to keep this. Well done for finding them as basic Google searches don't tend to bring these up easily. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:35, 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 merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Connecticut. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Connecticut's 4th congressional district election[edit]

2006 Connecticut's 4th congressional district election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Anything notable about this race can be merged into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Connecticut. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a consensus that while most elementary schools are not notable this one has enough sourcing to be an exception. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community Outreach Academy Elementary[edit]

Community Outreach Academy Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Elementary schools are almost never notable, and one article in the local paper is not enough to overcome that general lack of notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It actually has coverage in news sources beyond the basic "Kid X won the geography bee, and their team played the other team." A source from Belarus discussing language classes taught there[8]. Another article covering the fact that the school caters to people from the Russian and Ukrainian diaspora to Sacramento[9]. Press release from the Belarusian embassy [10]. There's also apparently some controversy because some news sources say they have a Russian Cossack paramilitary youth organization at the Community Outreach Academy in Sacramento, CA[11]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is far from a typical elementary and thanks to ScottishFinnishRadish for finding those great sources. It's extremely unusual for an elementary school to garner accreditation from the national accreditation authorities independently. Almost all accredited elementary schools are accredited due to their school district being accredited. Charter elementary schools are also uncommon. In its current state, the article sucks, but poor writing isn't a reason to delete. Easily meets GNG, and there's a potential for a GA here. 174.254.192.241 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claim "charter elementary school are uncommon" is just plain bunk. There are dozens of them just in the city of Detroit. Accredidation documents are primary sources, and cannot be used to show notability. One article in the local paper is just not enough to show notability. Press releases never add to notability, so that rubbish should not even be brought up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And the international secondary coverage here, here, and here? This wasn't even an exhaustive search for sources, just what I found after a quick perusal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • JPL, the Detroit situation is fairly unique. DPS had control of their schools taken away by the state and handed over to a private concern. It isn't typical. They are however not as unusual as I originally thought (69 in Cali, for example), so I will strike that argument. Thanks. 174.254.192.241 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your comment only shows you know nothing about Detroit. The vast majority of charter schools in Detroit were never under DPS control in any way, shape, means or form. So you should stop commenting on what you know nothing about. Most charter schools in Detroit are in buildings that were at one point Catholic parochial schools, and they are often adjacent to present or former Catholic parishes, but there is a broad history of the buildings involved and this does not include all of them. DPS still exists and controls a huge number of buildings. There are also a large number of charter elementary schools in Detroit's sububrs. 69 is not nearly as rare a number as you claim. The sourcing here is still not enough to pass our notability guidelines. Stop lieing about the nature of Detroit schools. I taught at multiple charter schools in the city of Detroit, and my grandson has attended others, and none of these institutions were in buildings that were ever under DPS control, nor were they in any way, shape means or form connected to any institution that was every under DPS control. You are completely and totally ignorant of the situation in Detroit and so should stop commenting on something you know nothing about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One charter school I taught at in Detroit was intentionally built as a charter school. Another I taught at in Warren was in a former grocery store. Both were 8th grade and under only, and both had no institutional connections in any way to any school district.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This is a part of AfD of particular interest to me -- primary schools nominated under the premise that primary schools are non-notable, but where the school in question actually does appear to be so. It's certainly not run-of-the-mill for primary schools to have international coverage or Cossack militia. That said, the article sucks, and no one seems to have demonstrated the enthusiasm to make the article suck less; I am reticent to unhesitantingly support keeping articles in terrible shape that can be expected to remain so indefinitely. Vaticidalprophet 07:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. There is a consensus that this article is not notable and given the expressed conflict of interest otherwise needs to go through Articles for Creation. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedzai[edit]

Feedzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or DraftifyDoes not seem to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. References seem to be press releases, unreliable sources, paid articles.. The creator of the article is an SPA and some contributors may be connected. Vikram Vincent 12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ssfdz it might be good to keep a copy of the article at User:Ssfdz/feedzai. You can a copy the content without the templates and category tags and work on it. The other option is to have it converted into a draft where you can get experienced editors to give you feedback. Which would you prefer? Vikram Vincent 16:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Made a copy for you in user subpage. Vikram Vincent 04:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per Vincentvikram. Could not find anything other than some press releases. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 Discuss 04:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Probably suitable for G11. ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 15:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pending: Re-evaluating the article. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete as of right now. Note that corporations are generally evaluated against WP:NCORP only instead of WP:GNG.
      Sieving through sources found from searches with query string Feedzai -wikipedia -globenewswire -bizwire -wire -prnewswire and intitle:Feedzai -wikipedia -globenewswire -bizwire -wire -prnewswire. The first few pages do not look good as it looks like either they fail WP:ORGIND or WP:CORPDEPTH. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am the editor. I'd like to fully disclose my conflict at this time. (I am an employee of the company). Which sources are problematic? I'd like to resolve any problems as quickly as possible. Please advise on next steps. The updates I made to the page are intended to be neutral. Ssfdz (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Made significant edits to the page in an effort to bring it more in line with encyclopedic standards. Removed several press releases and blog citations. Open to any additional suggestions on how to improve the page to meet WP:GNG. Ssfdz (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have cleaned up most of the press release related data and hyperbole claims from tangential data after looking at each source in depth. Seems the page is now a stub. Vikram Vincent 15:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The primary problem is that none of the references meet the requirements for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. The Forbes article is on the "sites" part of the website and is not considered reliable. The other other references all use fairly standard boiler-plate descriptions copied from the company's website or PR announcements, nothing that passes WP:ORGIND at any rate. HighKing++ 15:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluation of edits per WP:HEY welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Vincentvikram Thank you for making a copy. The subject has just made some news today. What's the best approach to make updates at this stage? Should I make them to the subpage and let editors offer suggestions?Ssfdz (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ssfdz I'd say go make the edits on the main page. I'll help you clean it up if necessary. Vikram Vincent 16:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of demons in the Ars Goetia#Glasya-Labolas. The actual consensual redirect target is List of demons in the Ars Goetia so the anchor refinement of redirect target is an editorial decision.

Consensus (though not a strong one, but justifiable by the long open discussion time) was that the subject does not meet WP:GNG and reiterations of the same source cannot add to its notability. Merging old content may be done at editors' discretion. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glasya-Labolas[edit]

Glasya-Labolas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Part of the List of demons in the Ars Goetia. The only source appears to be that work, and I find nothing else substantial; this is not a common figure in popular culture, and of course there is no reliable sourcing of actual interactions with demons. I expect that merging up to 72 articles to that page may be controversial; per a recent RFC it is in order to propose blank-and-redirects at this forum. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Pladica (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Pladica (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The existing reference meets WP:V on a quick search I find this as well as several other references in books prior to 1970. While they are mostly minor, they support WP:V as for WP:GNG there are multiple hits in modern books. Many of these are essentially the same as the 1904 work and/or Wikipedia. As for the statement "no reliable sourcing of actual interactions with demons." I am not sure what is meant by this, historical or modern, in any case, searching for reliable references to any spirt one does not believe in, is problematic. Jeepday (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any hits that are not "essentially the same as the 1904 work and/or Wikipedia" (or any other translation of the Ars Goetia)? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of demons in the Ars Goetia - While some of the 72 Goetia demons are notable enough, with enough coverage, to have their own articles, this one really is not. The source being used in the article is just a translation of the original The Lesser Key of Solomon, and pretty much every other source out there is just a reiteration of the same piece of information from that original text. The entirety of the contents of this article is already present on the main list, as well, so I am not really seeing a reason to have this also be WP:SPLIT out into an individual article on top of that. Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion on the possibility of merger/redirect as compared to keeping wholesale welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:28, 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) 23:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UltraBac[edit]

UltraBac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP Mottezen (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This company probably is not notable enough for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, but their product (UltraBac) may be. I found one solid review in the InfoWorld magazine (19 August 1998, pp. 46D and 46L), but not much more, so I´m unable to rewrite the article. Pavlor (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a user finds more sources about this product and feels confident an article could be written about it that's not promotional and not a stub, I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination and rescope this article. But I'd have to see the sources first. Mottezen (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kudos to The Eloquent Peasant for improving the article during the AFD process. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Rivera (labor official)[edit]

Dennis Rivera (labor official) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page contains nothing noteworthy, no newsworthy citations, and offers no reason for this page to exist. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP or WP:NOTEWORTHY criteria. ABT021 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rivera is notable as a nationally recognized expert in the U.S. healthcare system who's worked since 1992 in educating the public on the system, and leading and organizing labor unions. While the article does need to be expanded (I did a little), a quick internet search reveals extensive coverage of Rivera in Reliable Sources. See WP:BEFORE - this article can be fixed through normal editing.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per The Eloquent Peasant. Also, I did a news search and plenty of reliable sources came up mentioning Rivera. Antonio The Authority Martin (yo!) 10:49, 24 March, 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chitarkoni. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jama Masjid, Chitarkoni[edit]

Jama Masjid, Chitarkoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded with the rationale, "deprod; 17C buildings are generally notable, even in countries which do not have good heritage listing; take to AfD". Now, sometimes I have to laugh at myself, as it took me days to realize that 17C referred to 17th century. I was thinking more along the lines of the Indian version of NHRP. And while I agree with the deprodder's rationale, my issue with the article is that the single source does not appear to mention the article's subject at all. So I wasn't sure that this building, as described in the article, even exists. It's been tagged for a month with improvement tags, without any attempt at improvement. Right now, it fails WP:VERIFY. Searches turned up zero coverage. Onel5969 TT me 15:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chitarkoni since all of this content is already included in that article and this is an unnecessary fork. Mccapra (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested above. Prose is essentially just pulled from Chitarkoni article and this article doesn't stand up on its own. May have scope for future expansion, so redirecting can at least preserve the current state in article history. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 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. Cabayi (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vir Bhadra Yumnam[edit]

Vir Bhadra Yumnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No reason offered. Moved over from draftspace by User:Virbhadrayumnam after being declined by the reviewer (interesting that the username matches the name of the article's subject!).

Does not meet any criteria set at WP:FILMMAKER and has not been involved in any notable productions. Fails WP:GNG; couldn't even find one example of significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:34, 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) 23:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gryttie[edit]

Gryttie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mythical/cryptozoological creature in Sweden. Fails WP:GNG. During the WP:BEFORE i looked for reliable sources, but could only find some unreliable ones. Sjö (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Sjö (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sjö (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched in Swedish folk tales but I could not find nothing. VocalIndia (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - found no useful info. For now at least, delete.BabbaQ (talk) 08:41, 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) 23:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Ruocco[edit]

Salvatore Ruocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR rejected at AFC and then moved to main space. Theroadislong (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Judging by the username of the page's creator, probably a case of WP:COI/WP:SELF too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, the French wiki has an article on this chap, as does the Italian one (in the latter case, at least what I presume to be the same person, although the DOB is off by three years — and to further add to the confusion, IMDb and RottenTomatoes both show a different year again.) Anyway, based on the Italian and French wikis, he seems in fairness to have done quite a bit of work, but unfortunately both articles are just as poorly referenced, and therefore no help whatever in establishing notability; a search finds nothing, either. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he is not a major actor, but has been in many films, which have their own Wikipedia pages (check the Italian) version. I couldn't find good press mentions for him, but I would suggest moving the article to draft as new sources can appear in the future. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It already exists in draft form here Draft:Salvatore Ruocco where it was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is pretty close to being unsourced, and I do not see WP:RS in a search that would improve things. The versions in other languages appear to be autobiography efforts, judging by their edit histories. Neither one provided any sources--at all.--- Possibly (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the result is delete, then Draft:Salvatore Ruocco should also be deleted.--- Possibly (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no decent sources found in a search and the article, in its current state, is not fit to stay on Wikipedia. A copy already exists in draft so, if by some chance, sources do come to light, then someone can still work on this article and bring it to an acceptable level. We lose nothing of value by deleting this article and it doesn't look likely that Ruocco actually meets WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping a draft after a deletion discussion would only be appropriate if the result is draft-ify.--- Possibly (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in that case, let's just delete it. It's vanity spam anyway. If he is that notable, someone without a blatant COI can and will create it someday. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 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.


[1] Dear spiderne I kindly ask you to reactivate actor Salvatore Ruocco's wiki page. I think it's ready for wikipedia. I thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.179.146.43 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Icarus Interstellar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Icarus Interstellar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic was brought up at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Spacedrives along with their project about an antimatter rocket, the latter of which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket. It was noticed that this article is written like a PR and has flimsy, WP:PROFRINGE sources. Upon analysis of the sources, there was at most one usable item for notability.

List of sources:

  1. [12]: Primary source.
  2. [13]: Dead link to and Alaska government website, possibly with regards to its registration status as a nonprofit.
  3. [14]: Primarily an interview.
  4. [15]: Primary source.
  5. [16]: Dead link, presumably a primary source.
  6. Duplicate of 1
  7. [17]: Paywalled, can't tell.
  8. Duplicate of 3
  9. [18]: Primarily about their Project Persephone, not Icarus; almost entirely based on the members' own comments.
  10. [19]: Dead link
  11. [20]: Primarily about Project Persephone; seems rather pro-fringe.
  12. [21]: Dead link?
  13. [22]: Passing mention; primarily about Eric Davies.
  14. [23]: Scheduale for a conference organized by Icarus.
  15. [24]: PR-like article describing the the conference; I don't think this is encyclopedic.
  16. [25]: PR.
  17. [26]: Dead link.
  18. [27]: Primary source.

The previous nomination in 2014 did not adequately scrutinize the sources found, and may have been held to lower standards than current WP:FRINGE guidelines. The article claims that no updates on their projects have been published since 2015, suggesting that the project went inactive not long after the last AfD; thus, I have not attempted WP:BEFORE. It may also be worth investigating the articles about their specific projects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per User:LaundryPizza03's excellent analysis. I urge anyone evaluating this AfD to read Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Spacedrives. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in more recent coverage except passing mentions of the "oh yes, this also exists" variety. The previous AfD did not seem to examine the quality of the sources with the seriousness that I'd hope for. It's possible that we could say something about this organization in some article somewhere, but this PR job needs to go. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to obvious fringe issues (fusion drive, antimatter drive), the organization's mission statement sets a goal of interstellar flight by the year 2100. As it is currently AD 2021 when I am writing this, I feel confident in applying WP:TOOSOON here without hesitation. (As an aside, I note that they have a project similar to my username, but I have no connection to this company or project, have never heard of them before now, and we both likely used similar mythological sources). Hyperion35 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists 13 publications in the peer-reviewed Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, which isn't FRINGEy. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, such publications were also not particularly noteworthy in the grand scheme of things. It's wonderful when societies like this publish journals, but when they remain as obscure as this particular journal, it is not really Wikipedia's job to use publications of this sort as a basis for a notability argument whether or not the papers/journal in question is strictly WP:FRINGE material. jps (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thirteen review papers in a low-tier, regional journal is an extremely poor showing for a scientific field like interstellar travel. Furthermore, these papers are only cited by a handful of publications by later researchers. Finally, looking at JSTOR and Google Scholar, there seems to be a distinct absence of recent, post-2013, conference presentations and peer-review papers related directly to Icarus Interstellar. From what I can find, there is a lack of any indication that Icarus Interstellar has made a recognizable significant contribution to science and is even actively researching anything. The recent activity seems to be on its online shop and blog. Paul H. (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether there is recent activity. Notability is never connected to the recency of activity. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of followup by other scientists as indicated by the lack of subsequent citations of research and the lack of any continuing progress in their research is a strong indication in science that Icarus Interstellar failed to produce anything significant / notable to continue working on. Simply, Icarus Interstellar is a dead end that lacks any significant (notable) influence on the development of its field of specialty. Unless such a dead end can shown to have had a notably influence on the development of its field using reliable sources, it is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Paul H. (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Merely having published isn't evidence of wiki-notability. Compare the notability guideline for individual scientists: the first way to be notable is if their research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Importantly, Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. We need more than the existence of writings; we need evidence of their influence. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "lack of followup by other scientists as indicated by the lack of subsequent citations of research" is indicative of a lack of notability. However, the "distinct absence of recent, post-2013, conference presentations and peer-review papers related directly to Icarus Interstellar" is not. Albert Einstein hasn't published anything recently either. We judge them on what they have done and whether it is notable: it does not matter if what they've done is not recent. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Einstein continues to get citations long after his death, and that's not counting the people who work with theories he pioneered but who don't bother pointing to specific papers of his because his ideas are so successful as to become ubiquitous. Icarus Interstellar didn't get significant attention while it was active, and nothing they did years ago has become more influential in the interim. XOR'easter (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, yes, the "lack of followup by other scientists as indicated by the lack of subsequent citations of research" is indicative of a lack of notability. I wasn't disagreeing with that. I am reminding other editors of WP:NTEMP. Repeated reference has been made to them not being active in recent years, but this has no relevance to the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case, the problem is that their primary notability appears to be due to prospective future events. This is why I pointed to WP:TOOSOON in my comment above. If there was further recent coverage of their efforts towards their planned space program, then that might be notable. But if there is not further coverage, and without any actual accomplishment, then that would indicate a lack of notability. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having a subscription to the New York Times, I visited Source 7, [28]: Paywalled, can't tell. This article does not offer any evidence of notability for the Icarus Interstellar. The article simply presents two short quotes about interstellar travel from Richard Obousy and simply identifies him as president of Icarus Interstellar. The article does not say that Icarus Interstellar is notable in any manner. It just mentions that is a group of volunteers researching interstellar travel. Paul H. (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think issues with WP:SOAP are also present here. It seems to me that boosters of this outfit may be hoping to use Wikipedia to gain additional notoriety which is WP:NOT what we are supposed to be doing here. jps (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all the comments and analyses above; i.e., the subject is not notable and nearly every source is unreliable, irrelevant, and/or WP:PROMO. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:20, 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 keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divya S. Iyer[edit]

Divya S. Iyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has nothing notable to claim to have an independent article. This article was earlier rejected multiple number of times at AFC. The sources are giving some routine coverage about her marriage and pregnancy. That is not sufficient to establish notability. She has no significant coverage hence fails GNG. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 10:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 10:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 10:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 10:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 10:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing vote by blocked sock and discussion thereof. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man. --Blablubbs|talk 11:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strong Keep The article is reviewed by Melcous. Please see Google search results, Google news results, books results, Scholar results WP refs. ProudMallu (📨│📝) 11:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Firstly, it's a bit poor form to create an article under one user name, and then come and argue at AfD under another. I don't know if there's a policy against that, but IMHO there should be. Secondly, Melcous seems to have tagged the article for notability, which probably automatically marked it as reviewed — hardly the endorsement you seem to think it is. And as for linking all those Google searches, this is a bit pointless as everyone's search results will differ, and in any case if you have found reliable sources sufficient to establish notability, then you can add them to the article; it's of your creation, after all. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed my username with the person of an admin. You can check that here. ProudMallu (📨│📝) 11:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know you did, that's how I found out that you are the same editor. My point remains: creating the article under one username and voting here under another (however that came about) gives the impression that your vote is a neutral, unbiased one, whereas it's the article creator voting to keep their article (as would be expected). Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the weakest of weak keeps, that is. There are enough reliable sources, with sufficient coverage, to establish WP:GNG, even if (an in this respect I do agree with the nom) there doesn't appear to be much claim of noteworthiness. An example of where technical notability supersedes IRL one, and an article may end up surviving that really shouldn't? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to others: The user ProudMallu, who created this article is under suspicion for violating our guidelines. There is already a case against this user at SPI regarding personal attacks like this [29] and using multiple accounts. ProuMallu is also suspected for sockpuppetry. See this [30]. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Strong keep: Basically my entire argument can be found within this Teahouse discussion, where I discuss and link to sources I found while performing very rudimentary WP:BEFORE. I encourage anyone participating in this discussion as well as the reviewing administrator to look at some of the sources there and read my full argument. I not only believe that the article's subject exceeds the standards laid out by the WP:GNG, but also that, unlike in DoubleGrazing's vote, there's no issue with the claim of noteworthiness. The nom, Kichu, is entirely incorrect about the extent of reliable, independent sources' coverage of the subject, insofar as it goes well beyond her marriage and pregnancy, which you can easily see by looking at the sources I provided at the Teahouse. Kichu was involved in this Teahouse discussion and should therefore be well aware of this obviously non-routine coverage. Likewise, as best I can tell, the draft at AfC was rejected once, not "multiple times". The article should be cleaned up and have much more coverage given to the land controversy, which received sustained coverage in multiple reliable state-wide and even national news sources, but the subject herself handily merits an article. I want to note that the draft's creator, ProudMallu, notified me of this discussion on my talk page (in a manner teetering on inappropriate notification) but that I had every intention of participating in this discussion in the first place. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:TheTechnician27, its Padavalamkuttanpilla who reviewed the draft. So I would like to ping him here. @Padavalamkuttanpilla: And if you see the comment by another experienced reviewer in that teahouse discussion, his opinion was also that the subject is not getting enough significant coverage. He also said the 3 sources you provide does not pass GNG. This is his comment copied from that discussion;At the time I reviewed the article, it had 14 sources. I was confident that 11 did not pass GNG. I evaluated this source you mentioned as not passing GNG because there is only about a paragraph of information on her specifically, which is less than the standard I was taught of at least two paragraphs. After consulting with Onel, who is very experienced at new page patrol and AFD, he assessed the 3 sources I was unsure about as also not passing GNG And we three are not not the only three users who thinks the subject is not notable. I was not the person who placed the notability tag. You can see the edit history. Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You the person who placed notability tag first check this. And you are doing all these intentionally now. ProudMallu (📨│📝) 16:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • See this [31]. I may have placed it. But I didnt ask Melcous to place it. And you ProudMallu, Im waiting for Oshwah to come online. You requested to delete your own account and said you dont want to edit again [32] And here you come again, Just to vote as keep and canvass other editors into this discussion [33]. I have nothing more to say. You will see the rest. Good luck. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 17:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beccaynr, I have no objection regarding the reliablity of sources. But all these are just some routine or incidential coverage rather than significant coverage. As per WP:GNG, a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.T he first source you provided is basically an interview, the second one is about the subject acting in a minor role in a movie, the third, fourth and fifth one is about her marriage (due to the fact she married a member of legislative assembly), the sixth one is about some conteoversy in which she was a part of, the seventh and eight one is also about an incident where she gets transfered to some other place, the last one is basically about how the Kerala goverment fought Covid-19 and she explains that in interview. (This source actually does not gives her any least coverage!). Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 21:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BASIC states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," and I think these sources, taken together, show WP:SUSTAINED coverage of her career, including but not limited to in-depth biographical news coverage because she was a high-profile political figure who married a high-profile political figure, as noted by The Quint in 2017. I also think the first source is not routine or incidental, because it offers context and biographical information about several aspects of her career:
This bureaucrat also heals, The Hindu, 2017

The feel of the stethoscope around her neck after more than a couple of years was familiar yet exciting for Sub-Collector Divya S. Iyer during a visit to Vithura on Sunday.

Ms. Iyer, a physician before becoming embarking on a bureaucratic career, was at a few tribal settlements to take part in a medical camp along with a team from the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) here.

The camp was held as part of Unnat Bharat Abhiyan, a Union government programme for rural uplift launched in association with institutions such as IITs, NITs, and IISERs.

Nearly 200 people from the Chathancode, Chemmankala, and Valiakala settlements reached the camp. Of them, 110 had registered as patients, while the rest were accompanying them or had come to meet the Sub-Collector.

The patients reported various health problems, such as joint pain, caused by what looked like rheumatoid arthritis. Then there were cataract cases. A young woman had a skin disease that was pervasive but she had not seen a doctor for it. But what surprised Ms. Iyer the most was coming across cases of hypertension. “One does expect to see this in a tribal area. Some of the people even said that their parents died of it,” Ms. Iyer says.

After the camp, a forest rights committee meeting was held. Ms. Iyer found that the tribal people were not aware of their forest rights, which among other things, allowed them entry into the forests to forage for produce such as honey. “Nothing much had happened in the area of forest rights here in years. As none of them had applied for the certificate for this, forms for the same were distributed,”she said.

Though they lacked access to various amenities, the tribespeople were very aware of things happening around them, she found. They knew about environmental issues, and complained about the impact of tourism on forests – plastics bags and bottles left strewn about, trees being cut.

“It was good to see that. One of the women even remembered Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Nalini Netto’s visit there years ago,” Ms. Iyer recounts.

The loss of their traditional way of life is something that Ms. Iyer is concerned about. “Their traditional ways of occupation, healing, farming and so on were eco-friendly and should not be lost. I have asked the IISER to research and consolidate data on their traditional knowledge,” she said.

Ms. Iyer, who also made time to soak in the pristine beauty of the place, says she wants to hold medical camps for people in various tribal settlements every month.

The second source is an interview that includes biographical information about her education, and includes commentary from the publication:
‘Imperfections need to be appreciated’, The Hindu, 2017

To be a good doctor is no mean job. To be a dedicated IAS officer is an equally daunting task, if not more. In this regard, Dr. Divya S. Iyer takes the cake — she is the sub-collector of Thiruvananthapuram city while also practising as a doctor in her free time.

In this interview, she talks about how school and college shaped her as a person and her views on the education system.

The news coverage I was able to quickly find about her film role also includes additional biographical information:
Divya S Iyer: From files to films, Deccan Chronicle, 2017

For Dr Divya S. Iyer, art is not a new realm. She has performed on stage before. Hence, it wasn’t so difficult for her to emote in front of the camera, when she made her debut with Eliyammachiyude Adyathe Christmas directed by Benny Ashamsa. [...] In the movie, Divya plays the role of a nun who runs an old age home. “The movie takes us through various stages old people go through. It tells the story of Eliyammachi, played by (KPAC) Lalitha chechi, and her experiences. It is an emotional tale,” explains Divya, who is also the presiding officer of the Senior Citizen Tribunal. Actually, she agreed to act in this movie as it deals with the life of senior citizens. “I keep listening to stories like this in real life. So, I thought it would be good if I could be part of a creative expression that spreads this thought. The reach and impact of movie would be different.” Divya hasn’t taken any remuneration for it.

The shooting of the movie was held at an orphanage in Cherthala. “That was a great learning experience — interacting with them and getting to know about their lives. On the location, it was a wonderful experience working Lalitha chechi and Madhu sir. Being with them and exchanging ideas, it was more like a family,” recalls Divya. Playing the nun’s role has been a calming experience for Divya. The shooting days brought back her childhood memories. “I studied in Holy Angels Convent School. So, right from my childhood I have seen their mannerisms. Several of my teachers flashed in my mind every time I did the scenes,” says Divya, who had a great time on the sets. [...]

The movie will hit theatres on December 1. “If one child decides to take care of her/his parents after watching this movie, I will be happy. It is our right to take care of our parents.” Will she act again? “I will, if the movie complements my profession and conveys a message to society. Creativity shouldn’t be restricted solely to enjoyment. It should be used for social change too. We have the legacy of having art forms like Ottanthullal, invented to convey ideas,” she signs off.

The news coverage of her marriage even received commentary because of the scale of the coverage, apparently because it wasn't routine, as noted by The Quint in 2017. And then she continued to be a high-profile political figure, and I only included a few sources that I found quickly as examples of the coverage that focused on her in detail, and also one that includes information about what she has done since then:
Food Kits, #BreakTheChain: How Kerala Made Life Easy During Corona, The Quint, 2020

The Quint spoke to Dr Divya S Iyer, Mission Director, Mahatma Gandhi NREGA - Kerala, who is also holding additional charges in the Food and Supplies Department during this COVID-19 crisis. She explained how they have identified specific vulnerable areas where there is a dire need of supplies and over 35 lakh food kits have already been distributed.

The doctor-turned IAS officer took charge in 2018 [...]

These are sources that I found with a fairly quick review, but I think that the depth and breadth of this coverage demonstrates her notability as a political figure, the availability of sources to support robust biographical content, and the likelihood that additional independent and reliable sources WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Beccaynr, I appreciate your effort in saving this article. But I have to tell you a thing. Since I was the firt person who had a look at this article while it was earlier submitted at AFC, I can guarantee you that no others sources exist, which are different from this. Because, I did a WP:Before in both Malayalam and English. When a person does some notable work or something notable else for a long period of time, independent sources, such as newspapers, magazines or anything like that giving the subject a significant coverage about him/her in the form of biography article talking about his/her life and his/her notable works, should be there, inorder to make its notable or pass GNG. In this case, its not possible to find any sources that. Its also better to have a look at WP:NOTNEWS. Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad you mentioned WP:NOTNEWS, because it notes "events must be put into encyclopedic context," and I think it is possible to do that with the biographical content available from multiple sources, because they report more than news, and include information about her childhood, education, various aspects of her career, marriage, and family. The 2017 Quint commentary stood out to me as an indication of her notability as a political figure, and then the coverage I've reviewed seems to fit within the WP:BASIC guideline for what we can use to build encyclopedic content in a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR discussion --Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Inorder to make sure Im right, I set something like a honeytrap by opening these two deletion discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divya S. Iyer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashanth Nair (IAS)"
Apparently this editor opened this AfD and another AfD as part of some sort of effort to "trap" a user who they believed was using sockpuppets. This is not what AfD is for. At all. AfD is a serious discussion about the merits of individual articles and whether they should be kept on Wikipedia. If you read through these comments on this AfD, you will see multiple editors who AGF and have gone out of their way to research this topic and discuss various sources. To go through all of this simply so that an editor can play games with another editor is a waste of our time. This AfD needs to be speedy closed with prejudice, and perhaps Kashmorwiki/Kichu should refrain from nominating AfDs for a good long time. I would close this, but as I had already commented, I am an involved user. Hyperion35 (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hyperion35, You should not accuse anyone if you dont know the full story. Im not a guy who randomly nominate articles for AFD to play games with any other editors. I have an experience of participting in more than 100 AFD discussions and know the seriousness of it. You should have checked my edit history while making such comments against me. (I assume good faith here). First of all, the main purpose of this is not to trap anyone. Setting the honey trap was only the other side of the coin. When this same user came to with this same draft previously, I declined it. So this is not only honeytrap. This article definetly deserves AFD nomination. So are you saying that this is a well written article? The creator of this article has been warned twice for paid editing (now blocked as a sock). We need to consider all that factors. And have you read the SPI against him.? Seven accounts have been blocked as of now. More to come. So this is not at all bad faith. I have no intention of making this project disruptive. My edit history itself will prove that. And 80 percent of my opinions in AFD's were in favour of my comments. And you can see that most of the articles I nominated has been deleted (75 percent) . [34]). Finally my doubt has been confirmed. 7 accounts has been blocked for sockpuppetry including the creator of this article itself. [35]. So if I havent set this honeytrap which you said I did in bad faith, I would not have been able to provide evidence. Thankyou Beccaynr, who knows me very well for arguing that I did in good faith. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmorwiki, the proper place to deal with suspected sockpuppets is SPI. I believe that there is a similar place for investigating suspected paid editors. This page is an AfD, and I see nothing in the guidelines for AfD to suggest that it is the appropriate way to investigate socks or UPE. Quite the opposite, starting an AfD for those purposes seems to violate POINT. Whether another user was a sock, a UPE, whether your accusations were proven or unfounded, the number of accounts that have been blocked, these are all irrelevant to an AfD. I am especially concerned about your last statement that you believe that you would not have been able to prove your point without setting this AfD as a "honeytrap" (as you describe it). This seems to me to be an admission that you nominated this AfD to prove an unrelated point, clearly violating POINT.
As to this specific AfD, I have already stated my views, and I was specific about the sources and information that I considered relevant to my decision. The percentage of your AfD noms that are successful is not relevant and has no bearing on this AfD, nor does the status of the original author of the page. As I previously stated, my opinion was a weak keep based on the possibility that one specific incident may have made the subject notable. However, further disruptive editing and irrelevant claims may very well push me from "Weak Keep" to "Keep", as I do not consider any of your stated reasons to meet any of the WP:DEL guidelines. Hyperion35 (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperion35, I think your concern is that me saying that this is a honeytrap. But I already told you, I already had plan of nominating this because the exact copy of this aricle was declined at AFC. I regret I should not have said the word honeytrap, because some users like you is misinterpreting it. My basic motive here is to delete this article rather than trapping the sock. Please try to accept that. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify my comment below with regard to the WP:POINT guideline, and specifically the section WP:NOTPOINTy, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I do not believe there is any basis to conclude that these AfDs were only brought to illustrate a point, or that there is no basis upon which to have a thorough discussion about how to interpret the notability guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that interpretation. However, Kichu's response was pretty much devoid of any DEL reasons on which to base a discussion. Had there been any serious explanation for why this article should still be deleted, I might agree with you, but I am disturbed at the way that they attempted to justify their actions by saying So if I havent set this honeytrap which you said I did in bad faith, I would not have been able to provide evidence. Given how frequently accusations of sockpuppetry and UPE get thrown around in AfDs, I worry that turning AfD into a place for "sting" operations is going to end badly. On the other hand, I already predicted that enacting the UPE policy would encourage this behavior 6 years ago, so I guess I should just accept that this is the logical endpoint. I worry that future "honeytrap" AfDs will lead to acccusations that any Keep voters are socks or UPE. I mean, this has already happened, of course, with regular AfDs, but can you imagine the disruption if AfDs started from that Orwellian point, rather than just being the AfD version of Godwin's Law? Hyperion35 (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperion35, There is a saying in Malayalam Two birds from one shot. This is just like that. You are trying to prove that my whole motive here is to trap the socks. But thats not the case. This was my reason for nomination; The subject has nothing notable to claim to have an independent article. This article was earlier rejected multiple number of times at AFC. The sources are giving some routine coverage about her marriage and pregnancy. That is not sufficient to establish notability. She has no significant coverage hence fails GNG. You can agree with it or not. But please stop me accusing me that I nominated this only with other intentions without even reading the reason for nomination. Your accusation is not at all true and another editor has also said that. So I want you to stop accusing me for the things like This is totally done out of bad faith. I cannot accept that. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 13:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have reviewed the pending ANI and the concluded SPI, and particularly due to how it appears that this article was declined at AfC, and in light of Kichu's history as an editor and participation in this discussion, I feel that these AfDs are brought in good faith due to genuine concerns about whether the articles meet Wikipedia guidelines. As an editor who has been researching and participating in the discussion, I do not feel that my time has been wasted. Beccaynr (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found enough on my WP:BEFORE to pass GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Kolma8, you must show here what exactly you found on doing WP:Before and should explain, how does it satisfy sigcov and GNG. Just caiming that you have found some sources is not a proper way to participate in an AFD. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • On this particular AfD 83% participants so far in favor of keeping it. My search confirmed Beccaynr's findings to support keeping this article. See above. I think he/she did a great job supporting a keep vote. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kolma8, I am still wondering how did you got 83 percentage. Weak keep means they are not fully satisfied in keeping this article. They still have some concerns. Three users including you voted as keep (excluding the sock). Two users voted as delete. The rest voted as weak keep. By the way, the final decision is not taken based on counting the votes. My friend Beccanyr has done a great job here to rescue the article. But I still believe this subject does not have significant coverage. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          83%... I am good at presenting ratios expressed as fractions of 100. ;) Thanks for your reply and cheers to you and Beccanyr! Kolma8 (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Afzal (Karachi cricketer)[edit]

Mohammad Afzal (Karachi cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has played 1 FC game, but couldn't find any coverage. Sources may exist offline or in Pakistani sources but I couldn't find any, potentially due to his common name. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is deleted/redirected. There isn't really a suitable WP:ATD here due to the Karachi teams all being bundled into one article, and no lists existing as of yet. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage found, only the usual wide-ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the very trivial pass of WP:NCRIC, which has proven to be a very poor indicator to the existence of coverage for cricketers such as these. No coverage has ever been uncovered for similar players, and there is no reason to believe any exists here. Redirect would be an accepted ATD, but no suitable target exists. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Carroll[edit]

Joshua Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable public address announcer. fuzzy510 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Thiérus[edit]

Tamara Thiérus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a college ice hockey player. She does not pass WP:COLLATH and there isn’t enough for a GNG pass either. Mccapra (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Spitzmauskc (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nondescript college player, article sourced entirely from primary sources and blogs. Fails NCOLLATH, NHOCKEY and the GNG, all three. Ravenswing 15:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NCAA is not a level of play that automatically confers an inclusion freebie on every individual player in the league — it's a level where you have to earn major distinctions to get in the wikidoor. But this claims nothing of the sort, and is not referenced anywhere near well enough to claim that she would pass GNG in lieu: three of the five footnotes are primary source content self-published by her own team, one is a glancing namecheck of her existence in a sports blog entry that isn't about her, and one is a very short blurb in her hometown local newspaper about her attending hockey camp (which is not an "inherently" notable context that would clinch her notability right then and there.) Nothing here, either in the content or in the quality of the sourcing available to support it, is enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any sources that would indicate they pass WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:05, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. flagged cruise ships[edit]

List of U.S. flagged cruise ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of passenger ships built in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both articles fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SALAT - both are trivial and overly specific lists either of "cruise ships flagged in the US" or "passenger ships built in the US" that are otherwise of minimal encyclopediac value and only of interest to the editor. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination claims that the lists are indiscriminate and then, in the same breath, claims that they are overly specific. This is self-contradictory. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any valid rationale for deletion. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is for massive data dumps with no context, and obviously doesn't apply here. WP:SALAT doesn't actually specify any inappropriate topics for lists. Plenty of sources demonstrate the topic is notable thanks to the protectionist legislation e.g.: [36], [37],[38]. ----Pontificalibus 10:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Lord knows I'm no fan of lists (!), and take twisted pleasure every time I have reason to vote to delete them, but alas, on this occasion I actually think this is quite a useful list, given the Jones Act etc. I also don't think the policy grounds put forth in the nom apply here, so on that technical point alone I must decline. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nomination doesn't make any sense. Clearly not indiscriminate, the list is very well defined and its entries are finite. postdlf (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a finite list with explicit criteria, not indiscriminate, and notable in the context of the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (NOT the Jones Act). Not sure this would translate to other countries though, which do not have PVSA equivalents or a comparable number of included ships. Reywas92Talk 17:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—as said above, this isn't indiscriminate. There is a specific legal reason this categorization is noteworthy. Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of entries link to their own articles, this is a logical navigation list. Dream Focus 01:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject meets WP:NPROF (presumably C1 and C7) and even WP:GNG.

Suggestion: Try using WP:BASIC, which is less strict than WP:GNG on wp:significant coverage while still making the subject presumably notable. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Pande[edit]

Satish Pande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable environment actvist. None of the sources are giving WP:SIGCOV about the subject. Did a WP:Before and could not find anything Kichu🐘 Discuss 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 06:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eostrix's argument above. Enough to pass GNG based on the provided sources. Kolma8 (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eostrix. Notable enough for having a standalone page. The notability tag on the article was placed unscrupulously if not wrongly. Chiro725 (talk) 09:16, 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 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. Note that this was done per the language of the guideline (and despite the warning of the bot) which lists this as an option at the end of sparsely attended discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections Projections[edit]

Reflections Projections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not seem to be a notable conference - I don't find anything other than run-of-the-mill coverage. The article has been unreferenced for over nine years, and most major contributors have been single-purpose accounts likely connected to conference organizers. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, with 9 years and no sources I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 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 keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hankins[edit]

Tom Hankins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only database sources, a few short mentions, the one-time WP:ROUTINE transactional coverage of being hired as a minor league basketball coach (below the level for qualification in WP:NBASKET). No previously notable accomplishments having previously only been a head coach in the NCAA Div II level. At best, it is just WP:TOOSOON, but the Draft:Tom Hankins already exists and was not sent through AfC. Yosemiter (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is good enough for the GNG. There are several newspaper articles primarily about him, from across the US. I added a few I found in NewsBank. Being a G-League head coach is reasonably significant. He's an important part of the Indiana Pacers' organization. He also got a decent amount of coverage during his college career. Overall, there seems to be enough here. Zagalejo (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zagalejo: Any sources in particular you would like to cite to back up WP:GNG here? Prior to the single transaction of being named a minor league head coach (WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NOTNEWS, and very few mentions since then), he gets basically no coverage of significant depth prior to that transaction. (See the news articles in this time based search where he only gets mentioned as being a Div II coach). His other reports are all school-related primary sources as far as I can ascertain. Yosemiter (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the 2021 Journal Gazette and the 2015 Tulsa World articles cited in the Wiki page are substantial enough. The 2012 Tulsa World and 2017 Miami News-Record articles were also reasonably informative (not just brief mentions), but I don’t have links to them. (There are still lots of newspaper articles that aren’t easily found on Google, but are available via library services.) I started searching for sources because I do think a G-League coach is someone readers may want to look up on Wikipedia. The material I found seems adequate compared to what I’ve seen in AFDs over the years. We can disagree on that; different strokes for different folks. Zagalejo (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:26, 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Pigeon[edit]

Skyline Pigeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG with insufficient discussion in sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Empty Sky, unless sources are found to keep this article. It was a single and is one of the best known of Elton John's songs from his pre-fame days, so it's a very plausible search term – I would not be surprised if over time it would be possible to expand this into a decent article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Empty Sky - I'm a big fan of this song but the article is largely unsupported fancruft about live performances and the supposed meaning of lyrics. The fan factoids dug up here are not necessarily compelling because similar stuff could be brainstrormed by fans of any song by a famous performer. The song has not generated much of its own reliable coverage, but its parent album has. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the standard for notability is not merely the references in the current version of the article, but the references available. This song is discussed in several paragraphs of Elton: The Biography, Elton John: Fifty Years On and Captain Fantastic: The Definitive Biography of Elton John in the '70s. It also has some material in other sources, such as The Rough Guide to Rock. And these are just the books I was able to access online. There is likely more material on books of John's music that I would have to check from my shelves, not to mention possible newspaper articles and websites (this or this in itself would not be significant enough coverage to meet GNG or NSONGS but they are examples of coverage additional to that in the books listed above).Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that there aren't sources, but that they aren't very substantial. The news clippings that you link above don't amount to anything more than "Elton played the song at a funeral". I can't speak for the other books, but Elton: The Biography has one sentence about the Empty Sky recording, one sentence about the 1973 re-recording being "superior" in the author's view, and a quote from songwriter Roger Cook about how great he thought the song was. As I said above, I do think it might be possible in time to create a decent article, but I'd be happier if I could see some decent sources first. Richard3120 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my original statement, the newspaper articles by themselves "would not be significant enough coverage to meet GNG or NSONGS but they are examples of coverage additional to that in the books listed above)." Those are just supplementary. But there are multiple books (not just Elton: The Biography) that have non-trivial coverage of the song. Rlendog (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His Song: The Musical Journey of Elton John also has 2 paragraphs on this song. And there is some material in Tin Pan Alley: The Rise of Elton John. And there is a review specifically of this song at Allmusic. Notability of the song is not just based on the sources that are currently in the article, but the sources that are available. You seem to acknowledge that there are enough decent sources available beyond the current state of the article so that "over time it would be possible to expand this into a decent article." That would meet notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few books published that talk about every song an artist ever recorded, but these aren't going to contribute to the notability of just one song, as they are discussing the song in the context of a long career. Certainly "Skyline Pigeon" received some media attention because it was played at Ryan White's funeral, but that fact can be supplied to the reader in two places: the Ryan White biography and the album article Empty Sky. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The books I referenced do not deal with every single Elton John song (except possibly 50 Years On). But even if they did that would still contribute to the notability of those songs because very few artists have multiple books covering every song. "Discussing a song in the context of a long career" is a made up exception to GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a one paragraph review of the song in the Elton John Scrapbook, which does not do this for every Elton John song.Rlendog (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also just posted a link to an Allmusic review of the song. Allmusic does not review every song Elton John ever recorded, even if that was a valid criteria for dismissing sources. Rlendog (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this – that's a really good spot, and exactly the kind of more in-depth review that I was looking for, unlike the book coverage above, so thank you... you might have convinced me to change my vote and keep this now. Richard3120 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:38, 12 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) 05:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the AllMusic review along with the mentions on the other books make this notable. Needs to be expaded of course. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:57, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JAMS Scheduler[edit]

JAMS Scheduler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The best accessible listed sources are paid-for-spam. Other text sources listed do not give significant coverage. The remaining source is a non-notable podcast. Mottezen (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 (talk) 06:37, 12 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) 04:57, 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 keep. Clear consensus on the author; less clear on the book. So, no prejudice on possible merge or redirect of the book page to the author. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Meeker[edit]

Meg Meeker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no notability here by our standards, and recent attempts at sourcing were, well, insufficient (see history and User talk:MPSchneiderLC). The article is essentially just a resume. And while we're on the topic, as goes this, so goes Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, which is just as spammy. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Meeker is not the most notable person on the planet, but being interviewed by multiple independent national news outlets as a topical expert, being endorsed publicly by a major party candidate for president in a US election, having over 600,000 followers on your verified social media, being published by a major publisher like Penguin Random House are each possible signs of notability. I could agree that if only one of those was met, you may have a challenge in arguing for notability, but when combined, she is clearly notable when compared to others whose biographies are on Wikipedia. (I think she has over a million books as another pointer to notability, but it is hard to track down a reliable number in a published source, so I have not added that.) >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing, NOTHING counts unless it's verified by reliable secondary sources. What you are describing here ("she must be notable cause she has Facebook followers, she must be notable cause Trump retweeted her, she must be notable cause Random House published her"), that's original research or, to put it differently, your opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being interviewed by multiple national television programs that are editorially independent (THe TOday SHow and Multiple Fox News Shows) as a topical expert is notable. She is far more notable than many biographies that are kept on Wikipedia.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have outside publications taking note of her work, that is enough to show it is impactful and noticed by some. I know some here do not agree with her views and dislike what she says, but that is not reason for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meeker is noted by multiple editorially-independent national publications or television programs: many of these are interviews as a topic expert, which shows she is considered by many an expert on the topic. A criticism section can be added to make it sound less like a resume, although most criticism I know of has her is more criticism at positions she takes more generally like criticism of abstinence education. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep due to citable impact available from reliable sources, in discussions on the themes of her views and publications and improve the article. Edits have been made on the current version include adding reliable source citations and also suggest delete the second paragraph (placed in parenthesis) but not done so due to the deletion discussion ongoing. I am a new user, and apologise if this is incorrect, but did not wish to blank it. Kaybeesquared (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above reasons. SunDawn (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep while she clearly fails WP:NPROF from an academic point of view, it seems she may just pass WP:GNG with appearances / interviews in national television and newspapers. I am more worried about WP:RS since there is almost nothing notable we can write about her life from RS which makes this a weak keep. Also the article needs cleanup, her facebook likes and who retweets her tweets are clearly not important, even if it is Donald Trump. --hroest 16:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, TJMSmith, I requested the undeletion as she is known as a popular expert on the topic who had been interview on multiple independent major media outlets, and I think has sold a few million book copies (but not stated as WP:RS don't publish that data in a clear way I could find). She is more of a populizer or pop psychologist than someone notable strictly for WP:NPROF. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I do not know her work or how substantial her books are, but if they are more than mere pamphlets, her output of 9 books should be sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. Enough news sources. Peter303x (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is consensus that WP:GNG is met as of right now, there should be more discussion about WP:RS and WP:V.

Also, it looks like everyone missed that Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters is also part of the nomination as there are no discussion about it, though understandably so since the nomination is a less-than-obvious WP:MULTIAFD. Fixing that now...

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ spiderne
  2. ^ Malcom Ritter (March 13, 2011). "Doc prescribes steps for a happier motherhood". Courier-Post. Camden, New Jersey. Associated Press. p. 14 – via Newspapers.com.
  3. ^ Mary Jimenez (November 2, 2005). "Teens can choose whether to have sex, physician says". The Times. Shreveport, Louisiana. p. 4B – via Newspapers.com.
  4. ^ Dale Sadler (May 27, 2009). "Book Review: Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters". The Hendersonville Star News. Hendersonville, Tennessee. p. 10A – via Newspapers.com.
  5. ^ "Epidemic: How Teen Sex Is Killing Our Kids". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved March 21, 2021.
  6. ^ "The 10 Habits of Happy Mothers: Reclaiming Our Passion, Purpose, and Sanity". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved March 21, 2021.
  7. ^ "Strong Mothers, Strong Sons". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved March 21, 2021.
  8. ^ "Your Kids at Risk: How Teen Sex Threatens Our Sons and Daughters". Conservative Book Club. Retrieved March 21, 2021.
  • Keep bio; merge book. I doubt we need both, but Bolingbroke has found enough references for us to keep one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple books non-self-published, multiple independent sources covering her. Additionally, the article cites Meeker as a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, with a link to a reliable book source exerpt that appears to confirm this. This alone would probably make her notable on its own (it would also make the proper notation Meg Meeker, MD, FAAP). From what little I've read, I wouldn't personally rely on her for advice, and I have some concerns abut whether her views are contradicted by most major medical specialty and subspecialty societies, but my personal disagreements with her do not affect notability. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets author notability (I won't vote on the book yet, as I haven't done a thorough search for reviews). Two more reviews, if anyone wants to add them, from Kirkus: here and here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are reliable sources covering her, WP:NACADEMIC can be applied as it says "However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements.". Chiro725 (talk) 23:54, 26 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 convert to set index. Revision 1013073874 will be restored.

A major contributor to the removed content has suggested a merge, so merge tags will be added on behalf on the contributor. They may complete the merge and remove the tags afterwards. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North–South Freeway (New Jersey)[edit]

North–South Freeway (New Jersey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicates info that should already be in New Jersey Route 42, Interstate 76, and Interstate 676. The freeway is inextricably linked to these routes and we already have articles for them.

This article previously a set-index article until a few months ago I would like to go back to that instead of deleting outright. –Fredddie™ 02:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Fredddie™ 02:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –Fredddie™ 02:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index per nom. There is no need for a separate article about this named freeway that is redundant to the articles about the numbered routes the freeway is composed of. Dough4872 03:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index, as proposed above Needforspeed888 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index, as proposed above, but merge information that is not included in those articles into those articles first. 2018rebel 06:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awraq newspaper[edit]

Awraq newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not cite any sources and provides no indication of notability. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From what I can tell through Google, there isn't actually an "Awraq newspaper" in the Untied Arab Emirates. According to this bulletin from the Middle East Publishers' Association, the Arab Media Group has a publishing arm called "Awraq Publishing", but there is not actually a newspaper of this name. In any case, I am not able to find any significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In 27 years' living in the UAE and working in its media scene, I have never heard of this thing. Added to the above, it's sort of compelling, no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Coverage and notability not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:13, 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 redirect to Jordan Peterson#YouTube channel and podcasts. Content remains undeleted in the history if anyone wants to merge something that's reliably sourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JordanPetersonVideos[edit]

JordanPetersonVideos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While Jordan Peterson himself is notable, it doesn't seem like his YouTube account is by itself. The references given are about Peterson and not his videos. Some of the information could go into the main article but lots of it is just facts about what videos have been uploaded and when. ... discospinster talk 02:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Basically everything discospinster already stated in their nom rationale coupled with the fact that is article is a blatantly promotional. Celestina007 (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few points, will place them here over a few edits. First, the content I placed in the Talk section of the page to contest deletion should be considered, it is copied here between these horizontal rules:
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... 1- this page follows the plans/ideals of wikipedia. 1.1- this page expands the nature of a work that is notable that is reaching its limit on its parent's page, not really a bold page creation; 2- it's extremely notable; 3- references/citations by reliable independent sources; 3- my track record on page creation shows efforts to maintain balance and neutral points of view; 4- I am unaffiliated with the topic but am a researcher; 4.1- I research educational and current cultural phenomena, social networks and this page represents a data point on my list of research topics; 5- I'm relatively anti-spam; 5.1- there are already spammers I've identified, involved in the ecosystem of the parent page and I'm interested to get involved in administration; --Tomacpace (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous defacers, and separately spammers, target the parent page, it is also within reason that the creation of this page would appear as undesirable (ergo promotional) from a defacer's perspective, and trigger a malicious report. Tomacpace (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While in currently early stage development, this page was modelled after similar pages that are Good Articles. References for the development of this page and others I edit: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Education Better_Call_Saul_(season_2). A Better Call Saul season page could be said to be as unambiguously promotional to its target consumer base, equivalently promotional, as this page. Although it's a lot more developed (thus finding inspiration, focus, vision...) Tomacpace (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These above because the page was labeled as unambiguously spam. I responded to that and my answers have not been responded to.
The content within the parent page is subject to some editorial issues which lead to my considering the new page. Therein is minor gatekeeping. I don't argue strongly against that, because WP:NOTDEM, I respect gatekeeping if it's both neutral and quality (to exclusion of neither). Yet the observable gatekeeping finds non-neutral POV and has passively allowed spammer-backed content (documented), some forms of soft advocacy, and borderline vandalism. Having said that, I do not want to engage in long-form debates WP:BATTLEGROUND on wikipedia. Maybe in meta, but not in the nitpicking on word choice and attitudes and tone or perceived tones. Where quality is lacking, I'll build, and keep in mind WP:GOODFAITH. So considering the context of the parent article and Wikipedia:Summary_style and WP:PAGEDECIDE, I opted to branch some updates out of parent article according, with an eye based on grading and regular reference to the columns Criteria, Reader's experience, Editing suggestions in the rows Stub-Start-C in Wikipedia:Content_assessment#Grades and quality exemplars in Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Education and one example in particular, Better_Call_Saul_(season_2) (and still more other related GA).
I have longer content in draft but have not pushed it in the creation, it does not fall to original thought WP:NOTFORUM, but requires much additional work. Yet, as such with the nature of a series with seasons and episodes, or a network or channel, I also must keep in mind WP:NOTCATALOG and find the best path forward, and that's an extremely subjective thing to do. I don't want to submit MORE work at the initial creation event and then later find it deleted.
The nature of the content in the article as-such is, in my humble opinion, somewhere between start and C grade, and could be better formatted, however it's following a historical flow. I think this is where there's a good-faith concern that leads to a quick deletion consideration. But my first wiki page creation faced a similar speedy deletion event, and it was not deleted at the end. There was a subjective, unconscious bias in the mind of the advocate for deletion (acknowledged by that individual after-the-fact, the whole experience was friendly and supportive albeit challenging); I was grateful for the challenge and amiability and outcome. I think a deletion on an article where the notability is in question but could be voted yes, could benefit from contributors who are also familiar with the details, that's what the warning at the top of the page said when it was flagged for speedy deletion, something like "If you aren't the creator of this page but you think you can improve it, go ahead, and you can remove this notice". So the point is, I don't think the article is spam, the spam point hasn't been addressed by those who flagged/reported. This article is intended to be developed toward higher grade quality as much as possible, and my work on some other pages should (hopefully) attest to that.
There are plenty more reliable source citations in The Times in London, Toronto Star, etcetera, specifically on the topic of the youtube channel, and its specific contents, lots more to be said, lots continue to be said. Tomacpace (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007 You say it is blatantly promotional but you have not provided evidence for that, and I responded in good faith on the Contest Deletion point, which has not been responded to. This feels more like an inquisition. Tomacpace (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tone may be minimally prosaic in moments, which I can see but is based on hundreds of case examples of this in good quality articles I've studied. Mine is an entirely neutral point of view. I'm trying to maintain an openness to your point of view. Yet, without understandable responses to my points in Contest Deletion on the earlier Talk page, and a double-down on the "blatantly promotional" content, I am left empty handed for how to respond in good faith. Can you describe what was blatantly promotional about the whole article such that it forms a unified advertisement? I might be missing something. Tomacpace (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect. Notability defined for Peterson himself, channel is not independently notable. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my vote to redirect per argument below. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
content is revised; total references count increased from 11 to 42 Tomacpace (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jordan_Peterson#YouTube channel and podcasts Ignoring the above (please don't bother with a response), we don't need a separate article for this YouTube channel, and 'subject updated his channel and video is news to someone' source hammering isn't notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Or Merge or Delete. Many notable individuals have Youtube channels. Youtube even has the Vevo service specifically for musicians and other performers to upload their videos to their verified accounts. A subject's youtube videos might be a reliable source for their main article, but only to the extent that any other self-published statement would. Under certain circumstances, a subject's Youtube videos might even merit their own section, subject to WP:UNDUE etc, so for example PSY's article mentions how the Youtube video for Gangnam Style broke multiple records for views, as there were multiple independent reliable sources who reported on those milestones. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:25, 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 redirect to Serial Joe. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dennis[edit]

Ryan Dennis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already a page about his band, largely the same content and no sources proving their notability Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – poor article that seems like a poor attempt to self promote. I could not find WP:GNG Tahadharamsi (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Serial Joe. Sources do not indicate this subject is notable outside of that band. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Serial Joe. Clearly not independently notable. Builder018 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Serial Joe. This article is just a personal biography full of non-notable and unreliable trivia, and he has done little outside the band. By the way, the band could use a notability check too, but that is a different process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a Canadian, I can attest that the band is definitely notable; the referencing does need to be improved somewhat, but the Juno Award nomination alone clinches notability under WP:NMUSIC #8 regardless of what else they have or haven't achieved, and they've still achieved other things that pass other parts of NMUSIC anyway. And I'm not saying that as a fan; I never liked their music at all and still don't, but notability isn't determined by whether I personally like them or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Serial Joe. Band members aren't automatically entitled to have standalone articles as separate topics from the band, and need to show a lot more independent notability outside of the band than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_March_20&oldid=1014802664"