Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 20	March 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest non-repetitive piano pieces[edit]

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

The topic of "longest non-repetitive piano pieces" is not a notable topic and seems to be an example of WP:OL. There are no references given for why the length of these pieces is notable; I know the length of the Opus Clavicembalisticum has been discussed in reliable sources but that's more appropriate for the specific page for that article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The listing of this article for deletion was Stockhausenfan (talk · contribs)'s very first edit with this account, there are a few IP edits including a declined PROD from an IP today on this subject. Acroterion (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Overlistification" is an essay, and none of the examples cited in that essay appear to apply here. The subject of the list appears to be amply supported by the citations. Not sure what the real issue is here. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia but this seems to be an example of a trivia list (like the example of songs about tequila given in that essay). The references given don't provide evidence that the length of these pieces is notable enough to warrant an article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, WP:GNG states that there should be significant coverage independent of the subject. The references given seem mostly to be specific to the subject and have only minor coverage of the actual duration. Stockhausenfan (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji is listed 7 times in the main list, with only four entries not him. Of those four, three of the composers have their own articles, but no articles for their pieces. All three of the things listed as "Works that have not been performed nor recorded yet" are by Sorabji, and I have no idea why anyone would list anything not performed or recorded. Anyone can write something to be super long, but can someone actually perform it in one sitting? Various sources mention something being the or one of the longest non-repetitive piano pieces, but only as individual things that could be in their own articles. Not sure what value this one has. Are there competitions to see who can write the longest piece? When someone makes something longer, does it make news somewhere? Dream Focus 02:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge (into a new article): I'm the main editor of this article (thought not its creator) and will try to respond to the various points raised here. There is some (perhaps inevitable) tendency for the list to be Sorabji-centric, and many of the discussions of long piano pieces that I know discuss those in the context of Sorabji (e.g. Mashak's piece, which, to the best of my knowledge, has not received much discussion in other sources). There are various articles on long musical compositions scattered across the internet (e.g. [1]) and some coverage of individual works (e.g. [2]). Wikipedia also has an article on Cage's As Slow as Possible, which routinely features in such articles/lists. As for Sorabji and unrecorded pieces of his, he is well known for having written a large number of vast compositions and those appear in various sources (e.g. [3], [4] or [5]). Perhaps it might be better to create a list of "longest compositions" or "musical pieces", which could include minimalist piano pieces that have received coverage in notable sources (e.g. La Monte Young's The Well-Tuned Piano), Cage's piece (which was originally written for the piano, though those performances tend to be of moderate length), Satie's Vexations (enough coverage by any means), the operatic cycles of Wagner and Stockhausen, etc. And, while WP:OSE does not help things, List of longest novels may provide some ideas on how to handle this. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage presented shows this is something covered. Dream Focus 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Good points - I will withdraw this deletion request. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2021 (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) 03:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katharina Boger[edit]

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

Non notable singer who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. A before search linked me to unreliable sources such as user generated sources. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NMUSIC.-KH-1 (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SINGER --Devoke water 21:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage and no indication of meeting any other criteria for WP:SINGER notability. Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 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) 03:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marwiya[edit]

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

Non notable actress, entrepreneur & dancer who fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO & WP:ENT respectfully. They also lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus this is a WP:GNG fail also. A before search links me to user generated sources which are very much unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found nothing after Google search that demonstrates notability- all sources used in the article are unreliable and user-generated. I'm not seeing any evidence of notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources come even remotely close to showing a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please do not suggest thsi be draftified. Notability cannot be conjured up where none exists. Nom has it right. Nothing to add. Fiddle Faddle 07:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devoke water 19:50, 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 and redirect to Steve Surridge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbury CRE Software[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me to user generated sources, blogs, press releases & a few mentions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly fails WP:NCORP, and is written like promotional content in my opinion. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NCORP. Alex-h (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable --Devoke water 19:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steve Surridge: Agrees with above but redirect per WP:ATD-R and WP:PRESERVE. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:21, 29 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) 02:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy Company[edit]

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

Page sources include company About Us page, gift guides, product reviews and some articles that don't even reference the page. No independent content containing original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject have been found online, and none of the sources in the article meet the criteria. Subject fails WP:NCORP and is promotional content only. Megtetg34 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User:HighKing hit the nail on the head in the previous AfD. The coverage available does not satisfy WP:NCORP. The Rebellious and Inverse sources are more than passing mentions but the content is largely based on interviews with the founder of the company. No evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH in any of the sources available and, in any case, the analysis of the company should be coming from people other than the founder of said company. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on that, they're both advertorials. The Rebellious reference is entirely based on an interview with Kellie Taylor the founder - fails WP:ORGIND. The Inverse reference is likewise based entirely on an interview with Taylor, fails for the same reason. We require references that aren't regurgitating company messaging and aren't expanding a company's echo chamber. ORGIND sets a requirement for "Independent content", which in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of those reference do. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. References within the article (omitting PRIMARY sources) fail as follows:
- The Inverse reference is based entirely on an interview with Taylor, fails ORGIND
- Rebellious reference is entirely based on an interview with Kellie Taylor the founder - fails WP:ORGIND.
- Chicago Mag reference discusses an upcoming "Midwest Flair Fest" which includes a list of "seven vendors to check out" and provides a one-sentence description of the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This from Dread Central is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
- This from Dread Central is an interview with an artist, the company is mentioned in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This from Bloody Disgusting's "Gift Guide" section is about a "Necronomicon" pillow but contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This also from Bloody Disgusting's "Gift Guide" section is about a Throw Blanket, contains no info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
- This from Dread Central is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
- This from Bloody Disgusting contains no info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
- This from the "shop" section on Fangoria no longer exists on the website

Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While institutions of higher education are often held to be notable, consensus here is that this one is not. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narayana Engineering College[edit]

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

Not a single source on the page. Zero notability. No RS found online. Blatant advertising. Creator account was blocked in May 2010. Vikram Vincent 14:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:26, 14 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)} 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need independent sources which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some trivial name drops in articles about students and the usual brief mentions in school directories, but that's really it. There's clearly nothing out there that would pass WP:NORG or otherwise make this notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. 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 13:47, 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) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG , no independence RS. Alex-h (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarang Sathaye[edit]

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

This BLP was created two years ago and since then has bounced in and out of draft space, and backwards and forwards with redirects. Two years on it still has no sources. Perhaps a Marathi-speaker can find something, but otherwise I don’t think the subject is notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has many sources that can be referenced. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share links to three good ones here please? Mccapra (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has many sources that can be reffered to keep this article. Knowledgedonor (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share links to some please? Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Digital Party, Sarang Sathaye on IMDb Knowledgedonor (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article and IMDb cannot be used as sources. Is there anything else? Mccapra (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cinestaan - Sarang Sathaye Indiantelevision - Case study on marathi web series pandu

Erosnow - Sarang Sathaye hindustantimes - slice of life with a side of dark humour - Sarang Sathaye Sarang Sathaye on timesofindia indiatimes Loksatta - bhadipa fame sarang sathaye love story and his girlfriend Bollywoodhungama - Sarang Sathaye The Digital Hash - Sarang Sathaye brings Pune to hilariousville Knowledgedonor (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I observe that the article was deleted 6 years ago after the first AfD, though I can't see how this individual has attained greater (and sufficient) notability in that time. There may be more credits to his name, but they don't seem to promote him significantly. I may lean weak keep if any information surfaces to dispute that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 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) 22:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR plus is listed at the IMDb. Dunny29 (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck comment by confirmed sock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete the keeps have provided nothing in line with policy to support their assessment. There are 0 useful sources in the article and nothing better in a WP:BEFORE. VAXIDICAE💉 14:38, 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 redirect to List of presidents of the Oxford Union#2000–present. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Rioumine[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced (and a search finds nothing better) promo stub about non-notable business person, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article DoubleGrazing. I've updated sourcing to remove bare links as you identified as well as adding some additional content. In terms of notability: Rioume is a former President of the Oxford Union, Forbes 30 Under 30 and multiple-times founder. Similar to Ruzwana Bashir. -- User:Cheesman3.141(talk)10:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all those credentials are already mentioned in the article, but without appropriate sourcing it doesn't add up to notability. If you can find significant RS coverage, please do add it to the article; I tried, but couldn't find any. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional RSs from news sources and The Oxford Union -- User:Cheesman3.141(talk)11:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of presidents of the Oxford Union#2000–present: The subject does not seem to meet any additional criteria for biographies. In particular, Forbes 30 Under 30 is not selective enough with 600 awardees annually for the subject to meet WP:ANYBIO.
Coverage seems to only stem from her founded company, but notability is wp:not inherited, so the subject does not meet wp:basic.
For WP:GNG, not enough sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV.
I suggest redirection per WP:ATD-R and WP:PRESERVE. References about being the president of the Oxford Union in 2012 could be incorporated into the redirection target. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:48, 29 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) 03:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Squiz[edit]

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

WP:Before comes up with no WP:RS. Can't find anything to show this passes WP:NCORP. Previous AfDs were closed with “no consensus” because of keep votes that involved adding 1 or 2 extra sources. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is almost completely self serving. Reference 6 doesn't even refer to Squiz product. Ref 9 inaccessible, password controlled. Teraplane (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Teraplane your contributions here are appreciated however please observe the guidelines regarding sources: "Ref 9 inaccessible, password controlled" is NOT a legitimate complaint: sources are NOT required to be "accessible", as has been pointed out to you on several occasions. Cabrils (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Cabrils I presume you are referring to WP:OFFLINE such as printed references which I understand. This is actually an online reference. It is only available to registered site users for this product, a much smaller audience than even a paywall protected site and not accessible to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers. So it doesn't help to validate the articles content. Also in highlighting the poor referencing, previous AfDs were closed with “no consensus” because of the addition of extra sources. So in this case I think the quality of references bears heavily on the case for deletion. For this AfD, suggest you need to look at the wider article context rather than a very literal interpretation of WP guidelines. Teraplane (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it totally fails WP:NCORP. It has a handful of articles from 2 different publications and 1 source from its own website. There is no independent content containing original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject that have been found online, and none of the sources in the article meet the criteria. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Megtetg. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 01:10, 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. The keep votes have not provided a strong source based rebuttle to the delete analysis and, frankly, finger pointing and vague waves to a non policy based keep reason count for little. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Heppelmann[edit]

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is inherited from his role at PTC (software company). MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PTC_(software_company). He is not notable on his own, but a redirect to the company would be reasonable. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In response to VAXIDICAE's suggestions that longer narratives might not be read, I have summarized the reasons that this proposed deletion does not fit Wikipedia's guidelines.

VAXIDICAE and MrsSnoozyTurtle pose the reason for deletion is based on the notion that association with a notable entity PTC (software company) does not mean Heppelmann too is notable, or more generally, a person does not inherit notability from a notable entity is defective in this case for a number of reasons.

This inherited notability test or a related hypothesis is not mentioned in WP:NBIO so it is an opinion.

In the case of leaders who have led notable entities over long periods of time, through multiple new product cycles, like Heppelmann or Steve Jobs, allocation of how much of the leader's notability is inherited from the notable entity versus and how much of the entity's notability is inherited from the leader is as fruitless a debate as which came first, the chicken or the egg. The point of interest for Heppelmann and PTC (software company) is the same as Steve Job and Apple, both are leaders who led their successful companies through vital product transitions – Jobs from MAC, to MacBook, to iPod, to iPhone, and Hepplemann from CAD, to PLM, to IoT to AR. Creating new products is a highly respected skill admired by and of interest to both consumers, and consumer product developers, and industrial computer scientists/product developers.

If a person does not inherit some degree of notability from the notability of the organization for whom they lead or work, why are so many Apple employees included on Wikipedia? It would be an unfair application of Wikipedia’s guidelines to delete Heppelmann’s page and leave Apple employee pages of lesser or equal notability on Wikipedia. Also, the reader will find a few thousand people of equal or lesser notability on the page People in Technology.

Heppelmann is notable because he is a co-author of three books on advanced technologies, Internet of Things (IoT) and Augmented Reality (AR) with Michael Porter a renowned academic at Harvard Business School.

This page was reviewed 10 months ago. One must ask, what is now the motivation behind the proposal for deletion compared to other alternatives? And this question should be sufficiently answered before deletion.

the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.

The citations are complete and sources reliable.

Stevep2007 (talk Stevep2007 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Side discussions that amount to what-aboutisms are distracting this discussion from the original claim that Heppelman is not notable because he cannot inherit notability from a notable entity PTC under which MrsSnoozyTurtle seeks relief by deletion. The notion of inherited notability is not part of the WP:NBIO guidelines. This is an opinion without facts to support it. Heppelmann is notable in his own right. Submitted above are links where thousands of Wikipedia BLPs in the technology field can be found that are of equal or lesser notability that would fit in the deletion category that MrsSnoozyTurtle claims. Heppelmann's BLP cannot be deleted to please an editor without a clear definition in WP:NBIO and facts to support the category of notability claim. Stevep2007 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article reads like a resume and needs work. Borderline on having GNG type sources. The editor is new and has probably not "worked this" regarding that....my guess is that such sources almost certainly exist. But I think that everything else weighs in for a keep. Note that the banner is AFD missing from the article page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to PTC he isn't independently notable and thus doesn't qualify for an article. Merely being associated with a notable entity does not mean he too is notable. It's not contagious. VAXIDICAE💉 12:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stevep2007 It would really behoove you to stop bludgeoning the discussion. It's tiresome and it's increasingly likely no one will bother to read what you're saying if you continue to do so. Further, you already voted once above. That's all you get. VAXIDICAE💉 16:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae your tone, language, choice of forum, and your conduct striking through the heading KEEP that I used in a previous version and on (talk) were intended to intimidate, shame, and embarrass me and are not consistent with either WP:EQ and could step over into WP:BULLY. Please conduct yourself with civility and apply the WP:GOODFAITH. If you cannot separate your feelings, and opinions from facts, please keep them on the talk pages as recommended by WP:EQ. Stevep2007 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stevep2007, I disagree with your accusations towards VAXIDICAE and support their request for you to follow AfD etiquette and policies. Also, the majority of your accounts edits have for bios of executives at PTC_(software_company), so IMHO there are WP:COI concerns here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle your uninvited entry into this side discussion should deescalate, not the contrary, and your comments and Praxidicae's should be made on our user talk pages as recommended by WP:ET because the subject of this side discussion is not relevant to the notability discussion above. I have only replied to contentious comments here because I cannot move your and theirs to the appropriate venue. If I have spoken to set boundaries because Praxidicae's language did not follow WP:ET and I felt that they were intended to intimidate, shame, and embarrass, it is not up to you to judge. It is other Wikipedians' responsibility. Praxidicae name choice after Praxidice, goddess of judicial punishment and the exactor of vengeance, a talisman of intimidation, makes the comments more disturbing. With regard to your assertion of WP:COI, COI has no relevance here because the claim that you brought in the proposal for deletion was inherited notability. Stevep2007 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stevep2007 Super hot take there. If you think I have violated our civility policy, go file a request at WP:ANI, similarly if you find that my username is against WP:UPOL, report it at WP:UAA, but this conversation doesn't belong here and if you can't substantiate it, you need to redact it. Thanks. VAXIDICAE💉 19:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP the subject Heppelmann is notable per WP:NBIO. I looked at the links above and can confirm that there are many BLP pages of lesser notability on Wikipedia. User:Jreed10 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are other Wikipedia pages with less notability doesn't mean this page should be kept. That's the purpose of having these discussions. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that lesser, equal or greater notability, Megtetg34, is relevant is precedent. Without clear laws, one refers to case precedent. In this AfD case, it is alleged that the subject Heppelmann is not notable because he does not inherit notability from a notable entity, PTC. Because WP:NBIO does not include specification or guidence on inherited notability the precedent of thousands of people of lesser and equal notability in similiar fields is relevant in makeing a decision. Stevep2007 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect The subject is not notable enough to be considered independently notable. The page either needs to be deleted or redirected.

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakkred Secondary School[edit]

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

This article was deleted under PROD but subsequently recreated. It fails the GNG, being cited only to YouTube, Facebook, and the school website. A WP:BEFORE search in both English and Thai reveals nothing besides trivial and routine coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any indication of notability, let alone enough to justify an article. (Yet another example of why there really needs to be a speedy category for educational institutions, IMO.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets see, this is a junk article about a school that clearly isn't notable. Which obviously makes it worth deleting. Really, it shouldn't have been recreated. I'm tempted to say salt it as well as deleting it so it's not recreated again, but I'll leave that up to others to decide. I think salting it is probably a solid call though all things considered. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A school with significant history (over 100 years, the oldest and main school of the district, originally occupying a historic building[6]), with a large student body (over 3,000), and mentioned in news reports as one of thirteen schools nationwide which employed a lottery admissions system in 2017,[7][8] one of ten schools participating in a cultural programme for the WorldSkills ASEAN competition in 2018,[9] and for its role as a large standardised exams centre and polling station for national elections,[10][11] but I'm not seeing in-depth third-party coverage directly about the school itself. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean, it has a long history as a school. The only thing out there about it seems to brief mentions of it in some kind of research study. So, unfortunately even with how it is we still need sources that are not primary and they clearly don't exist. Not that I'm recommending it, but someone could make the argument that there are just no sources that we have access to because of "systemic bias" or whatever due to where it's located. I personally don't think it's a valid argument though because rarely, if ever, are grade 7 through 12 talked about in sources in any meaningful, in-depth. Even ones that are not in places where systemic bias might be an issue for usually otherwise notable subjects. I don't think the historical aspect or the lottery admissions thing is enough for notability on their own either. At least that's my read of things. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 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) 03:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Ramsey[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement or rationale. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and associate deans don't meet WP:NACADEMIC, and she doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG for a BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not pass WP:NPROF#1 or WP:NPROF#6. --hroest 01:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Ramsey is a FAAN [12]. Do Fellows of the American Academy of Nursing meet PROF#3? TJMSmith (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- TJMSmith, not to my knowledge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because someone holds the title associate dean does not mean they are notable. In fact not even all deans are default notable. Nothing here suggests that Ramsey passes academic notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most notable thing seems to be the "President’s Lifetime Achievement Award", which I'm not convinced is enough to push over the bar of notability for WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosh Sultanpur Primary School[edit]

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

PROD concern was Does not pass WP:NORG; I was not able to find any independent, secondary sources addressing this primary school directly and in significant detail.

Challenged with reason The article have a link from govt website so this article should be in wikipedia. It should not be deleted Website govt website

These sources show that this primary school exists but it does not show anything near the level of sourcing required to pass NORG. It's not even enough to pass WP:GNG. This fails on WP:ORGDEPTH, which requires that Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - primary schools are usually non-notable, and this one looks to be no exception. The cited sources, being mostly entries in databases, do not help to establish notability under the GNG, and my searches find no substantial coverage. I'm also not finding a logical place to redirect to. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Hello @Spiderone: first of all I didn't challenge. I just said that the article have a source from govt website. The article have reference on govt website so that is why I told you that this article should not be deleted. That's it. Now all I can say if admin think that this article should be on wikipedia then they will keep and if admin thik that this article should be deleted then they will delete. I'll accept whatever decision they take. Thank you

Delete We have decided that primary schools need an actual show of notability to keep the article. Wikipedia aims at covering notable things, not everything. Just because a government website can verify something exists does not mean we should have an article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McNeil Henderson[edit]

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

notability; can't even find birthdate in google Sbalfour (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:ANYBIO as a CBE, and WP:NPOLITICIAN as a member of a sub-national legislature (Legislative Council of Hong Kong). SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, birth date not being found on Google does not have any relationship with notability. It is not found just because it's long time ago and people were not aware of that. The article does have a fair amount of sources. Per SailingInABathTub, it passes WP:ANYBIO. Sun8908 _Talk 10:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 10:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comments. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notably: awarded CBE, I've added birth/death dates from UK Who's Who entry Piecesofuk (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; has clearly held WP:NPOL-passing political offices. The ability or inability to locate a person's birthdate in a Google search is entirely irrelevant to whether they're notable enough for a Wikipedia article or not. Firstly, notability is a question of being able to verify facts about a person's career, not of being able to verify their birthday per se — and secondly, we do not have any rule that our sources have to be web pages, but in fact we are allowed to cite print-only sources (such as books, archived newspaper or magazine articles, etc.). So, for both of those reasons, the inability to google a fact that isn't even central to our notability criteria in the first place is not in and of itself a deal breaker. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonably prominent colonial administrator; member of colonial legislative body, passes NPOL. --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes both WP:ANYBIO #1 and WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep AfD reason= "notability, can't even find birthdate in google" What the hell is that? The reason is very unclear !! Whatever, this topic clearly passes both WP:ANYBIO #1 and WP:POLITICIAN. No case was made for deletion and it will would hard to make one as well. What is the community value of these unresearched AfDs? VocalIndia (talk) 06:31, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Wittenburg[edit]

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

BLP of a German financier who has had various jobs and served in various bodies, but I can’t really see what makes him notable. Being Honorary Consul of Namibia in Hamburg certainly doesn’t qualify him, though that seems to be his most significant achievement. The sources are mostly PR and the article is like a résumé. Mccapra (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article reads like an advert. Not passing WP:BLP and WP:GNG ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Avdheshanand Giri[edit]

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

There seem to be no WP:RS to support WP:GNG for the subject. Several sources are not in English and hence cannot verify those. A quick look at the English sources make a mention which is not sufficient. Vikram Vincent 13:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English sources evaluation table:

Source	Evaluation
Yog Festival to see star-studded line-up International festival to see star...	Just states the subject name once along with others
Hindi page one	Cannot verify content of remaining non-English sources and hence not suited as ref for enwiki
VIF	Primary source. We need WP:RS
Sri Avdheshanand Giri Maharaj gets champions of Change Award 2019	~~Neither is~~ The source is not reliable. ~~nor~~ Is the award noteworthy?
http://www.siesedu.net/awards/eminence_awards.php	primary source. Not relevant to establish N.
Vision of Self	book written by subject. NACADEMIC?
RSS chief arrives in Haridwar on 2-day visit	see WP:TOI for reliability of TOI especially if Notability is to be established
The famous akhadas at Kumbh mela	Mentions subject as head of an akhada. Focus is on akhadas
Swami Avdheshananda Giri, Hindu of the year	I dont think this satisfies WP:RS
Amarnath board reconstituted	A board member does not have inherent notability
42-day Shri Amarnathji Yatra to begin on 23rd June	mentions subject as being present
Centre weighs a dozen names..	mentions subject as a list of probables
Israeli leaders meet with leaders of Eastern faith traditions	a short paragraph by subject
THE INAUGURAL RESPONSIBLE LEADERS SUMMIT	Primary source
NSA Doval meets Hindu, Muslim religious leaders	Paper mentions that NSA met the subject

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 11 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 17:43, 11 March 202subject.

DMySon is the creator of the above page. As of this moment, 14/35 of the references are in Hindi, which any non-Hindi literate cannot use to verify notability of the subject on enwiki. If there are specific points regarding notability of the subject or of the reliability of sources then that can be used to build consensus to keep the article, no? Vikram Vincent 17:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest option here is to improve the article and replace the sources and I will definitely withdraw the AFD nomination. Vikram Vincent 04:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources mentioned in the article and online also. Multiple interviews by leading news channels can be seen [13] [14]. It looks like editing can improve the quality of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranhita (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- YouTube links are not RS. Vikram Vincent 16:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure they are when the content is from notable organisations such as Doordarshan and Aaj Tak. Do Read [[15]] Pranhita (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let us assume for argument sake that the videos are RS, what claim do you want to support using those videos, Pranhita?
Comment: Vincentvikram is one of the active participants in deletion discussions and had made some great jobs by weeding out non notable thrash outta the encyclopedia (I didnt mean this article is a thrash). He had also rescued some articles from getting deleted. So DMySon, dont accuse someone blindly just because you dont agree with them. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 18:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. Has reliable sources with his name appearing in title. Can remove lines written with non-reliable sources. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi AppuduPappudu Can you point which of the English sources are reliable and why. Thanks, Vikram Vincent 17:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article looks quite good and the allegations of not having reliable source, donot holds water.Heba Aisha (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Heba Aisha I have created an analysis of the English sources present on the subject page. Please have a look and share which are reliable and why. Thanks,Vikram Vincent 17:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you yourself researched about the Champions_of_Change_(award) award before terming it as not noteworthy. Also, for the SIES Eminence award do see [16]. Also as per the WP:TOI concern, it is generally considered unreliable due to its bias in favour of government of India. However, the Government is not the concern here And because for WP:MREL Context Matters WP:CONTEXTMATTERS . The Subject is Juna Akhada Chief and hosted a show Pravachan Sarita on Sanskar TV , Written Various Books, Being Awarded Multiple Times and was also in controversy [17] . Seeing the above table commentaries it can be said that all the articles lack WP:RS . As far as the meet article goes, they can be removed since such a person have regular notable visitors, but its not being noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranhita (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I did look at the recipients of the award and note that all of them belong to a particular political orientation. If giving awards to oneself makes the award notable then so be it :-) PS: WP:TOI ranges from WP:MREL to WP:GUNREL quoting,The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. Vikram Vincent 03:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I dont have an idea about the Hindi sources. So I am not voting. But the English sources are definetly not giving significant independent coverage as per Vincentvikram. Regards.Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 04:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the keep votes have given a credible argument to keep. Assertion and finger pointing turn out not to be policy based arguments - go figure. The source analysis is compelling but would like to give the keep side a chance to discuss the non english sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Random sampling of Hindi sources based on Google translate

Source	Evaluation
"राम मंदिर के मॉडल को लेकर VHP खफा, उपाध्यक्ष चंपत राय बोले- नए डिजाइन पर बना तो लगेंगे 25 साल"	Subject is mentioned once in passing
"आज स्वामी अवधेशानंद बताएंगे जीवन संवारने के मंत्र"	Says the subject will give the mantra to improve life
"विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी के क्षेत्र में महिलाएं आगे आएं: राष्ट्रपति रामनाथ कोविंद".	States that the subject performed the ritual

The three sources taken from ref nos 4, 14 and 32 turned out to be passing mentions of the subject which do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV either individually or collectively. If anyone can examine other sources which might satisfy WP:THREE... Vikram Vincent 14:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the latest findings by Vincentvikram. And Champions_of_Change_(award) cannot be considered noteworthy. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lies (Rolling Stones song)[edit]

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

This track by the Rolling Stones off their 1978 album Some Girls doesn't appear to warrant enough notability to have a stand-alone article. I believe it should be redirected to Some Girls. – zmbro _(talk) 04:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no. 5 of WP:NBOOK talks of the author being so meganotable that anything written by them is considered wikinotable, would it be drawing a long bow to suggest that the same could apply to anything by the stones (confession, big fan)? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the Rolling Stones that probably works, since there are multiple books that cover all their songs in at least some detail. In the case of "Lies" there are those plus several pages of coverage in Patell's book (note a book, not an album review) The Rolling Stones' Some Girls.Rlendog (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as familiar with the Stones as I am the Beatles or Bowie but I imagine authors have broken them down song by song. I just acquired Patell's 33&1/3 book so I know I'll be able to add info on each track in the album article. I know that some of the reviews found on Rock's Backpages actually talk about "Lies" a bit (some negatively), so that would work in the song article. In the context of things, anything the Stones made is considered notable, I primarily nominated this as (in its current state), it doesn't warrant enough info to have its own article. Just in my opinion. – zmbro _(talk) 22:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say unequivocally that anything the Stones made is considered notable. But given the vast volume of material written about at least most of their songs, most if not all of their songs would meet the notability criteria of GNG or NSONGS. The standard for notability is the independent, reliably sourced material available and not just those in the current state of an article. Rlendog (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think any song by The Rolling Stones would meet the standards of notability. (For the record, I’m neither a fan of the Stones, nor of rock/pop in general.) That said, the information contained in this article, while interesting, needs to be properly cited. Is there any source for its use in WKRP, for example? Are there books on the Stones which discuss the background of this song? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Besides the Some Girls book, just going off my personal library (which I am sure is not complete in regards to books covering Stones' songs), "Lies" has a full page entry in The Rolling Stones: All the Songs, 2 paragraphs in Rip this Joint, at least 2 paragraphs in The Rolling Stones FAQ and a smaller, 1 paragraph entry in The Complete Guide to the Words and Music of the Rolling Stones. I'm sure there is more coverage out there but even if not this should be enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While WP:NBOOK was cited above for inherited notability, per WP:NALBUM, singles explicitly don't inherit notability, so it must be shown that this song has notability itself. Not voting delete because other comments have mentioned sources that would satisfy this, if those sources could expand the article, and are not only in the context of coverage of Some Girls, then the article should be kept and expanded. But, per WP:NSONGS, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Nangears (talk) 03:38, 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 draftified. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrates![edit]

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

The article has no unaffiliated sources at present. Searching for them is tricky, since the band shares its name with a lot of different media, but I'm not finding anything independent and reliable that gives them significant depth, so not seeing any evidence of notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks Girth, I've added multiple unaffiliated sources, And have moved it back to Drafts for further work. Dudeulike

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayron IV[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. I can not find any significant coverage of either the book or the author, nor any other evidence of notability, just a few sci-fi database listings. Lennart97 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK orWP:GNG, alarm bells ring with the low library holdings (under 10 libraries), a gsearch brings up nothing (only 22 unuseable results!), even Internet Speculative Fiction Database lists zero reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Goes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Peter Goes fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. None of the references found in the article are independent of the subject, being written by him or published by his publisher. I was also unable to find any sources that are independent. Mikalagrand (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons already listed. Fails WP:GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- His works have won significant critical attention- His first book Timeline has been reviewed by The New York Times, The Financial Times, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, Wall Street Journal, and briefly mentioned in a review by The Guardian. His book Rivers has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus Reviews, while Follow Finn has been reviewed by Kirkus Reviews. So passes criterion 4 of WP:AUTHOR. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, as books "well known" ie. Timeline, 350 libraries, Tijdlijn (in Dutch) 110 libraries, Rivers, 180 libraries, Rivieren (in Dutch) 115 libraries, and Follow Finn, 130 libraries, with multiple reviews (entitled to their own standalone wikiarticles) as brought out by Ashleyyoursmile above, more can be found with a gsearch ie. Timeline reviewed by Reading Time here, Rivers reviewed by De Standaard here. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some sources in similar journals to Ashley but her findings alone (let alone the additional context found by Coolabahapple) suggests notability under WP:NAUTHOR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 29 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) 23:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Seen on TV (novel)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Unsourced; I can find no significant coverage or any other evidence of notability. Previously nominated and kept in 2005, but not based on any arguments that would hold up today. Lennart97 (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add, for clarity: The author is better known by his real name Simon Kerr, and his novel The Rainbow Singer might be notable based on some reviews found online. This does not seem to be the case for As Seen on TV, though. Lennart97 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A WP:BEFORE search returns nothing to indicate that subject meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I note that all the "keep" recommendations for the previous AfD are of the "Google confirms a book by this name exists" variety. Similar sources are available today (establishing existence). I can find none which establish notability. Guliolopez (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything other than what I added to the article. It's possible that there could be more but I have nothing I can point towards that would validate this, so in the absence of the author having an article this would just be a delete. (IE, if the author had an article I'd say redirect with history so that if more sourcing was found it could be restored.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:NBOOK, or WP:GNG due to lack of multiple reviews, like those above, have been unable to find any, what is interesting about this book is that, according to WorldCat, it is held by around 75 libraries so we would expect there to be more reviews especially as this is kerr's second novel and his debut novel (in about 90 libraries) has ie. quick search brings up Kirkus (here), and Publishers Weekly (here), i suppose it could be mentioned at The Rainbow Singer? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple and ReaderofthePack: Would it make sense to create an article for the author and merge both book articles there (even though The Rainbow Singer technically qualifies for a standalone article)? The combined scarce coverage of author and novels might just make for a decent-length article, I would guess, but I don't know what the relevant guidelines are for authors and books when it comes to this kind of thing. Lennart97 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that would be WP:NAUTHOR, even "stricter" ie. no.4, not just reviews but also work(s) well known. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that would probably be hard to meet for this author. I do think that would be the only way to preserve anytying from As Seen on TV, if you really wanted to, as any information about this book wouldn't be particularly relevant to The Rainbow Singer. Lennart97 (talk) 23:49, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birdies (company)[edit]

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

Company does not meet WP:NCORP- claim to notability seems to be that a Duchess was photographed wearing their shoes. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote the page because I kept seeing reliable sources about the founders and the company. Female founded and run American company with more than $10 million in funding and large collaborations. Coverage in many third party, impartial news sources. Hope to see other opinions here. Hailey McAllister (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I initially was skeptical to see e.g. TechCrunch as cites since they allow pretty much anyone to write there. But a review of the articles cited shows most are not pieces by non-staff "contributors," although the Forbes piece is. The remainder of what I looked at (TechCrunch, Insider, Observer, FastCompany, Real Simple) appear to be written by staff journalists or editors. Further, the cites are more than a cursory mention of the company. Coverage is significant, appears in multiple reliable secondary sources, and in sources independent of the subject. Sauzer (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revising to Delete per the convincing research below my post. Sauzer (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is not GNG as indicated above but is WP:NCORP. We require multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is also important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they are some of the most obvious examples of advertorials you could come across. They fail NCORP guidelines as follows:
- This from Forbes is from the "sites" portion of the website and the community has long ago regarded these references as unreliable and fails WP:RS. In addition, the article is based entirely on an interview with the founders and therefore fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from The Helm is likewise based entirely on an interview with the founders and fails ORGIND.
- This from Norwest is a blog post (fails WP:RS) from one of the investors and therefore fails ORGIND also
- This from Business Insider is a review of the product with zero information about the company - the topic of this article - and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, this is a review where the "Insider Reviews" team "frequently receive product free of charge" to test and where they receive "a small share of the revenue from the sale" that is made from the links in their article. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This TechCrunch article (mentioned above as a reason to Keep) is also based entirely on an interview with one of the founders with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This Fast Company reference is based entirely on an interview with Ken Fulk who discusses his collaboration on a "luxury home slipper", fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from the Observer is based on an announcement from the company on a collection to "encourage women to vote". The PR for the launch resulted in numerous similar articles in various publications such as footweatnews, Town and Country magazine, Yahoo Finance and lots more. This is not "Independent Content" and these references all fail WP:ORGIND.
- This from Sportico is entirely based on an announcement of their sponsorship of Angel City FC. Also fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Town and Country contains zero information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This from BizJournals is based entirely on an interview with the founder and information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
- This from People contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Not a single reference comes close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability, the references are simply PR and advertorials, nothing more. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and an extensive research by HighKing above. Once you look at the ref's they don't pass. Kolma8 (talk) 20:41, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Jo Hutchison[edit]

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

DEPRODed w/o explanation. Looks to me currently like a WP:BIO1E. She has some coverage in the news for her hearing in local media but no significant, secondary coverage, lacks WP:GNG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks WP:GNG. SunDawn (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC, because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and the article has been revised with sources added, including about her 2017 lobbying in Congress (Herald-Star, New York Times), her 2018 work with the Poor People's Campaign (Associated Press, The Nation), non-local news sources about her 2020 testimony before Congress (ABC Denver 7, Politico), and sources related to her advocacy in 2020 (Times West Virginian) and 2021 (MarketWatch, Charleston Gazette-Mail (co-authored opinion article)). Beccaynr (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HEY is not a policy but anyway the sources added you are listing only do report about her work in a trivial way, this is not sufficient to establish Notability. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I referred to WP:HEY as a way to suggest that I had substantially revised the article to address the concerns raised in the nom. Also, I disagree that the sources report and comment on Hutchison in a trivial manner, particularly due to how triviality is described by note 7 in WP:BASIC, "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail," and due to the depth of the following coverage, according to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Wheeling resident to speak on C.H.I.P., Star-Herald, 2017

A Wheeling mother and social advocate says working parents facing the elimination of the Children’s Health Insurance Program next year may have to leave their jobs so their children continue to have insurance coverage through Medicaid. Amy Jo Hutchison, a northern region organizer for Our Children, Our Future — a grassroots organization seeking to end child poverty — will speak to senators in Washington today to urge them to reauthorize the C.H.I.P. program before it expires Feb. 28. The event has been authorized by First Focus, a bipartisan children’s advocacy organization. Hutchison said she plans to share with the senators her story about C.H.I.P.’s importance and will bring with her the stories of many working parents in West Virginia. She will be accompanied by her daughters, Grace and Makayla. Hutchison describes herself as a working mother who went back to college at age 45, obtained a bachelor’s degree and did what is expected of her to be a productive citizen. “If the C.H.I.P. program is not reauthorized, there are going to be many parents who won’t be able to ensure children and can’t afford the private marketplace,” she said. “Some of us will have to quit jobs so that our kids can get Medicaid. That is the exact opposite of what parents on C.H.I.P. want. There are working families who can’t afford insurance. That’s why the C.H.I.P. program was created.” Hutchison explained the program “fills in the gaps” for parents who don’t qualify for Medicaid assistance, but find traditional insurance options unaffordable. The C.H.I.P. program is income-based. In her job, Hutchison speaks to working parents in a 20-county region in northern West Virginia, and she said they have “some pretty heavy stories.” Hutchison said one mother told her of her child who is a Type 1 diabetic, and the cost of insulin without insurance comes to $3,000 a month. The mother told Hutchison her family could use their income tax refund to pay the medical bill for a month, but beyond that they would have issues. Another mother has a son with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In addition to medication, C.H.I.P. pays for needed counseling. The mother is looking to leave her job to receive Medicaid benefits, according to Hutchison. “It’s the only way to give him the life he deserves,” Hutchison said.

With Children’s Health Program Running Dry, Parents Beg Congress: ‘Do the Right Thing’, New York Times, 2017

With more and more states running out of money for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, parents took their case to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, pleading with Congress to provide money before their sons and daughters lose health care and coverage. [...] Amy Jo Hutchison came to Washington with her daughters, 10 and 13, from Wheeling, W.Va. As an infant, her older daughter was blind in one eye, and CHIP helps pay for regular visits to a pediatric ophthalmologist, Ms. Hutchison said.

Poor People’s Campaign to begin 40 days of action next month, Associated Press, 2018

As organizers rekindle an economic justice effort the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was planning when he was killed, they are looking at people like Amy Jo Hutchison to lead the way. Hutchison, 46, is the single mother of two daughters, ages 14 and 11. She’s on Medicaid, and her daughters are enrolled in the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides low-cost coverage. She has a full-time job and a bachelor’s degree. And she’s white. “People perceive me as solidly middle class,” said Hutchinson, who lives in Wheeling and is one of the campaign’s leaders in West Virginia. But she describes herself as living on the “high end of poverty.” “There’s never a month when two flat tires wouldn’t cripple me,” she said in a phone interview Monday. [...] It’s also important that those who live in poverty are working directly with the campaign to improve their lives, said Hutchison, an organizer with an anti-poverty group called Our Children, Our Future. “We’re not generally given the space to come together and take a stand,” she said. “We’re constantly fighting for our dignity.”

The Poor People’s Campaign Is Just Getting Started, The Nation, 2018

A goal of this contemporary movement is to flip the dominant narrative of poverty in America from one that demonizes the poor to one that questions the morality of current public policy and the elected officials who craft it—a status quo in which 140 million people struggle to make ends meet, 54 million people work jobs below a living wage, 14 million are on the verge of not being able to afford their water bills, 4 million are homeless, migrant children are caged at our border, and black families continue to be ripped apart by mass incarceration.

The Nation spoke with some of the activists who came to Washington this weekend and who now plan to carry on the work of the Poor People’s Campaign for months and years to come. They are at the forefront of this decentralized movement, which emphasizes state-based campaigns led by directly impacted people.

[...]AMY JO HUTCHISON, WHEELING, WV: BUILDING A COALITION OF MOMS TO PROTECT THE SAFETY NET

Amy Jo Hutchison, 46, has lived in West Virginia her entire life and “never spent a day out of poverty on some level.” “Unemployed poverty or working poor,” she said. “And when I was unemployed, SNAP [food stamps] helped me feed my kids. You just can’t do it without the safety net sometimes.” A single mother of two girls, ages 14 and 11, Hutchison has a bachelor’s degree and previously worked as a Head Start teacher. She is now an organizer for Our Children, Our Future, which is spearheading a campaign to end child poverty in a state where about 30 percent of children under age 6 live below the federal poverty line. Hutchison does some lobbying and policy work at the state level, but said her “passion is organizing low-income moms.” “They have it in them,” Hutchinson said. “Sometimes people just need someone to say, ‘Hey, I believe in you. Let’s do this together.’” Her work organizing directly impacted people to protect the safety net was a natural fit with the Poor People’s Campaign, which is focused on breaking through historical racial divides that have kept white people in poverty from working with people of color in poverty. “Politicians have set it up to keep us pitted against one another—from Jim Crow on,” said Hutchison. “To change that you have to have boots on the ground—have conversations and establish relationships so you can begin to say, ‘Look, we’re all in the same boat.’” These conversations include Trump voters, who she says believed him during the presidential campaign when he said he was bringing coal back. “Since I’m directly impacted I can go in there and say, ‘I know what this is like, and we’re being hoodwinked,’” said Hutchison. Hutchison organizes in 20 of West Virginia’s 55 counties, and her approach is to find a contact who can get her “a foot in the door” in a new community. Her goal is to set up a meeting with five mothers, which will lead to a referral and another meeting with five more, and so on. It’s a model that has helped the West Virginia Poor People’s Campaign establish a formidable presence at the state capitol over the past six weeks, as residents fight to protect a safety net that is under constant threat. Earlier this year, the governor imposed work requirements for food assistance, despite the state’s own study suggesting that it doesn’t help workers find employment; during a nine-county pilot project, there was also a spike in demand at food pantries. But recently, with the help of low-income mothers testifying at the state capitol, the legislature raised SNAP eligibility from 130 percent of the poverty line to 200 percent. “That was a huge win,” Hutchison said. “With that we bring in thousands of working poor to make them SNAP-eligible since they aren’t paid enough to make ends meet.” Now Hutchison has her sights on working with the Poor People’s Campaign on voter registration and mobilization, continuing to grow the coalition of mothers, and resisting the latest proposals from congressional Republicans to cut food assistance, children’s health care, and repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Woman praised for testimony on poverty stresses importance of census, ABC Denver 7, 2020

On February 9, Amy Jo Hutchison faced lawmakers in Washington D.C. “I was really fidgety. I was scared to death,” she said. Hutchison spoke before a House subcommittee hearing on poverty in America. “I have one chance. I’m like one out of 86 million folks for whatever reason who was chosen to do this, and I had one shot,” said Hutchison. She talked about the nights she went to bed hungry, nights she had to nurse her gallbladder with essential oils and eat ibuprofen “like Tic-Tacs” because she didn’t have health insurance. It resonated with tens of thousands of people who have watched and shared it online.

“There’s always a shame that comes with poverty regardless of the level of poverty,” Hutchison said. She knows what it’s like to be on government benefits. Her children receive government assisted health insurance. “Now I’m solidly working poor. I make too much to make any benefits but it’s a struggle to make it check to check,” Hutchison said. When she faced Congress, she didn't hold back. “I also read that each senator was authorized almost $40,000 for state office furniture and furnishings and this number is increased each year to reflect inflation,” she said to the members. “That $40,000 a year in furniture is $360 more than the federal poverty guidelines for a family of seven." “Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on me, and shame on each and every one of us who haven't rattled the windows of these buildings with cries of outrage that a government thinks their office furniture is worthy of thousand dollars a year and families and children aren’t,” she said. Hutchison has since launched RattleTheWindows.Org. She’s been flooded with the stories of the same struggle. She shared a story of a parent of a child with diabetes and other auto-immune diseases. She says the boy put himself in ICU because he didn’t want to tell his parents he had run out of insulin. He's been flooded with stories of the same struggle. Hutchison's next step in fighting poverty is the census. A recent study said West Virginia relies the most on the money at stake. “Any government assistance program, SNAP, WIC, CHIP, TANF, I can’t even imagine the effects on the people who would be harmed by that,” she said. Hutchison spent less than six minutes in front of Congress. “I'm not asking you to apologize for your privilege but I’m asking you to see past it,” she said to lawmakers. She believes it will take much more time than that to help those struggling like her. “We shouldn't be so out of breath from chasing the American dream,” Hutchison said.

House panel examines impact of proposed SNAP changes on children, Politico, 2020

— The hearings are part of a two-day series, “A Threat to America’s Children,” to assess the impact of the administration’s actions on child poverty, housing, hunger and health. On Wednesday, Amy Jo Hutchison, an organizer with the Healthy Kids and Families Coalition in West Virginia, testified during a hearing on the administration’s proposed changes to the poverty line calculation. The federal poverty guidelines say Hutchinson isn't poor, but she said she has “two jobs and a bachelor’s degree" and still struggles "to make ends meet." — "I’m not poor, but I cashed in a jar full of change the other night so my daughter could attend her high school band competition,” she said. “I had to decide which bills not to pay to be here in this room today. Believe me, I’ve pulled myself up by the bootstraps so many damn times that I’ve ripped them off."

Also, the 2020 and 2021 sources linked above help further support that this is not WP:BLP1E, because not only are there multiple events that Hutchison has received national news coverage for, Hutchison did not otherwise remain a low-profile individual, because she "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication" as "a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator," (e.g. Times West Virginian 2020) and "has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause," e.g. MarketWatch quoting her 2021 appearance at a Poor People's Campaign rally and the 2021 Charleston Gazette-Mail (co-authored opinion article). Beccaynr (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable as a result of coverage in secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been substantially improved since nomination and I believe Beccaynr has established a basis for notability above. Sauzer (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources that could be incorporated: 'A national scandal:' AOC says the US is 'in denial' about the number of Americans actually living in poverty (Business Insider, 2020), 'We've kept the whole damn country running': Pandemic deepens divide between haves and have-nots in U.S. (CBC, 2020), SNAP increases helping those struggling in virus pandemic, but what’s the future of program? (ABC 7, 2020), Rural hunger: West Virginia braces for federal program changes (Farm and Dairy, 2020), Marion Co., WV, officials discuss importance of 2020 census (Fairmont News, 2020), Everyone’s Story Matters: The Value of Listening (WVU, 2021), 'Raise the Wage' Moral Monday protest to occur (Press Republican, 2021). Some of these sources also include biographical information, which is sometimes related to Hutchison's advocacy. Beccaynr (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulaye Dieng[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated after PROD without any career updates. –BlameRuiner (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL as noted Sauzer (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFOOTBALL as noted.--Sepah iranian (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominators reasoning. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most certainly fails GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Kolma8 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Kemalcan (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Cryan[edit]

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

BLP of a script writer to which WP:BLP1E applies. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have insufficient sourcing to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough coverage for WP:GNG, and too few credits to warrant having an article. PK T(alk) 14:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, television writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles the moment they've had one writing credit — the notability test for television writers is evidence of significance, such as getting an Emmy or Canadian Screen Award nomination for their writing, not just evidence of existence. Secondly, he hasn't actually written real episodes of either Veep or Curb Your Enthusiasm: those were spec scripts that he sent to the Simpsons as writing samples, not episodes that either of those series actually filmed or aired — so neither of those shows are relevant to his notability or lack thereof at all, because he does not actually have genuine writing credits on either show. Thirdly, the notability test is also not passed just because the person gets a tiny blip of "local guy does stuff" in his own local media; note as well that the IFP.ca and Toronto Star hits are the same article by the same journalist, but the same content being reaggregated in two sister publications co-owned by the same company is one data point toward GNG, not two separate ones (see WP:CITEKILL, specifically the section titled "Reprints"). So no, writing one actually-produced-and-actually-aired episode of one TV series is not automatically enough in and of itself, and neither the volume nor range of coverage he got for it add up to enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to achieve anything that would pass our actual notability tests for television writers. If he gets an Emmy nomination in the fall for it, then maybe things will be different. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bearcat's good assessment. PK650 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chuggaaconroy[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate this passed WP:NBIO and WP:before comes up with no WP:RS. Creator has over 1 million “subscribers” but this does not establish notability per WP:NYOUTUBE. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, over a million subscribers and much news coverage, for instance The New York Times.--Mvqr (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mvqr did you read what I just linked above about how subscriber count is an insufficient basis to establish notability? That New York Times piece does not contain significant coverage either. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides the Wired article, I don't see evidence of notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article from Wired is the only source here that demonstrates significant coverage, the rest is brief mentions or primary. Namcokid 47 06:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from a Wired article. Per WP:ARBITRARY, having millions of subscribers doesn't make him notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 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. Whilst there is clear consensus to delete based on gng, I would recommend a number of participating editors refresh their knowledge of NFOOTY, as it clearly states that notability is presumed of the player in question has featured in a match organised at confederation level and sources in this discussion confirm this to be the case Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Igesumai[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as Micronesia are not affiliated to FIFA and has never played in a professional league. No evidence he meets WP:GNG. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We've been over this before with regards to Micronesian players (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atantaake Tooma). It was established that the 2003 South Pacific Games was an OFC organised tournament (source), thus all players from this specific tournament are eligible for pages. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The result of that AfD was no consensus and the closer specifically said that AfDs are not the place to quibble over notability guidelines nor to run "test cases" so it was not established that all players from that tournament were eligible for pages. They may have presumed notability but for none of those players or for Peter Igesumai has it been established that they meet the general notability guidelines which supersede any presumed notability. Per WP:BLP1E, anyone who is just notable because they played in that one tournament would not be eligible for a standalone article as it is the event that is notable rather than the individual. Some people who competed in that tournament may well be individually notable but that would need to be established by significant coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that is for the countless football statistics websites that list every person that kicked a ball a few times and, as they are the only online sources available, that does not convey significant coverage. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NFOOTY clearly requires the international games to be between A-teams. South Pacific Games aren't counted by FIFA as a A-level games even when two FIFA members involved. And Micronesia not only not a FIFA member, they aren't OFC member either. Whether the tournament is run by OFC is irrelevant, there are lots of competitions organized by confederations that don't qualify players for wiki article. —BlameRuiner (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most certainly fails WP:GNG. I will argue he fails WP:NFOOTY per above. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if this player passes NFOOTBALL - and it's a big IF, given the issues raised above about the nation he represented, more importantly he fails GNG. Giant Snowman 19:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and does not pass NFOOTBALL due to the above. Kolma8 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails GNG. Fails football notability by miles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dene Barton Community Hospital[edit]

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

Small unremarkable hospital. The hospital's 39 beds were closed in 2018 and have not re-opened since. It is now just an outpost of the main hospital used for daytime-only services like physiotherapy. None of the other community hospitals managed by Somerset NHS Foundation Trust have articles and there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for this to be here. It doesn't have any specialist services, it doesn't have any history at all in the buildings or site. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every institution that at one point operated medical beds is notable. That is about where we would have to draw notability to include this place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 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. Overwhelming consensus for 'keep'. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Stuart Lubbock[edit]

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

This does not seem a crime of lasting interest -- see WP:CRINE DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant WP:CRIME? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this case gained huge media attention in the UK, primarily because it happened in the home of Michael Barrymore, who at the time was one of the UK's highest-profile celebrities. It was the primary reason why his career was destroyed and is still talked about - stoked up in part by the recent (March 2021) arrest of another man for Lubbock's murder. If you google Michael Barrymore you will see that around 50% of the hits are still related to the Lubbock case. --10mmsocket (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per 10mmsocket. Just because a crime was committed 20 years ago, doesn't mean it has disappeared from the public's memory, especially when a new suspect has been arrested. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most definitely the subject of lasting interest. Mccapra (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would say it is a firm 'keep'. This received a great deal of coverage at the time of the incident and is still the subject of debate 20 years later. Eagleash (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable event, with reliable, verifiable, independent sources Devoke water 12:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extensive coverage, even 20 years later. Coverage in the BBC and Guardian so pretty much about as notable as it gets. Also has a lot of Telegraph coverage so, yeah, clear and obvious keep. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure what DGG is doing here but this is a case that has had decades of significant coverage in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was only recently restored, following the discussion at Talk:Michael Barrymore#The section on the Death of Stuart Lubbock is too large, but I assume that DGG knew that. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This has been unsolved for over 20 yrs, destroyed Barrymore's career and has been in and out of the news,, including a documentary about it during this whole time.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the above. This case has lots of continued coverage since day 1 due to the Barrymore connection, with several documentaries/news specials about it over the years. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably piling on here, but I did want to make sure that at least one keep vote formally cited the relevant guideline WP:VICTIM:

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. (emphasis mine). The language is a bit stilted since it applies to both victims and wrongly convicted (clearly the victim's significant role in their murder is a bit redundant), but it's pretty clear that if the coverage of a murder persists 20 years afterwards, then the subject explicitly meets the guidelines under WP:VICTIM. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:VICTIM. Per good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - information about this death is important. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon (game)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. No references provided. SunDawn (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BGG lists it in Top 150 for 'war' category (and Top 1,500 rank overall)... not super obscure, but not very well known. It got video reviews by a major board game channel: [18]. There is a recent KS for a new edition but it didn't generate any news coverage, and I can't find any written reviews. There may be something not digitized in some wargame zines or such, but as things stand right now, this fails WP:GNG. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A classic game which has been published in multiple editions, this easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV – see the Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society, for example. See WP:BEFORE, WP:DRIVEBY, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with your assessment. therefore Withdraw AfD nomination. I would improve the article based on the source you provided after this AfD is closed. Thanks. SunDawn (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Due to the presence of a delete !vote, it doesn't appear that this can be withdrawn -- see WP:SKCRIT. @Piotrus, how do you feel about this? Vaticidalprophet 15:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaticidalprophet, One good source (Encyclopedia) is great progress, but I am not happy about the others, and GNG requires multiple (i.e at least two) good sources, so let's see what else can be dug up. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but if it is kept then it needs to be moved to Napoleon (board game) (or similar), with Napoleon (game) redirecting to Napoleon (disambiguation)#Gaming as an incomplete disambiguation. Lowercaserho (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lowercaserho, Comment to closer. If kept, please move per the above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added three reviews, which should establish notability. Guinness323 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Guinness323, Errr, the Encyclopedia is actually good, but BGG is not reliable (user generated), and Grogheads doesn't strike me as high quality (rather borderline and very niche/low impact even in the online board gaming community). PS. Oh, I guess you mean the reviews in The Canadian Wargaming Journal and The Wargamer. The latter needs a disambig, and if you mean the website, could you link the reviews? They should be accessible, this being a website, right? A review in CWJ is likely good, but I am always hesitant to AGF such offline reviews - is it really in depth? It may be two page long, but it could be a two-sentense capsule review too... can anyone confirm it is long enough to meet SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above showing this game meets the WP:GNG. BOZ (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable game, one of the first important block wargames. Durindaljb (talk) 18:46, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no opposing delete votes. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Next War (board game)[edit]

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

Did not pass WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Coverage from BGG does not make it notable, not to mention that BGG is not WP:RS. SunDawn (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. I found an interesting mention in passing here: "When Dunnigan’s huge commercial wargame The Next War came out in July 1978, the defense contractor BDM took notice and hired the game’s developer, Mark Herman. So began a chain of events that would lead commercial wargaming techniques into the heart of the U.S. defense establishment". But this is not WP:SIGCOV, and being sourced to an email does not bode well for finding more. At best, the game could be mentioned somewhere where this fact is relevant (wargame?) and then this could be redirected there. (Note I am not suggesting merge and redirect now since this fact I found is not mentioned in the article which is just unreferenced fancruft description of this product). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC) PS. Changed to weak delete per sources found below, the odds are they provide sigcov but this needs to be verified, we can't just assume that they are based on tables of contents. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC) PS. Changed to abstain given the further arguments, but I am not comfortable voting keep without being able to verify myself that the sources (that I think nobody here was...) are indeed in-depth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game was influential as noted above and in sources such as On Wargaming – How Wargames Have Shaped History and how They May Shape the Future. It was naturally reviewed and discussed in the relevant pre-Internet journals such as Fire & Movement and so it's just another case of WP:NEXIST. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, Guinness323, Sadly, I can't even verify that the game is mention in the On Wargaming book - if anyone can, could you provide page ranges and confirm that this is more than a mention in passing? Likewise, for the Fire & Movement, can we get proper details - issue numbers, pages, etc.? Sometimes such publications contained 'capsule' one-two sentence reviews that don't meet SIGCOV so we can't assume the existence of a review is sufficient. The review needs to be in-depth. That hasn't been shown to be the case. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not well-written, but this game was a signifigant step in wargaming, and was reviewed in all of the big wargaming magazines of the era. I have added a list of five such reviews. As such, the game is notable. Guinness323 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness323, The odds are that at least some of the reviews you link are in-depth, but this needs to be confirmed. While unlikely, it is not impossible that all of those were tiny capsule-like reviews that don't meet SIGCOV. Can anyone get access to one or more of these reviews to verify that they are in-depth? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed all of them are in-depth examinations/reviews of the game because in-depth examinations of wargames with critiques of rules and possible strategies and tactics were the norm for wargame magazines of the 1970s. The index for Strategy & Tactics #69 here only lists seven items, one of them being the article on this game by C. Kamps -- unlikely that a capsule review would be indexed. Likewise the ToC of Paper Wars #52 here lists the review for The Next War by Wade Hinkle on p. 36, with the next entry on p.42. Even allowing for a couple of full-page ads, that's a 3–4 page article. Likewise the index for Fire & Movement #15 here only lists 7 articles. The article about The Next War has three authors (R.DeBaun, R.MacGown, M.Saha), so very likely to be an in-depth examination of the game.Guinness323 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness323, That is reasonable. I will withdraw my deletion vote. Thanks for rescuing this! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AFD per all reasons above, thank you. SunDawn (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above showing this game meets the WP:GNG. BOZ (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AFD per all reasons above, thank you. SunDawn (talk) 11:27, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Verma (actor)[edit]

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

Vanity piece about a non-notable actor who hasn't yet appeared in a single film. The refs look impressive at first glance, but they all are passing mentions of him in the context of the upcoming film. Even the Box Office India article, which is the best of the bad lot, is still mainly about the film, with a bit of Steven Seagal thrown in for good measure. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 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 redirect to List of Nottinghamshire Cricket Board List A players Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Shafayat[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, sourced with database entries. No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable cricketer, played in List A cricket per WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nottinghamshire Cricket Board List A players Has played 1 List A match, and while there is some coverage of him playing club cricket, and being arrested for fraud none of this is enough to pass GNG. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Nominator should perhaps have been BOLD and redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Nottinghamshire Cricket Board List A players. No significant coverage, just scorecard databases and passing mentions in local club cricket reports, so fails WP:GNG, which trumps the trivial (and very debatable) pass of WP:NCRIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nottinghamshire Cricket Board List A players per both comments above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABES Engineering College[edit]

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

Relies on self published sources; a few paid refs found with a BEFORE. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS. Looks like it is using Wikipedia to advertise itself. Vikram Vincent 06:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Educational colleges must take softly as per Wikipedia. Affiliated with a reputed University.Tictictoc (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tictictoc, I noticed that you have !voted keep on a set of related AFDs. On what policy is your keep !vote based on? Vikram Vincent 06:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. And Tictictoc, there are no soft corner towards educational institution in case of notability. As per the notability criteria, 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. This article clearly fails this. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to indicate how any WP:NSCHOOLS notability criteria are met. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have cleaned up the page and yet it does not pass WP:HEY. Vikram Vincent 07:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is taking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, I know you as a good-standing admin, but I'd like to ask for the consensus stating that "degree awarding institutions are generally notable". ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - TheAafi There was a time when pages on educational institutions without RS would survive AFD. However, consensus can change which is why there is even a tag called {{outcomes}}. I'd say a good argument would be to show WP:THREE sources that support WP:SIGCOV and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Vikram Vincent 18:26, 29 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) 23:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IILM College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement. A few paid refs found with a BEFORE. NSCHOOL not satisfied. Vikram Vincent 06:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Educational colleges must take softly as per Wikipedia. Affiliated with a reputed University.Tictictoc (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of what policy? Vikram Vincent 07:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any policy that causes us to keep articles with no independent sources is probably a bad policy. Wikipedia is drowning in articles sourced only to the subject's own website, we need to act now to stop this situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish WP:NSCHOOLS or WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find multiple sources satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH; if a suitable redirect location can be found, then please redirect. If not, delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Academy Lucknow[edit]

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

A primary/secondary school which does not satisfy NSCHOOL. A few paid refs with a BEFORE. Relies on primary source. Vikram Vincent 06:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no independent sources at all. It is long passed time that Wikipedia stopped just accepting articles with no sources other than the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly this lacks the references needed for the article to be notable enough and I totally agree Wikipedia should stop accepting articles with zero independent sources. So it's a pretty clear delete IMO. Unless someone can provide WP:THREE usable references. I wasn't even able to find the usual trivial cruft that's out there about some schools though. So I doubt anyone will. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:10, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishveshwarya Group of Institutions[edit]

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

Relies on primary sources. A few paid link websites with a BEFORE. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS. Creator is an SPA. Vikram Vincent 06:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NSCHOOLS imo. Kolma8 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Educational colleges must take softly as per Wikipedia. Affiliated with a reputed University.Tictictoc (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of what policy? Vikram Vincent 07:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish notabililty; private technical colleges are not inherently notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:08, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Zero references with a BEFORE. Does not satisfy NSCHOOL. Created by an IP! Vikram Vincent 05:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Educational colleges must take softly as per Wikipedia. Affiliated with a reputed University.Tictictoc (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of what policy? Vikram Vincent 07:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we purged Wikipedia of articles with no sources other than the subject's own webpage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero reliable sources to establish any kind of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is taking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:03, 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 redirect to List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club players. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Khan (cricketer)[edit]

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

Another non-notable cricketer, nothing in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting. Played for a first-class County Championship team in a non-County Championship game. Still, this is getting a little silly, isn't it? Bobo . 08:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable cricketer, played in first-class cricket per WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club players Has only played 1 FC game, but it was for a County side. While searching online didn't reveal any real coverage, sources may well exist offline. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage can be found, are redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. However I have no qualms if this is kept as a player who's played for a county side may well have coverage offline. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club players. No significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the trivial pass (arguable fail) of WP:NCRIC by virtue of playing a single first team match against a university side – plainly not the highest level of domestic cricket. Played three seasons of second XI cricket for Derbys, so redirect may be a suitable ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:17, 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 redirect to List of Essex Cricket Board List A players. To be honest, recent outcomes of AfD about cricketers depend on the participants too much. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Akhtar[edit]

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

Nothing in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable cricketer, played in List A cricket per WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Essex Cricket Board List A players Has played 1 List A match, but there's only really coverage of his club career and nothing significant to pass GNG. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and there is a suitable WP:ATD here. Nominator perhaps should have been BOLD and redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak redirect to List of Essex Cricket Board List A players. No significant coverage, aside from the usual scorecard databases it's mostly passing mentions in routine club cricket reports, so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the extremely trivial (and arguable fail) of WP:NCRIC, which has proven a very unreliable indicator of suitability for standalone articles. Played one List A match for a cricket board XI – that is plainly not the highest standard of domestic cricket, irrespective of the opponents and the competition's status. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article completely and fully fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 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 and redirect to List of Nottinghamshire Cricket Board List A players. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aquib Afzaal[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer. Nothing in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable cricketer, played in List A cricket per WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nottinghamshire Cricket Board List A players Has played 1 List A game, but while there is some coverage of him playing club matches, none of this coverage is significant. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Nominator should have been BOLD and redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the extremely trivial (and arguable fail) of WP:NCRIC, which has proven a very unreliable indicator of suitability for standalone articles. Played one List A match for a cricket board against a minor county – that is plainly not the highest standard of domestic cricket, irrespective of the competition's status. Redirect to a team he played one match for makes little sense, when he played many more for Notts (and Worcs) second XIs, but we obviously don't have a List of Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club second XI players. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is failed. When a guideline like the circket one has been shown to not at all be predictive of passing GNG, which is really what such guidelines are supposed to do, it needs to be scrapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 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 redirect to Derbyshire Cricket Board. The consensus on the redirect target is weaker than that on the outcome of redirection/deletion, so it might be appropriate to RfD the resulting redirect. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Afzaal[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable cricketer, played in List A matches per WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Derbyshire Cricket Board Has played 1 List-A match, but coverage is limited. There is some coverage of playing club cricket but that isn't enough for him to pass GNG. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few games, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable redirect exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Derbyshire Cricket Board, the NCRIC pass does not change the comprehensive GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the extremely trivial (and arguable fail) of WP:NCRIC, which has proven a very unreliable indicator of suitability for standalone articles. Played one List A match for a cricket board against a minor county – that is plainly not the highest standard of domestic cricket. Redirect to a team he played one match for makes little sense, when he played many more for Notts and Worcs second XIs, and a great deal more for Clifton and WI Cavaliers in club cricket. In addition, Kamran Afzal seems more likely to be the person being sought, so maybe redirect there instead after deletion. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article completely and totally fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Weak consensus (justifiable by long discussion open time) to keep the article based on WP:NACTOR C1 (and the information is wp:verifiable). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Tiwari[edit]

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

This seems to be a pretty cut and dried case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject has only portrayed a leading role in Serious Men alongside Nawaz and received some coverage for the same. No significant roles played by her in multiple notable banners to qualify for an article under WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The addition of sources to the article show she has starred in the films Nazarband (2020), Serious Men (2020), and Gangubai Kathiawadi (2021), and is notable per WP:NACTOR, because she has "had significant roles in multiple notable films." Beccaynr (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources also include Hindustan Times 2020, The Indian Express 2020, The Indian Express 2020 (review), News18 2020, ZeeNews 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR as shown in the sources provided by Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 00:08, 29 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) 05:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wharfedale Technologies[edit]

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

Another software company. Most of the 'key milestones' are unsourced. Nothing solid found in searches as well. Fails WP:ORG. Page made by WP:SPA.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; an unremarkable company. BD2412 T 05:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article reads like PR --Devoke water 12:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ORG. Kolma8 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or an alternative platform for marketing. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 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/redirect. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carys Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

Again, these leftovers of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia. These all appear to be named road junctions, not communities. WP:BEFORE brings up minimal coverage with the exception of Grays Corner, Westmoreland County, Virginia and Wilberts Corner, Virginia, for which I found sources calling those road junctions. None of these meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG.

This nomination also includes:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Carys Corner to Threeway, Virginia and delete the rest, per the book Westmoreland County, Virginia, 1653-1983 which seems a definitive authority on the subject.----Pontificalibus 09:49, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Object Management Group[edit]

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

Only sources are own websites or wire agency PRs. Has a notable CEO Richard Soley who might still be having a page only because he 'might' be transcending to WP:Academic (Someone might want to look at that and check that too). Fails WP:ORG. That being said, the company is linked with founding few standards that have their own pages. But, many of those are also started by anonymous IP addresses.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When someone claims "Only sources are" rather than "only sources in the article" or "only sources I have found in my googling are" and doesn't explain the sources found on the books link I am going to give a fairly quick keep. (Apart from the fact it rings a bell in my brain from way back but that may be faultly). 11:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep Unless the material currently in the article is materially false, this organization meets any notability standard I can think of. The problem here does not appear to be notability, but that the article is poorly sourced and cited. One could start with those quarterly meetings and search for media coverage. Additionally, the constituent member companies that make up the consortium may have their own coverage of the subject. Given that this organization appears to have played a role in the implementation of multiple tech standards, perhaps there is coverage in tech-specific websites?

Further, I have to ask if the editor nominating this company did any WP:BEFORE? A simple Google search results in this actual list of reliable secondary sources including peer-reviewed papers in Science Direct

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/object-management-group

The website Chrunchbase appears to have its own set of information on the OMG: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/object-management-group

ProPublica has some information here: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/43047994

And this is literally what I found in about 5 minutes. The nominating editor would be strongly recommended to please read WP:Before prior to nominating further articles for deletion. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interestingly, I didn't find any of such things on my search. Google search results are also geo-specific that can be one reason. About books, the author was the company itself and hence that would be a primary source and not a secondary source. I feel remorseful to bring it here now. I can withdraw it but I guess I will let this get closed as 'keep' so that if any other editor in future also fails to see notability and would want to bring it to AFD etc, they can refer to this discussion. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hyperion. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 01:05, 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) 05:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Kirkbride[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, couldn't find anything but passing mentions. Also fails WP:MUSICBIO, as far as I can tell. Aza24 (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Could not find any independent news coverage, or even blog posts about the subject. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia requires indepdent sources, not just an individuals bio from the webpages of their employer and a musicial organization they were a part of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A RM can still be filed Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robber baron[edit]

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

Procedural AfD; This was erroneously nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Robber baron. Pinging @RuleTheWiki: for further comment. SK2242 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given was "Disambiguation page not necessary for only 2 articles which can suitably reference each other with an {about} template". This should probably be a WP:RM to determine the primary topic, but since we're here: Keep, WP:NOPRIMARY, a helpful disambiguation page. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - we would need a determined primary topic in order to have dual hatnotes. Hog Farm _Talk 17:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. SK2242 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should've listed it as a requested move, btw i thought it best to list it at Miscellany for Deletion because i didn't know if it was a normal article or something else. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 09:48, 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) 05:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varisha Khan[edit]

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

This article is poorly sourced, and the subject is not notable. The article states that Khan is an attorney, which she is not (she made a joke about it on her Twitter page [19]). Many of the sources are from Islamic organizations that she is a part of, which are not independent of the subject. This article also fails the notability guideline. Redmond is a city of 54,000 people, and none of the other council members (or even the city's mayor) have a page. She was also an elector, but this does not make her notable either (most electors do not have a Wikipedia page. Steven McRae (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redmond WA is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on its city councillors just because they exist, "one of the first [insert underrepresented minority group here] to do this not otherwise notable thing" is not in and of itself a notability booster, and the article isn't demonstrating any other strong reason to deem her more special than other city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Suburban councilmembers are rarely well-covered to meet GNG. There are very few hits from the major local newspapers (including those centered around Redmond) that are more than passing coverage. Sounder Bruce 07:02, 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 keep. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Walker-Miller[edit]

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

Earlier speedy was declined on the basis that the article had meanwhile been improved (which it had, TBF); however, this remains essentially a vanity piece: the noteworthiness is at best borderline (business exec included in the local business hall of fame, that sort of thing), and the sources are weak — ignoring the close and primary ones, what's left are one Forbes interview and a very short profile in Inc.com, which aren't enough to satisfy WP:GNG / WP:BIO notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I work in work force services in the city of Detroit, so I can say with confidence the claims that her work has been in any way actually impactful in the overall labor market is just rubbish. This is an overly promotional article that makes large scale claims that would not bear out under close scrutiny. It is full of buzz words and does not actually show that Walker-Miller is a significant figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has received significant coverage in Forbes, Detroit Free Press, Yahoo! Finance's news section, Crain's Detroit Business, and on TV on CNBC's Squawk Box. The Detroit Free Press and Yahoo! Finance pieces are traditional and presumably fact-checked news articles, not in interview format, so even if interviews get no weight here due to questions of independence from the subject, there are still multiple articles with a significant focus on this person. This satisfies WP:BASIC and thus this person should be presumed notable, whether successful in her endeavors or not. GenomeFan92 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:SIGCOV. Oddly, her social media presence is limited, but her news coverage seems to be significant. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several sources were brought up mid-discussion. Hopefully a consensus can arise with further discussion on them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG as noted above, and other WP:SUSTAINED coverage that includes: Linda Apsey, President and CEO, ITC Holdings Corp. and Carla Walker-Miller, Founder and CEO, Walker-Miller Energy Services, join The Henry Ford Board of Trustees (YahooFinance, 2020), How the 'pandemic within the pandemic' creates disparities for Black businesses (YahooFinance, 2020), Warren Buffett to Detroit small businesses: 'You're in the right city' (MLive, 2019), Small business owners take next step (MSNBC, 2014), Michael Bloomberg: Detroit Is Just Like 1970s New York, And That’s A Good Thing (HuffPost, 2014), How A Young Community Of Entrepreneurs Is Rebuilding Detroit (Fast Company, 2013). Beccaynr (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Peterson (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rick Peterson (Canadian politician)

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

Article about a leadership candidate for a political party with no elected history to a government post. I have found a routine story on them announcing their run for leadership of the party and their eventual drop out. Either way this stuff fails WP:POLITICIAN and I can't find enough to meet WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had he won, he would be notable. He didn't, so isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Oaktree b sez. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacking any other accomplishments failed leadership candidates aren't notable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful candidates for the leadership of a political party are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles on that basis per se — he would have to show evidence that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he ran for the leadership. For example, virtually all of the other candidates in that leadership race were (and/or still are) actual Members of Parliament, and are notable on that basis rather than as failed leadership candidates per se. There's also only one non-primary source here, which is not enough coverage to claim that he would pass WP:GNG independently of having to pass our subject-specific inclusion standards for politicians or businesspeople. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nanky[edit]

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

Ref bombed articles on a musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:GNG also. A before search links me to user generated unreliable sources such as this, this, this, this & this all of which are very much unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Keep - Nanky is a popular name in Ghana, his former group UG360 is known very well in Tema for their viral song Denkin. Per my little research, his videos Happiness and Innocent Girl shows a good number of views on Youtube with more than 1 million streams. His debut EP also passed a million plus views. WP:GNG here is satisfied and references are good. --Jibodi (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibodi, fame & popularity are words erroneously used interchangeably with notability, but I’m sorry to say, on this collaborative project, fame & popularity aren’t considered to be one and the same with notability which has precise parameters on determining it. Celestina007 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, If you are saying 3Music Awards is not a notable awards scheme, why does it have an article sitting comfortable here on Wikipedia? I believe you should put it up for deletion first before we talk about about deleting a nominee. For Christ sake 3Music Awards is very notable in Ghana.Richloveburner (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability; as nommed, fails WP:GNG / WP: MUSICBIO by some margin. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing no sign of notability?? Going through the references, I spotted the entity is a nominee of a major Ghanaian award scheme 3Music Awards and a winner of Global Africa Music Awards. My little off Wikipedia search also confirm his song Favour with Sarkodie was topping charts in Ghana and made iTunes top 100 songs in Ghana. Also he is signed unto a major record label in Ghana Sultan Incorporation together with Fancy Gadam. All references are credible and you could see clearly they where not paid for. In Ghana where the media is now getting use to the modern system of putting contents online instead of the traditional newspaper of which the entity has several, I believe he is notable enough as he passes WP: MUSICBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.160.16.130 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Jibodi, logging out & making a comment constitutes WP:GAME, you are more than welcome to provide reliable sources that prove the subject of the article is notable. MUSICBIO specifically states only major music awards are to be considered of which the 3Music Awards definitely isn’t. Celestina007 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet wikipedia's notability; fails both WP:GNG and WP: MUSICBIO---Ampimd (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Leckie[edit]

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

Non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them as a WP:BEFORE search links me to user generated unreliable sources and self published sources. They also fail to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unsourced, the only link is to his own website and there’s nothing to be found in searches. SK2242 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a self-promotion page. WP:PROMO. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons above, namely WP:PROMO. AP1787 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either a writer nor as a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 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 redirect to Darkened Skye. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Animation[edit]

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

A defunct company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP due to lacking significant coverage. Sources found via WP:VG/RS only mentions the company in passing in connection with Darkened Skye, which is its only notable game. IceWelder [✉] 00:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 00:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 00:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 00:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darkened Skye. Agreed that it does not meet GNG, but this will be more helpful to readers than deletion.--Alexandra^IDV 13:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkened Skye - Most things I've found talk about the game itself, not the company itself. No WP:SIGCOV to be found. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 16:22, 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.