Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 21 March 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Summer of Champions' Cup[edit]

2012 Summer of Champions' Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural AfD. User:ItsKesha has PRODed the article twice and tagged it as WP:A7 twice.

The article is about a one-off pre-season friendly match. The best sources that I can find on the match are Digisport and Goal. The ESPN source in the article is actually very brief.

I am neutral for now; I can see both sides of the argument. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the match is already covered at 2012–13 FC Dinamo București season and 2012–13 FC Barcelona season. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No lasting notability for either team. Fails basic WP:SPORTSEVENT. Friendlies would not count for items 1 to 3, and item 4 states A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game but all that exists is routine coverage, less than traditional league or cup games played in the main season. To that end, an additional statement is added under SPORTSEVENT Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable. If a regular season game is not inherently notable, I struggle to see how a friendly is. Koncorde (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't need an individual article on a single pre-season match. Covered adequately elsewhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these kind of pre-season friendlies are not notable, and this is no exception. GiantSnowman 11:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Routine coverage only, not at all notable. For some reason we have a slew of articles on these sort of inconsequential tournaments, purely because they have a contrived name and trophy attached, when really they are just glorified warmup matches. I hope there can be a trend towards getting rid of the lot. Jellyman (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this only really needs to be noted on each clubs 2012 season article, there clearly wasn't enough coverage for it's own article. Govvy (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my original nomination of failing WP:GNG, thanks to Spiderone for beginning the process. ItsKesha (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per all failing WP:GNG. Ambrosiawater (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater 19:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B'eirth[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Has been tagged for OR and advert since 2009. Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is very little coverage on this guy. Found just one article mention in google news. Definitely doesn't meet notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete news coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Citterz (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's some minor coverage I found, mostly in indie music non-reliable sources, but nothing to meet notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable musician. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 17:06, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Domingo Arroyo Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I did not find WP:SIGCOV of the subject when doing a BEFORE. There is this obituary in the NYT [1]. As it stands, this seems like a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. TJMSmith (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's link appears to be to a news report of the subject's death rather than an obituary describing his life. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another poorly-sourced article that lingered for some time. Agree with the nominator's evaluation. Intothatdarkness 13:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why am I not surprised? Senator William Warren "Bill" Bradley and the United States Senate paid tribute to Arroyo Jr. and the men of the 1st Marine Division honored his memory by naming their camp "Camp Arroyo" in Somalia and a beach which is several hundred yards southeast of the Mogadishu Airport "Arroyo Beach". I guess when the Government and military pay a fallen soldier tribute is because that person is notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The section about his military service is completely unsourced, the linked NYT article doesn't support some of the statements in the Early Years section (such as the statement about his high school grades or his family's desire to see him go to college), and the NYT says he was the first American killed in the relief effort, not the first Puerto Rican (the headline specifically says first Marine to die in Somalia, which explains the notice paid at the time). Hackworth's article is a namecheck and has no specific information about Arroyo, let alone the details the article says it provided (the ambush, etc.). The "New Jersey Marine Buried" NYT link only brings up their search page and isn't helpful at all in terms of accurate verification. And, as a final touch, the Congressional Record cite brought up a 'failed to open' error because the server couldn't be located. Intothatdarkness 18:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources - More sources, is that what we need? Well then here are some more: ⭐NEW JERSEY RUN FOR THE FALLEN 2021⭐; {https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/domingo-arroyo,-jr/isbn/978-613-9-97031-5 Book: Domingo Arroyo Jr. United Taask Force; Somali Civil War; United States Marine Corps; ISBN-13 978-613-9-97031-5]; Congressional Senate Record; DOMINGO ARROYO - An American Hero from Puerto Rico, USA; Recalling Big Dreams of the First Marine to Die in Somalia; New York Times and so on. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, most of those links don't help your cause: they cite Wikipedia, i.e. this article, so can't be used as a source. The NYT article appears to already be cited so isn't new. Zawed (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accurate use of sources would also be helpful. I've seen sources either misquoted or misattributed in many of these articles. I've already highlighted examples in this article and corrected one or two, but others remain. The NYT article is already cited (and paraphrased incorrectly in at least one instance). Intothatdarkness 13:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG or any specific notability guideline. Yet another thinly-sourced "first Puerto Rican to do/die doing something" page by its creator who should have a better understanding of WP:N and sourcing. Mztourist (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per comments above RE SIGCOV. Zawed (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per all lacks SIGCOV. Ambrosiawater (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of significant independent coverage as above Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:49, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lysa TerKeurst[edit]

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

Vanity piece on an utterly non-notable 'Christian author'. Not supported by a single source that comes even close to RS or providing sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Has quite a dodgy history, too, so probably needs salting to stop it cropping up yet again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets WP:AUTHOR #4 and GNG. New York Times #1 bestselling author with 3 starred reviews from Publishers Weekly. Likely more coverage behind paywalls and offline. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO, and the NYT bestseller list is hardly an indication of notability. It's got a dozen subcategories, and any author with money to blow can put their book on top by buying copies themselves. That, and her book was #1 for ONE DAY. I could probably do better if I wanted to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumanuil (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, she's had at least *2* #1 New York Times bestsellers. One of those books was #1 for (not *in*, but for the months overall) both September and October of that year. Can you provide evidence for your theory that she bought enough copies to make it #1? Good luck with your Pattersonian endeavors! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria #4. Pilean (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Quite prolific enough to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with best selling books that have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources so that criteria 3 and 4 are passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 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 redirect to List of efforts to impeach presidents of the United States#Joe Biden. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to impeach Joe Biden[edit]

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

This article is odd to me, as "efforts to impeach Joe Biden" do not appear to be so far along that we need an article for it. It looks like an WP:OTHERSTUFF to counterpoint Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. The entire content of this article is an off-the-cuff comment made by Joni Ernst that was made with politics in mind, Marjorie Taylor Greene's quixotic articles that will go nowhere with Pelosi as speaker, and a good-for-the-goose threat from Devin Nunes. This appears to be a topic that does not require its own page to cover. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to draft. We go through this about every four years like clockwork. Ever since Bill Clinton, there have been efforts to impeach every President (and occasionally the Vice President), with varying degrees of success. It is important to note that these articles are not limited to Congressional efforts to impeach these officials, but include reliably reported community-based efforts to this end. There is no reasonable expectation for Biden to be unusual in this regard. Amazon is already selling "Impeach Joe Biden" t-shirts. BD2412 T 21:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slight clarification on that shirt: Amazon isn't selling it, a third party seller is. And a t-shirt is not an attempt to impeach. Impeachment only happens in Congress, the public can't impeach. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, Amazon is hosting it. The point is that it exists and promotes impeachment. Efforts exist, but are primarily low-level (except for Marjorie Taylor Green's resolution), but the exact same issue came up with Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama and Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, and all ended the same way—with the realization that reliably-sourced efforts at some level are inevitable. BD2412 T 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Almost ANY phrase can be found printed on some sort of product on Amazon. You can by a Niki Minaj for President backbpack on Amazon, does not mean that there is a notable grassroots effort draft Manaj for president. Not saying we should delete this article (I think we should probably keep it or redirect it), but a t-shirt in no way strengthens the argument to keep SecretName101 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The efforts so far have not been major enough, or gotten far enough along, to warrant their own article. The existing List of efforts to impeach presidents of the United States article already mentions the Marjorie Taylor Greene action against Biden and that is sufficient for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Draft There was one "effort" by MT Greene joined by nobody, not "efforts" beyond passing complaints. List_of_efforts_to_impeach_presidents_of_the_United_States#Joe_Biden would be an adequate redirect target but at the moment this does not warrant an article. Reywas92Talk 22:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename Controversies involving Marjorie Taylor Greene (I foresee this one getting longer as time goes on). Wikipedia is not NutJobConspiracyopedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_efforts_to_impeach_presidents_of_the_United_States#Joe_Biden as an appropriate target. Not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. --Enos733 (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nunes only said there would be political pressure to do something based on events almost two years from now that might or might happen, he made no concrete attempts to do anything now. This is still an unneeded and premature article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TOOEARLY, as opposed to when Donald Trump was under impeachment attempts, Trump was about to get impeached many times, and had significant coverage. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Efforts to impeach Donald Trump was created on December 20, 2016‎ (a month before he actually took office), and moved to mainspace on February 28, 2017 (five weeks after his inauguration). BD2412 T 17:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • One difference is that the List of efforts to impeach presidents of the United States article did not yet exist at that point. Now it does, and it is the natural repository for any one-off or otherwise minor impeachment efforts, historical or present day, that are not significant enough to warrant a dedicated article. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • BD2412, I've never seen that page, I was talking about the 2021 efforts to impeach Trump page, which turned into an actual page about impeahcment. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Successor articles were broken out from the initial article that was moved to mainspace in 2017—following the first resolution by a member of Congress for Trump's impeachment. BD2412 T 18:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of efforts to impeach presidents of the United States#Joe Biden, not a notable standalone topic, but there is no reason not to have a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or keep, a redirect to preserve the history (and the history of Efforts to impeach President Biden) before the article is inevitably restored. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON (although its bound to happen). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1970s Topps[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1970s Topps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1971 Topps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a number of these articles, which I nominated for PROD, and was surprised when these two were ineligible for PROD due to past AfDs. These pages serve as essentially a catalog, which Wikipedia is not. For those who trade baseball cards, you'll recognize this as similar to a Beckett pricing guide, but without the pricing. It's not encyclopedic material. The sourcing presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1971 Topps that saved the 1971 Topps page from deletion is insider publications and does not demonstrate significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Bosco Kabera[edit]

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

BLP of a functionary who has held various posts, none of which seem to me to make him notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I could find, other than "Police spokesperson Jean Bosco Kabera said" was this. It's likely there's sources that I'm not able to find and if any of those show up I'd be willing to reconsider my position. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage for WP:GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:47, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria (theatre company)[edit]

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

Is this a notable company? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence "sub-stub" about a Belgian theatre company that merely exists the existence of the subject. Sourced solely to the website of the subject. The article was created in 2007, the so-called "dark ages of Wikipedia", when many stubs like this one was born. The company doesn't have an article on nlwiki either, and the name makes it difficult to search. In my opinion, this company is not notable, but if reliable sources are presented, I happily change my mind. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The website is actually for a design company, not a theatre company, and I was unable to find any sourcing for a theatre company by that name. My lack of skill in tracking down Belgian sources means that I am willing to reconsider if someone finds some sourcing that I was unable to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not explain why this subject is notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This unreferenced single-sentence stub provides very little to assist searching; speculatively, it may now be known as CAMPO victoria. Anyway, the coverage which might confirm this and demonstrate notability. is lacking. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not enough news support to pass WP:GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:47, 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 keep. BD2412 T 02:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 5582[edit]

NGC 5582 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous deleted as a draft at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:NGC 5582 for lacking notability. Not sure if this should be deleted again as {{db-repost}} or kept. (Also I would suggest XCON protecting this as needbe if deleted as it is being recreated and reedited despite being non-notable.) Aasim (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like no sources were cited in the deleted draft, and when created again (and accepted) it still had no sources and could have been deleted as {{db-repost}}, but it has been improved since then. Not sure if it is notable, but it could be added to the list and redirected. There are others that appear to be no more notable than this, such as NGC 5579, but that is not a reason to keep this as an article. Peter James (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: needs expansion and research, clearly, but plainly meets WP:NASTCRIT#4 for being discovered in 1788. I have no experience in this area, so I can't say whether that counts for much or what the prevailing feeling on this guideline is, but it suggests that this is likely notable? At worst, it should be merged into List of NGC objects (5001–6000). The MfD is partially concerned with the creator's many frustrating attempts to get this past different reviewers by removing the AfC decline template without doing any work on the article; now that this exists in the mainspace and has sources, that doesn't really apply. — The Earwig (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: It's borderline notable based on mentions in a couple of papers, but it's probably never going to be more than a brief article. Praemonitus (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I could find no publications that dealt with this galaxy in a non-trivial manner. It's notable only if all NGC objects are notable.PopePompus (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question: should we consider nominating for deletion other NGC articles? Aasim (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well in my rather worthless opinion, either it should be decided that all objects in the NGC catalog are notable by virtue of their presence in that old and historically important catalog, or all of the NGC objects that don't satisfy general notability should be deleted. I would prefer the latter option, because I don't think Wikipedia should become a manually updated third-rate imitation of SIMBAD or NED.PopePompus (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes there are a number of NGC objects that are completely non-notable, at least by WP standards. Praemonitus (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, still cited in some noteworthy papers. Also was discovered by Herschel in 1788, so it's not like this is a recently discovered galaxy being promoted by little known authors of a recent paper. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, mentioned in a couple of papers and it was discovered in the 18th-century, it's very borderline, but I reckon it should be kept. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; in agreement with DmitriRomanovJr's logic. -Hatchens (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it is the article does not demonstrate notability and should be deleted. However, a quick search revealed two papers that talk specifically about NGC 5582 [2] [3], so it is actually notable. If anybody is interested in writing a decent article they should include such sources, as it is the article is worthless. Tercer (talk) 14:06, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

City-level Decoupling: Urban Resource Flows and the Governance of Infrastructure Transitions[edit]

City-level Decoupling: Urban Resource Flows and the Governance of Infrastructure Transitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Fleming[edit]

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

Fleming has played 27 mins in a second-tier league not listed at WP:FPL and has played in 2 cup games against second-tier sides, therefore she does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL.

I found two routine transfer announcements, one on FA WSL and another on She Kicks. This is not the level of coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even remotely close to meeting any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above, no coverage for GNG and achievements for NFOOTBALL. Pilean (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article after first finding a link on the Women in Red project page - I'm new to this so not too sure but it was my understanding that these are all women who can be considered notable. Blakemills00 (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blakemills00 - where was this link? I've noticed a very large number of women's 2nd tier player articles recently but there hasn't been any discussion at WT:FPL or WT:NFOOTY where anyone has said that the 2nd tier of England is professional so I'm curious. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:55, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bent[edit]

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

i'm not entirely sure what sources supposedly passed the muster in the previous AFD but there simply isn't independent reliable coverage of Bent. Vents Magazine was what swayed one voter, however that is blackhat SEO (ie. paid for placement, not identified, published as if it were legitimate journalism despite not being so.)

The Source as a source would be legitimate, however they too engage in pay-for-pub, so it lacks any independence. And to clarify further, The Source piece was written by a digital marketer who specializes in native ad placement/digital media placement for artists.[4] He doesn't appear to have charted and I can't find anything that would satisfy our n criteria about this Bent. VAXIDICAE💉 18:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Present sources are not enough to pass him for WP:NMUSIC. Pilean (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the one voter who was "swayed" by some sources in the previous AfD three years ago. At the that time I made a very unenthusiastic "weak keep" vote because the rapper had some introductory media notice, and then his article survived because nobody else voted. I will note now that nothing else seems to have happened for this rapper in the past three years, so his early media notice is looking less impressive, and it accomplished nothing for him either. I won't fight the consensus in this new AfD, and will continue to describe my view as "unenthusiastic". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:NMUSIC or GNG. Not notable. --Kbabej (talk) 16:59, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do or Die Entertainment[edit]

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

This company does not satisfy WP:NCORP; every source that I can find is a rehashing of the exact same press release. The depth of coverage in these press releases do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and this type of sourcing is generally frowned upon, see WP:ORGIND. This recent startup does not yet seem to meet our guidelines for inclusion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A google search shows that all the coverage is relating to the launching of the company in Lagos on 20th of February. Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. The Sokks💕 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per Spiderone, whom I believe did us a great service by the detailed rationale. Furthermore, I took a look at the when the organization was founded and it read February 2021, just based on that alone I wouldn’t in good faith support the article to be retained on mainspace per WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 00:25, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imani Selemani Nsamila[edit]

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

nothing but straight up vanity spam and while photographing a president, it does not make him inherently notable and there is nothing in the way of meaningful independent coverage VAXIDICAE💉 17:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless there are some Kiswahili sources missing, this is clear-cut fail of WP:GNG.

Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable photographer. Promotional... --Kemalcan (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think in Tanzania Nsamila is one of notable photographer may be he is not famous enough in other countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benix Mby (talk • contribs) 12:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Foundation[edit]

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

This was nominated as a speedy spam. I took out the worst of it, but we're left basically with a stub. I can't access two of the sources, so hopefully here someone else can and assess them as to whether this meets WP:N. GedUK  16:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GedUK  16:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing even remotely approaching the level of reliable, 3rd party independent coverage we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very clearly non-notable. Organizational equivalent of a garage band. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A worthy cause with offices in various place, but, while I see one source describes it as "nationally recognized", I am not seeing the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 18:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tasikas[edit]

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

no evidence Tasikas is notable outside of his band Contrarian (band), all coverage is about his role in the band and not about him. VAXIDICAE💉 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is primarily known for Contrarian, which is why all the coverage relates directly to that and not him independently. VAXIDICAE💉 16:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you will see most of the sources talks about him. Yes, Some of the sources talks about Contrarian and mentions him but all other sources talks indepth about him which passes him as a musician. Waltzazu (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 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, although there is consensus that the article is badly.in need of a rewrite. signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noogenesis[edit]

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

Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noometry. This article is being promoted by an account that seems attracted to the ideas of Alexei Eryomin among other devotees of ideas relating to noosphere. Much of this material was ported over from the previously deleted noometry article. Superficially, a lot of the references seem to be cherry-picked for identifying use of the term, but there is essentially no third-party notice of this as a concept independent of, say, the normal philosophical approach of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. This article, then, is serving as a rather dramatic example of WP:SYNTH, WP:POVPUSH, WP:SOAP, and WP:NEO among others. It needs to be deleted as attempted redirects to, for example, noosphere is reverted by the article creator. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia." [5] 128.70.165.112 (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. Synthesis of new woolly ideas with old woolly ideas. XOR'easter (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information ecology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexei Eryomin. jps (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It claims that "Noogenesis is the emergence and evolution of intelligence". This is referenced to four dictionaries that... Lets just say that they are not among the usual major dictionaries that we would typically use to prove that a word exists. Furthermore, if this was true then this should be covered in the existing articles on intelligence and related subjects. It is not. The alleged creators of this theory(?) have biographical articles. One might expect it to be covered there. It is not. It seems to have been added to quite a lot of "See also" sections though. So this is... What? A neologism? A non-notable fringe theory? A POVFORK? A hoax? Who knows exactly? The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that it is not an encyclopaedic subject and that this article, and any walled garden of similar related articles, about this non-topic should be deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks RS WP:TNT. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The current article appears to have incorporated a lot of Eryomin material that is difficult to find elsewhere. On the other hand, the topic is mentioned in relation to views on evolution (including some pseudoscientific) and in the context of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in some encyclopedias (see: [6], [7]). An older version of the article was this and also mentioned de Chardin but not Eryomin. Considering that we already have an article about de Chardin but that it has no content on noogenesis, a possible solution would be merging some minimal content there... —PaleoNeonate – 08:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
  • Comment: The phenomenon has been researched for 150 years. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1955) - not the first to use the term, in 1871 Hugh Doherty was first mentioned "noogenesis". "Noogenesis and Theory of Intellect" (2005) is mentioned in secondary sources, cited >150 times [8]. The article "Noogenesis" in the encyclopedia is in demand - in 5 years ~130,000 readings [9]. The concept of "Noogenesis" is common in the academic scientific environment - GoogleAcademic provides >900 links to authoritative sources [10]. The term "Noogenesis" is used in many books - Google books [11]. ירמיהו - פרוגנוזה (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: ירמיהו - פרוגנוזה is now blocked as a sock of Aeremin, —PaleoNeonate – 16:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this looks more like WP:TNT and reverted to this version since the subject itself is probably noteable even though somewhat esoteric, but this article seems to be heavily influenced by one author and should be rewritten by someone knowledgeable. There are 926 mentions in google scholar. --hroest 21:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a thought, but I note that the version you suggest has a tag that proposes merging to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin which makes sense considering that's the only notable use of the term that I can find and the other stages of "genesis" that he lists have uses and considerations that extend far beyond his philosophical jaunts. I submit that we can adequately cover what is meant by this term and how it was used by Teilard de Chardin at his biography. I have no objection to a redirect. jps (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Indeed ירמיהו - פרוגנוזה and it is for this reason that the Noogenesis deserves to be on Wikipedia -Vincent Blais (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC) — Vincent Blais (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge, or revert to previous version. Whatever one may think about the validity of the concept, there's a notable topic here that pops up in Teilhardinism and not a few later works. But the current state of the article is not defensible - lots of synthesis, sprawling excursions, preaching without qualifying, and at times pretty much descending into gibberish. The old version linked above is actually a better article than that, if a few refs were ported over. Another option would be a partial merge to Noosphere, where it could be put in context at some length. Merging to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin would require condensing it down to a paragraph or so, I think - also an option but a lot more restrictive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
  • Comment 1. The emergence and evolution of intelligence ("noogenesis") (published in 1871, which appeared in Google books) is associated in time, ideology quantitative and qualitative evidence with the origin of species differences and evolution according to Darwin (1859). And this was 50-100 years earlier than the hypothetical themes of the "noosphere" from Vernadsky and Chardin (1955). 2. "The appearance of life - abiogenesis" - is not disputed. Why is "the emergence of intelligence - noogenesis" and its modern biological and neuroscience component questioned? Moreover, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "the appearance of nervous systems and thinking" refers to two of the five emergences of fundamentally new forms in evolution [12]. 3. Modern science has not stood still for 150 years, but only by 2015 the number of neurons and synapses in the brain was calculated. Noophelia 2.0 (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Noophelia 2.0 is now blocked as a sock of Aeremin, —PaleoNeonate – 16:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. Comment : According to suggestions in the comments of individual participants: removed references to "noometrics", and references to "authorship" in the text, while leaving references to authoritative sources, including a link to what is posted on "Google books"; a link to "noosphere" was added to the "see also" section. Please note that according to a number of editors, the article belongs to the "neuroscience". 128.70.165.112 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:DINC. There was a stub but valid article before all the Eryomin stuff was added. The solution here is to revert all the Eryomin-pushing edits, not deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and I say this as the person who AfD'd the first of the these Eryomin articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noometry. Bondegezou (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be moving towards either redirecting and covering elsewhere or keeping/cleaning up. Further discussion along those lines, in particular, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 16:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term "noogenesis" is valid, however the current article has been filled with so much junk, it largely misses the point by yapping about nonsense like "the global intellectual system" and "Super Intellect realizing itself as Global Intelligence on Earth". Where neuronal "intelligence" came from and how it evolved is a fascinating question concerning evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and behaviorism - The evolution of intelligence is an especially important part of human evolution, as the intellectual faculties of humans (such as language, tool usage, etc) are its most distinguishing features. The current article is far too convoluted with irrelevant and insane gibberish to discuss this properly. If irrelevant junk cannot be stripped from the article, I suggest we WP:NUKEIT, and have it rewritten with actual biological basis, rather than the fantastical, overwritten nonsense the current article is filled with. 31.50.223.227 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last version before any Eryomin-related edits is this. Bondegezou (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As seen from Doherty and Chardin, this is an interdisciplinary broad concept. To overcome the problem of Kurt Goedel (complexity: to make the system know itself), modern infographics are provided. WP:BROAD – "an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts". There are related concepts (See also) and many books. So, it's clear that this is a notable topic which readers (130,000 readings of current version) will be expecting to find here. There have been attempts to address this and in XXI century and, if they have yet to fully mature that's ok per policy WP:IMPERFECT, WP:DEADLINE, the significant coverage criterion. 2.95.43.69 (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to admit being the same as ירמיהו - פרוגנוזה above. If so, this would be a second/double vote, and done under block evasion (WP:BE). I left a message on your talk page about how to file an unblock request. —PaleoNeonate – 13:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IP Sock !vote stricken. Blablubbs|talk 02:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a major intellectual concept popularized by a major philosopher/scientist. Personally, I do not think it helpful, and I will admit I feel pretty much the same about most of that author's ideas. But that's not a reason why I hsould want it deleted. It's not pseudoscience. I don't even think there's such a concept as pseudo- for philosophy, or for ideas or generalizations such as this. for deletion. As one of his key concepts, the encyclopedia needs an article. It is far too complicated in its ramifications to include within the article in de Chardin ."the current article has been filled with so much junk," is not a reason for deletion, but for rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be willing to rewrite the article? As jps and Elmidae and other editors pointed out, there is a problem of synthesis, sprawling excursions, preaching without qualifying, and gibberish, and this quality problem has apparently just been getting worse, not better, because the only person interested in writing this article is also the source of all these problems, and has been trying to game this AFD with sock puppetry. It's no good suggesting we keep and expecting others to fix or rewrite it (see WP:JUNK). Additionally, this article is in the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, not Philosophy, hence my objections to its delirious philosophical content. 31.50.223.180 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think this is as much philosophy as neuroscience--its essentially philosophical speculations about science, as in my opinion is much of the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. If I were to rewrite it I would emphasise the philosophic aspects, and i for speculations of this sort, I don't think it's particularly unclear as it stands. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be enough peer-reviewed articles in Google Scholar to prove this is a valid term. Article could probably use a re-write... Oaktree b (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this borders on WP:FRINGE but nevertheless has enough reliable sources, citations, and publications. Not overtly promotional and still informative. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The old ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin might be notable, but what we have here is WP:SYNTH and a lot of pseudoscience. Nothing worth salvaging. Furthermore, who would even do the rewriting, since apparently the only people editing the article were the puppetmaster and their socks? Tercer (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Who's going to do the rewrite?" is a question I have for many articles I see come through AfD, this among them. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well known, important and legitimate subject described in books and other publications. No, the Noosphere is a different subject, just as evolution and biosphere are different subjects, and this is not only Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 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. North America1000 17:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dalar Alahverdi[edit]

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

This BLP article for Dalar Alahverdi has been tagged since May 2018 for notability and more citations. Currently it only has two citations from the same publisher, an art collection called Luciano Benetton Foundation. I tried to find more citations today and was unable to find anything. As far as I can tell, this bio doesn't meet GNG. Jooojay (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jooojay (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears this was also up for AfD in July 2020 however someone reversed the edits. It is not clear to me why that occurred. Jooojay (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jooojay: that appears to have been a PROD, which was reversed with the edit comment "one for AfD".--- Possibly (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Possibly: I saw that but I wasn't sure what that comment means, is it of concern? Jooojay (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just means that the person who reversed it (@Lugnuts:) thought that the article had too much content or notability potential to be quickly deleted-- that a proper AfD was required.--- Possibly (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 18:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willene Johnson[edit]

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

With the Fortune nod, thought there would be more about this very accomplished economist. Doesn't really fit into WP:NSCHOLAR, although she has written some articles, with extremely low cite counts. And can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I started this article. The subject is a former president of the National Economic Association, which fits criteria #6 of WP:NACADEMIC. If you want to argue that the National Economic Association is not a major academic society, and that the presidency of that organization is not sufficient proof of notability, you're arguing to remove the pages for about half the subjects in Category:African-American_economists. Is that really what you want to argue for?--EAWH (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of stuff found in Google Scholar, mostly relating to the UN or what have you, seems to satisfy the requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under crtiera 6 of NACADEMIC per EAWH's reasoning. MarginalCost (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NACADEMIC criteria 6 and the addition of sources and information from sources in the article that add biographical and encyclopedic content, including her impact in the area of higher education, supporting Black women in the field of economics. Beccaynr (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria #6. Pilean (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 01:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed artists on Spotify[edit]

List of most-followed artists on Spotify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD declined as "simple stats/tables are not a cv". Article is 100% copied from https://chartmasters.org/spotify-most-followed-artists/ which is copyrighted ChartMasters © Copyright All right reserved. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. No mention of how the statistics were created or even as of when the data was generated. Vexations (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "100 Of The Most Followed Artists on Spotify". edmsauce.com. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  2. ^ "Eminem Stays In Top 5 Most Followed Artists On Spotify". eminem.news. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  3. ^ "J-hope becomes the first Korean solo artist to enter the Top 200 Most Followed Artists on Spotify". allkpop.com. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  4. ^ "Most followed artists". jmperezperez.com. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  5. ^ "Spotify Usage and Revenue Statistics (2021)". businessofapps.com. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  6. ^ "Who Are The Most Followed Artists On Spotify?". losthink.com. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  7. ^ "Spotify most followed artists". chartmasters.org. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  8. ^ "Most Followed Artist on Spotify". musicfortag.com. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  • Some of the sources do offer further insight and commentary (such as 2 and 3), but to be notable the list just needs to be discussed as a group per WP:NLIST. Notability guidelines do not apply to lists per WP:NNC. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Debated a bit whether keeping or merging was most appropriate, but concluded that a merged list would likely get unwieldy. This is a significant grouping that are discussed in tandem with one another (see links given), and the copyright argument advanced by the nominator is inapplicable. Vaticidalprophet 10:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the copyright issue has been covered above. Passes WP:NLIST. Onel5969 TT me 15:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked into how this data is generated. Spotify provides an API that lets you access their data, and number of followers is trivially easy to get. I found that Ed Sheeran, the one listed as #1 had 77,932,941 followers when I ran the query, instead of the 77.74 million in our list. That's already 192,946 followers different. This changes every day. And while it would be simple to just pull that data directly from Spotify, we instead decide that we source it to a "reliable source" (really just someone who also ran a database query) and then manually insert that data ourselves. By hand. That is a lot of work. If you decide to keep this article, you ought to be willing to, or believe that someone is willing to, keep it updated. Most lists are relatively stable; but this one is guaranteed to change constantly. That's a lot of (unnecessary) maintenance work we're taking on. Are you sure you want to do that? Vexations (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only source cited is Chartmaters.org and is a reference listed as website to avoid. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of most-streamed artists on Spotify - I update it daily. There's already a section covering the most followed artists and it has 20 entries, which is doable. Updating 100 a day is simply too much. And articles like the ones mentioned above usually only mention top 10 or 20. - Ïvana (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChartMasters is unreliable per WP:CHARTS#Websites to avoid, so until multiple, reliable sources are implemented into the article (making it pass GNG and other notability guidelines), it should be redirected to List of most-streamed artists on Spotify. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:NLIST and GNG as per all and current available coverage. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic of this list is covered in a group by reliable sources, so that is enough. No issue with keeping this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spiderone, is it? I see no evidence of that. a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources that means there is a topic "followed artists on Spotify" that has received significant coverage. Does that exist? All I see is the same data published in different sources, but acquired from Spotify though its API. Nobody else has a way of generating that data. Also, note that at the moment, the article cites no sources at all. Vexations (talk) 22:49, 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 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) 00:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First Intervention Team[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, they exist, surely, but not notable. Was draftified with the hope that the article would be improved, but only a single, primary source was added. Onel5969 TT me 14:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fail GNG Sonofstar (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 01:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hila Levy[edit]

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

It isn't clear that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Sources are mostly by her employer or school. Might be WP:TOOSOON. PROD was declined by the article creator. TJMSmith (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Levy meets the Academic criteria, plus the soruces cited are reliable even if they are from her employer (such as the United States Air Force) or her school (such as the United States Air Force Academy). Levy is also responsible for providing intelligence support for Joint Special Operations Air Component-Europe, managing 35 intelligence professionals supporting MC-130J Commando II and CV-22B Osprey flight operations. Plus she was honored by the Air Reserve Personnel Center as the HQ RIO top Individual Reservists of 2018. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marine 69-71: How does Levy meet WP:PROF? Also, while the sources from her employer might (big might – it's all promotional literature) be reliable, they are not independent, which is a requirement of WP:N. I don't understand how supervising X number of spies and Y BIG-FNCY aeroplanes would be at all be relevent in assessing notability. – Joe (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but Levy hasn't worked as an academic. You can find her student papers at Oxford in Google Scholar on topics including penguins and human migration (some of them listing a USAF affiliation, so apparently the same person); they're well cited for student papers but not so exceptional in that regard that they pass WP:PROF#C1, and the Rhodes definitely is excluded from WP:PROF#C2. So if she is to be notable it will have to be through some other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the cited sources are independent of the subject and I can't find any other coverage that would meet the WP:GNG. The claim that she meets the notability criteria for academics is a non-starter per Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Rhodes scholar and, more to the point, the fact that she has never worked as an academic. I'm sure Levy has had a distinguished career in her field but seriously, when you find yourself padding a biography with paragraphs on her college grade point average and a term-by-term account of the courses she took at Oxford, it's a big clue that the coverage just isn't there. – Joe (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indepdence is a key to establishing usability of sources. Sourcing from an employer are not independent. We need independent sources to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Therefore you both are telling me that the "United States Air Force"; "Air Force Academy" and "Department of the Air Force" are not reliable sources? Well then, I guess with a little search hereyou all will find more then enough sources: [13]. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not independent because they are written by her employer. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet RS qualifications. And for the above remark...maybe better sourcing originally would have prevented this. Rhodes scholars coming out of the service academies isn't an unusual occurrence. The item listed as recognition isn't unusual, either. Sadly, not seeing anything notable. Intothatdarkness 20:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick review of sources shows the section about her Rhodes scholarship time doesn't line up with the sources quoted. The USAFA press release doesn't mention her Oxford advisor at all (or the very specific course of study discussed in that paragraph), nor does it discuss the unsourced paragraph about her actual time at Oxford. There's also no mention in the article of her stated goal of attending medical school (mentioned prominently in two of the sources used). I just got done cleaning up an article like this and have no desire to take on another, but the lack of quality sources (or accurate use of the sources used) is disturbing. Intothatdarkness 21:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not achieved. The sources are just puff from her employer. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Not for WP:PROF which she does not pass but by GNG. Three independent sources covering the notability of her accomplishments. The dismissal of being the first Puerto Rican to receive a Rhodes scholarship on WP:PROF was shocking to me. Overcoming major glass ceilings is often newsworthy, as two of the three sources attest to. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a local news profile that could help revise the article, although it is written by an author affiliated with the Civil Air Patrol: CAP Salutes First Rhodes Scholar on National Science Day (PoncaCityNow, 2021), what appears to be a quote/biographical information: Religious Intolerance Alleged at Military Academy (ABC News, 2006), BBC News reporter commentary mentioning Levy in the context of her work with penguins: What I discovered filming penguins in Antarctic's icy wilderness (DailyO, 2016), a BBC Inside Science show with the same reporter who "installed new cameras with Dr Tom Hart and collected guano with Hila Levy," and this: Intelligence officer finds research is for the birds (Air Force Reserve Command, 2016). Beccaynr (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The CAP article doesn't add anything that isn't already in one of the existing sources (#5 on the existing list...another CAP publication). And if her main notability stems from her penguin research (it does seem to compose all her locatable publications), maybe the article should be reworked to focus on that (although I still remain doubtful of notability) instead of the hazy details of her military service. Intothatdarkness 01:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have spent some time looking for sources, and per WP:BASIC, have not been able to find 'significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.' It appears to be WP:TOOSOON, and this may in part be due to how Levy's career has been split between the military, her ongoing education, as well as her penguin research, athletic competitions, volunteer work, etc. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I suspect that as her career develops, she will likely meet WP:GNG in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG or any specific notability guideline, yet another thinly-sourced "first Puerto Rican to do something" page by its creator. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete v little coverage apart from press releases from employer Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:NPROF and there are no independent sources for WP:GNG. --hroest 01:50, 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty Valley Lions FC[edit]

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

Semi-professional club which does not meet WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The club has the same notability like many other Semi-Professional football clubs in the state of Victoria, via multiple news articles from various independent online outlets, and statistics websites. Further references were added following the comment of Giant. Victoryboy 05:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most eight-division English league teams have an article, Plenty Valley Lions have the same level of notability. LeoC12 (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Passes the club notability guideline by playing in the FFA Cup at least three times but the Lions fail GNG. The keeps are using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments which are to be avoided in AfD discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately doesn't pass WP:GNG. They only played FFA Cup preliminary rounds, and teams in the 8th English division are largely semi-pro and have all of their games covered - Plenty Valley does not. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above fails WP:GNG. Ambrosiawater (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG Nexus000 (talk) 10:51, 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 keep. North America1000 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Estilaf[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 13:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the coverage is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there's enough Chinese-language coverage to meet WP:GNG.
That's in addition to the two China Daily pieces already cited in the article.[14][15] I'm sure a more thorough search would turn up more sources, but I think these are enough for GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:23, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. Rationales such as a company being subjectively "unimportant", being involved in brand promotion, PR, and advertising, and whether or not the company has an article on other wikis are not based upon English Wikipedia's deletion policy. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 16:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

superbrands[edit]

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

Reason זור987 (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC) This article is about an organization, that all of its activity, is to publish surveys related to brands and declare them as "Superbrands", which is a pure public relations, marketing, brand promotion, and of course, advertorial and product placement.[reply]

So even if it active in 55 countries: Almost all Wikipedias in the world except three, don't have an article about this organization, because its activities is completely unimportant.

So I'm suggesting to purpose this article for deletion. זור987 (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:38, 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 Ollie Olsen. Nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Psy-Harmonics[edit]

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

Utterly WP:NN defunct record label appearing to have been a self-publishing label for the founder and one other act. Maybe redirect to page about founder. Toddst1 (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Campbell (1827-1904)[edit]

George Campbell (1827-1904) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. I can't see any claim to notability in the article, a parish minister and administrator. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of any significance. His son was definitely notable and his father less clearly so, but this subject doesn’t appear to be. Mccapra (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I see nothing notable in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing comes even close to showing this person was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems an interesting, if minor, contribution to Scottish history.--Doric Loon (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is to be deleted, merge the information into the article on the son. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the mean time a lot of new references have been added. I know this may seem peripheral to folks who are not interested, but I would keep it. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There does not seem to be much about his life that would be out of the ordinary for a Church of Scotland Minister of his era, including writing on his parish. The notability of his son does not mean he merits an article of his own (particularly as it was common for generations to serve as ministers). I do wonder if his being a "co-founder of the Church Service Society" could be seen as significant, but the article does not seem to suggest this as it stands. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete news coverage fails WP:GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject clearly passes the WP:GNG, as can be plainly seen from the press cutting in the article, which details the subject's long and successful career. There are many sources which further document and confirm this, as can be seen from the search links above. The nomination's basis is therefore false. Numerous policies then tell us that we should should be keeping this. These include WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:CENSOR;WP:NOTPAPER;WP:NPOV; and WP:PRESERVE.
Deletion would therefore just be due to arbitrary prejudice per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTINTERESTING. That this is a matter of personal opinion rather than objective assessment may be seen by comparison with today's FA in which Lewis is lauded on the main page. Let's compare what biographical data we have for these two subjects:
Comparison of subject with current FA
datum George Lewis
First name checkY ☒N
Year of birth and death checkY ☒N
Picture checkY ☒N
Kinfolk checkY ☒N
Success checkY ☒N
Career 51 years 1 day
As we are content to host and feature such a comparatively weak subject, suppressing the information from the stronger subject would be illogical.
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In response to some of the points raised here I would note 1) One article existing is not a reason for another one to be kept/deleted as per WP:OTHERSTUFF 2) As far as I can see there is no source for the newspaper cutting which means it could be from a local publication with limited circulation which would not suggest notability. Also to my mind the career described level of coverage is not particularly notable in a published tribute or obituary for a Minister in Scotland at this time compared with others I have read 3) As far as I can see the main other source cited in the article are volumes of Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae which includes every Church of Scotland Minister. Thus appearing in it is not a sign of notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew seems to be making a strong argument for deleting Lewis (baseball), but this has zero relevance to keeping the topic at hand, who is a generic minister with no indication of significant coverage. A redirect to James Montgomery Campbell or James Campbell (1789-1861) may be appropriate. Reywas92Talk 01:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep George Campbell represented a fast-growing Glasgow parish, in which he initiated a housing scheme on glebe land belonging to the church (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robert.leiser/mansewood/befhouse.htm), and an important presbytery over more than five decades; as can be proven, he moved in high-ranking circles, and the position of clergyman was far more influential in Victorian Scotland than now, particularly taking into account Campbell's work in harmonising church ritual throughout the Kirk in the Church Service Society. He is mentioned in numerous supraregional English and Scottish newspapers. He also features prominently in the Kirk Session records digitised only this year. If this page must be deleted, I would support Doric Loon's suggestion to merge this with George's father or moderator son's page, although I feel that the Glasgow connection is most important. Macgharbhain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I searched newspapers.com for Rev George Campbell in the years of 1827-1904 and get many results. Did he stop in Australia before going off to the East?

The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) 09 Apr 1855, Mon says someone but his name did. Not sure if its all the same guy. Got newspapers in various nations mentioning him, although so far I just see brief mentions in my searches. Does his church have records online listing everything he has done? Dream Focus 22:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hardly think it's the same person; George Campbell's brothers William and James indeed emigrated to Australia, but you didn't go "down under" on a whim in those days, and a trip by Rev George as a parish minister would have been covered in the newspapers. Macgharbhain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petro-sexual politics[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this is not a notable academic concept or concept that is used in RS. It seems to be solely linked to one scholar's work[16], and whatever citations are not to this scholar's work appear to be WP:SYNTH content that is not specifically about the concept. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This whole article is very much POV-pushing one particular view on a issue where there are lots of factors involved. The title itself is so wedded to this particular POV, that ending the POV-pushing in the article is not really possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked Google Scholar and agree with the nominator; this is one researcher's concept, not an encyclopedic and widely recognized topic. Crossroads -talk- 02:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources fails in qualifying WP:GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this seems to be the work of one researcher and not a common concept- or even an emerging one. Does not meet GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 19:41, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ferbine Private Limited[edit]

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

Had been DEPRODed // Fails WP:NCOMPANY, further looks more like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BEFORE gave me no significant coverage beside Kotak Mahindra Bank Aquisition CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:06, 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 salted.  JGHowes  talk 14:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rt Rana[edit]

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

The community has repeatedly deleted content about RT Rana; and indeed, that title is salted, which is why this version uses the wrong capitalization for his name. It was discussed again at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 12 where there was insufficient consensus to endorse the latest speedy deletion, and therefore I have listed it at AfD. Has the community's view on this gentleman changed? —S Marshall T/C 10:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, falls short of notability guidelines and there's reason to suspect UPE as well. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Rosguill, you are trying too hard deleting this article from wikipedia.ThanksRajuiu (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he is notable person because google has published his biography in its children safe browser kiddle https://kids.kiddle.co/Rt_Rana and Facebook recovered his account because He couldn't access it and reported this to the cyber crime branch at Jaffna. As well as his fans made official fans club for him and they having official fans club social media as well as fans club social media reaching followers too. such as fans club ,Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/rtranafansclub (4.7k likes) , YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/VTSUTHA (1.12 k subscribers ) and i have seen rt rana Facebook page, he also thanking his fans club admin.https://www.facebook.com/419306038271272/photos/a.554231688112039/1569486279919903/ notable people only get this type of attentionRajuiu (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt, this is clear either a fan or COI. The individual does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO - he is a minor public servant, who is also a radio announcer on a non-notable local radio station. The only sources provided are: YouTube, GoodReads, Facebook and Twitter all of which are not an acceptable or reliable sources and Radiotamizha which is a primary source. Dan arndt (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Dan arndt your are previous discussion 2016 RT Rana (AfD discussion), nominator so and this article came main space you also tag proposed deletion tag . and you know very well its huge has changed from previous article. so that you did not mention that reason currelty AFD and i have to explain some details he is not a minor public servant± . his post name is public health field officer . the post is officer grade and and their major staff this the https://www.np.gov.lk/result/2017%20PPSC/2nd%20eb%20TO.pdf 2nd EFFICIENCY BAR EXAMINATION FOR OFFICERS IN GRADE II OF SRI LANKA , the officer grade staff need to complete efficiency bar exam . but they want to pass this exam , and srilanka commonly pass marks is over 40 and he also passed that exam Rajuiu (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i have written in the AFD , he is having fan club. because generally popular actors and singer having fans club but announcer having fans club rare ,other srilankan tamil announcers are not having like this , and i think we can't say non notable radio station because they reached 94k followers in the facebook https://www.facebook.com/Radiotamizha/— Rajuiu (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Rajuiu - he is a minor public servant, a public health field officer is not a notable position (whether he has had good grades and passed public service exams is irrelevant). Just like whether he has a fan club on Facebook is irrelevant. Radiotamizha is not a notable radio station (i.e. it doesn't have an article on Wikipedia). The fundamental issue here is whether the article on this individual satisfies the requirements of WP:ANYBIO or not. Clearly it doesn't as there is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Dan arndt I KINDLY REQUEST TO YOU , IF YOU EDTING IN THE AFD PLEASE WRITE EDIT SUMMARY ,because iam not satisfied the afd vote some one changing participate votes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rt_Rana&action=history see this edit summary he is serving public health field officer. the post is officer grade , if person officer grade their major staff .if person working cleaning and helping for officer grade staff , they are minor public servant. radio tamizha fm is notable https://www.google.com/search?q=radio+tamizha+fm& please see the google search link many other reliable website add their link and i think if any Wikipedian not interest to create that article for radio tamizha fm. i am telling about generally tamil announcers not having fans club. but he has a fans club and fans club social media reaching followers. this is notable .the article on this individual satisfied the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. https://www.newsbugz.com/rt-rana-wiki/#/?playlistId=0&videoId=0 Rajuiu (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rajuiu, the criteria for notability is clearly set out in WP:ANYBIO, essentially you need to demonstrate that there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources - which this article doesn't currently satisfy. The references that are provided are dubious at best, almost all of them are self-published sources, with no independent editorial oversight. Newsbugz, YouTube, Panakudu, Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources. The fact that he has a small fan-base has no bearing on whether he is considered to be notable. A notable public servant is an individual who has been appointed a head of a major government department or agency not a public servant who is simply one of many public health field officers. Dan arndt (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commenti read you all comments then i relished you did not like this article . because you are previous nominator of RT Rana article and this verison came main space you also tag proposed deletion tag .and other fact same tamil announcer article Yazh Sudhakar this article has no reference but recently you have contribute so clearly everyone are knowing you did not like rt rana article , here is a problem i dont like this .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#I_don't_like_it

There is no point in talking to you further Rajuiu (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redelete and blacklist. Not substantially different from RT Rana (AfD discussion), which I'm surprised DRV didn't even attempt to analyze. —Cryptic 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt, i dont ke him
Who delete my vote ?Paviraj5623 (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with salt. Notability, for Wikipedia's purposes, is not a question of whether "google has published his biography in its children safe browser kiddle", or of having an official fan club on Facebook — it is a question of whether he has or hasn't been the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage about him in real media to independently verify his potential notability claims. Real media does not mean Facebook, or YouTube, or direcotry entries, or blogs, or staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers: it means journalism in real newspapers, real magazines, real television or radio stations or real books. Exactly none of the sources here are of the correct type. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dear Bearcat , living person should be pass Notability, for Wikipedia's purposes , i accepted it , and this article pass the Notability guildens of wikipedia and also having reliable source .and other fact we are keeping also same tamil announcers B. H. Abdul Hameed

Yazh Sudhakar this two living person articles are not having reliable source but we are keeping more than over ten years because subject notability and few sources are support so that they didn't nomination for AFD still. may be they thought annoucers notability different from any musician Rajuiu (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

No, that's not how Wikipedia notability works. People are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they're alive — six or seven billion other people in the world are also alive, without necessarily getting Wikipedia articles just because they exist. Notability, for our purposes, is a matter of how much reliable source coverage in news outlets has or hasn't been devoted to reporting the person's career accomplishments as news, and/or analyzing the significance of their work critically. And incidentally, please read WP:WAX — and then after you understand the concept (especially the part about how WAX arguments tend to backfire), click on B. H. Abdul Hameed and Yazh Sudhakar again to see what just happened. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dear Bearcat No, that's not how Wikipedia notability works i accept you words

i will explain to you early i have add too many sources but some Wikipedian and administrator are removing unreliable sources , i have seen especially administrator kuru removed unreliable sources finally 11 sources are here see the history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rt_Rana&action=history but here is problem going on , someone behind the scene hard working for deleting this article, i think same team may be previous hacked his facebook . because they have disabled this article first and second reliable sources , article came AFD two references are not working. its a huge challenge for this article for keeping . but we cant not create suddenly reliable sources like this work. but if this article may be keep . it can possible to add reliable sources in the future . six or seven billion other people in the world are also alive , without necessarily getting Wikipedia articles ya correct . but i have seen some AFD discussion .some one having lot of reliable sources but their article deleted from Wikipedia for insufficient of notability . as well as some one having one reliable sources but their article keep from AFD discussion . because of person notability .example i have seen some cricketer AFD discussion

and six or seven billion other people in the world are also alive but some person having Wikipedia , but having Wikipedia all person not having Kids Encyclopedia . because the select person for their filed notability , the published by google and six or seven billion other people in the world are also alive but Facebook having million users but they are recovered his account and has given more features for his login details and Indian and srilankan government are two different country ,especially the India most populous democracy in the world but they have hiring for their official notable program him . and he is also serving srilankan government program.and the two country having million people but they select for him some program .Rajuiu (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that both articles were proposed for deletion (afd) in order to destroy this article . because Your opinion is as strong as it gets perfectly willing to withdraw i think if this rt rana article delete you will withdraw AFD B. H. Abdul Hameed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/B._H._Abdul_Hameed Rajuiu (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with salt indian government and srilankan government offical program he did but indian government and srilankan government programs are non notable , and their government also non notable .normal announcers are can get their programs Paviraj5623 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete with saltNo one like him
  • Comment to closer, please note that there has been a number of WP:SPA and anonymous votes, which need to be discounted before any conclusions are reached. Dan arndt (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i think all are hating this man i can understand the article first and second references are article came AFD suddenly

not working 404 error showing , who is doing? i could not believe this and actually all Ip and new created id against with him. i dont know why they are doing like thatRajuiu (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Rajuiu why u not response my comments Paviraj5623 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Delete with salt he is not a announcer. :Dan arndt if some time of article keep plZ renominate[reply]

  • Delete, every source is junk. I've had to repeatedly remove links to really obvious problematic sources such as mirrors, blogs, and paid placement. This indicates there is no rational evaluation of the sources, and the incomprehensible arguments above indicate a competency problem. I would strongly suggest that the author limit future contributions to the draft space. Kuru (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dear Kuru, this two sources are not junk , https://www.np.gov.lk/result/2017%20PPSC/2nd%20eb%20TO.pdf this is a srilankan government official document and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tamil_Announcer_Rt_Rana_Announcing_maha_shivaratri_Day_at_the_India_in_Sri_Lanka,_Consulate_General_of_India,_Jaffna.jpg this is an indian government official work. and this image was published by their official verified facebook.

and i kindly request to you, please restore the FACEBOOK HACKED section in the article , because the facebook recovered his account news is a notable news in the article Rajuiu (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC) facebook is a very largest social media .and they had given more login features for his account when recovered his account . thanksRajuiu (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, The subject does not meet WP:GNG and the most of the sources that are given in the article are dead links. The page was first created as RT Rana which was deleted per (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). So the page must be protected from creating. Iflaq (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The person clearly exists, but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. The sources provided are WP:PRIMARY and while they could be used in article, they're not helpful in establishing notability. Shushugah (talk) 14:29, 30 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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Aldridge[edit]

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

I started to clean up all the PROMOCRUFT/namedropping in this autobiography and realized the claims were incredibly misleading. In the end there was almost nothing that stood up to verification. Most significantly, the shows that were implied to have taken place at PS1: "In 2003 German art critic Daniel Marzona, author of Minimal Art,[10] and curator at MoMA PS1 included Aldridge in ‘Framing Architecture’" and New Museum: "In 2002 then New Museum curator Anne Ellegood included Aldridge in ‘The Meaning of Style’" referenced in the original, in fact took place at Elga Wimmer and Brooklyn Front.

In his own CV [17] he does list other exhibitions at PS1 and New Museum, but these are a stretch and/or unverifiable. At PS1 there was apparently there was a Mike Bidlo show called After Matisse/Picasso (https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/4778) that is verifiable on the MoMA website. I found a reference to a different exhib with the same name that had 16 artists in it, but not Aldridge (https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/4777). I found a press release saying that it was in the PS1 Cafe (https://kunstaspekte.art/event/after-matisse-picasso-2003-02?hl=en) and a Walter Robinson photo, showing a few of the works http://www.artnet.com/magazine/reviews/robinson/robinson2-18-2.asp Aldridge's own website only shows a generic postcard (https://www.simonaldridge.com/new-blog/2016/9/13/after-matissepicasso-at-ps1-moma). The New Museum show was an open studios for the World Views cohort, after they obviously lost the ability to show in the WTC, because of 9/11.

The other significant exhibitions listed at the bottom are also suspect. The Mass Moca show had "hundreds" of artists in it [18] [19]. Sculpture Center was a benefit auction [20]. The only one that comes close to holding up is the Grey Art Gallery show, which had 46 artists in it "Some 60 works by 46 artists span many styles—from realism to expressionism, abstraction to figuration—revealing how environmental concerns are depicted now" [21]

Lastly, the AIA award is an Honorable Mention, and an Connecticut AIA award not a national AIA award. [22] It seems that he is currently primarily active as an architect as Aldridge & Tanno Architects, Norfolk, CT. Theredproject (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find any collections to satisfy WP:NARTIST, and I cannot fund even a paragraph of someone writing about him, to satisfy WP:GNG. There's a lot of exaggeration going on, as pointed out. --- Possibly (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 01:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lampert[edit]

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

Once again an unexplained and completely incomprehensible DEPROD, WP:BEFORE via Google gave absolute 0 results, lacks WP:GNG, WP:BIO, the presented references are either death links or do not mention the subject at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What caught my eye was the two Emmy awards (which the PROD did not mention). I've done some investigation and have found enough coverage to confirm the general nature of the topic – that the person had a career in photojournalism and TV in California. The difficulty is getting at sources from the pre-Internet era. I'll tag it for rescue as there are others with better access to US sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where is the reference for the two Emmy awards? It is not cool to say is two Emmy awards without references to support it (after an extensive search) and the single tiny mention of two words, in the picture index doesn't prove he was a Life photographer. There are no references for the Golden Mike Awards either, and the ultra-low quality prabook reference is not worth mentioning. scope_creepTalk
Bob Lampert. You delete a reference, put in "citation needed" and then raise the issue on this talk page. Here is the answer to your question. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first Prabook does not appear to have any editorial oversight, indeed on their "about" page, they compare themselves to WP and Linkedin. As they say, "Prabook is meant to preserve information about people. And it is done by people." Second, this article could probably have been deleted through G12, has it is very closely paraphrased from the Prabook piece, which I assume is where they get the Emmy reference. But since Prabook is not a RS, that assertion is unsupported. A generic search on Emmys.com yielded no results, if there were a year mentioned, we could go to that Emmy year. If indeed he was an Emmy winner, that would make them notable. But without direct reference to that... Onel5969 TT me 13:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've had another brief browse and found a couple of accounts of the subject's reporting activities: LA Times (1990), San Diego Reader (1984). Policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are very free to improve those articles you are "rescuing" like you call it while de-prodding w/o explaining nor informing the ones who PRODed them, unfortunately I have not seen any article being improved by you where you participated in an AfD Discussion in the last couple of weeks. Regarding your ATD Policy citation: "This SHOULD be done", it is by no means a must and here also impossible. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew: They are passing mentions and fail WP:SIGCOV, and relying on a prabook reference, is wide of the beam. Anybody can create an article on prabook, there is no editorial control nor peer review. It is effectively non-RS. At the moment, most of the article is hearsay and conjecture. scope_creepTalk 14:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:scope_creep Duly noted. If you choose to not take this to the talk page, you are being WP:Disruptive. That you want to stack the deck while an AFD is pending does not help. And your threats (on my talk page) are duly noted. Take it to the article talk page. Certainly we can discuss the reliability of this particular source in a civilized manner. And I have no illusion that it would make any difference one way or the other at the AFD. But you need to lighten up; this does not need a heavy hand, or the use of brass knuckles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @7&6=thirteen: if a source is a WP:RS or not can be discussed at the WP:RSN, I personally go by Scope_Creep's Opinion, Prabook is freely editable, fails at very first sight prerequisites for being a RS. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually never encountered that source before. You would think with 136+k edits that wouldn't be the case, but I have no recollection of running across it. Anyway, if it's unreliable, and on contentious issues, we probably shouldn't use it. I personally don't necessarily agree with 'policy' that all wiki-based editing is inherently unreliable. E.g., I find that Find a grave finds graves very well, and folks nattering about that are tiresome. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article created by Celkins9 who made no other edits ever. Article then edited by Leicapic created an article for Charlotte Elkins, I assume that who Celkins9 is, and edited it along with Aaron Elkins ‎and Bob Lampert and that's it. Single purpose accounts. A newspaper.com search has no results for "Bob Lamper" "emmy". There is no evidence he ever won an Emmy for anything. Nor any results for "Bob Lampert" "Golden Mike Awards" from newspaper.com, and not finding anything in Google news for him winning either awards either. This could all be just a fake article done by someone who knows the person. Google search for site:https://www.spj.org/ "Bob Lampert" to search the website for the award Sigma Delta Chi Award has no results, nor can I find anything about him winning that award anywhere else. This fake information was put in when the article was first created. Dream Focus 15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment http://www.sdpolicemuseum.com/Hall-of-Fame.html confirms he did win the Legends Behind the Badge Jose A. Cota Award. So some of the article's claimed awards seem to be true. Not sure how notable of an award that is considered, if it adds to someone's claim to notability. The claim that The County of San Diego, California further honored him by proclaiming March 9, 2001, the day of his retirement, Bob Lampert Day. seems rather ridiculous and I find no evidence of that anywhere on the internet. Since the person who created the article is known to have lied about the emmys and whatnot, I have doubts about that and various other things listed. Dream Focus 17:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems they have local emmys and they don't list them anywhere that appears in searches. So maybe that was true, just no evidence about for it. Dream Focus 21:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. I did a pretty extensive search before I proded it, and couldn't find anything of worth. I did find one reference but it was mentioned in relation to another persons article. There was nothing. scope_creepTalk 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only non-trivial mentions of this individual are in completely non-reliable sources. The only argument for notability for this individual is the awards he supposedly won, but I found no evidence that these actually happened, nor does it seem like anyone else has either. Dream Focus' extensive detective work above makes it seem that the information on the awards, which again is the only thing that could possibly be used as a claim of notability for this individual, was completely fabricated. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regional Emmy Award Regional awards exist, and do not receive much coverage, only local. See Los Angeles Emmy Award Pacific Southwest Chapter awards (which includes lists of nominees and winners – going only back to 2000, the 30th awards) and Pacific Southwest Chapter of the National Television Academy. I think that the claim of "fabrication' is untoward. These awards (we have no dates), easily can go far far back, and trying to uncover coverage is problematical. We are talking about a fifty year professional history. One cannot say with certainty that water babies do not exist, unless you have seen them not existing. User:Dream Focus I would recommend that the phrase "known to have lied about the emmys" be retracted, if not redacted. We ought to not impugn the character of editors without real evidence. WP:AGF. FWIW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, today I wrote to the Pacific Southwest Chapter of the National Television Academy and asked them to please provide information on the claimed Emmys. Maybe they will respond; maybe not. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I received a reply to that inquuiry from MaryEllen Eagelston, Awards Chair. I have edited out my name and e-mail addresses:

Bob Lampert received 2 Emmy Awards while he was working at KGTV. See below for the name and category. For Wikipedia, you would use the word Received, or was Awarded 2 Emmy Awards. Regional Recipients are not notated as Winners as there can be multiple winners in any category.

Bob received these Emmy Awards when the NATAS-Pacific Southwest Chapter was referred to as NATAS-San Diego Area. If you have more questions or need to verify anything else, please let us know. Thank you.

San Diego Area Emmy Awards 1982

Outstanding Achievement: Cinematographer/News
"Bank Robbery"
Bob Lampert
KGTV

San Diego Area Emmy Awards 1986
Outstanding Achievement: Investigative Report
"Fugitive Sting"
Bob Lampert

KGTV

I will make an inquiry as to whether this was reported in local media and ask for clippings or references to them. I take her at her word. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

  • Comment I think it exceptionally laudable that an attempt has been made to prove the Emmy's award question. However, I wouldn't say they are particularly notable as an award. According to the Regional Emmies they are handed out by 20 regional chapters, and it mentions different review committees indicating a very low-quality standard award, perhaps not seen as low-quality by the folk getting them, but from our position, it is far too low a bar to call it notable. They're in too many categories, unfortunately, to be worth anything. The Golden Mike Awards, according to info from their site, are from radio programmes, not people, so they are not particularly notable either, in this instance. According to the Sigma Delta Chi Award article, there are 48 categories presented every year, which is also remarkably low in terms of prestigiousness. It is junk really. It has been presented, but it, not an award that can prove to be notable, there are too many being given out. So with 10-12 hours of work to get it to satisfy the Heymann standard, gets us back to the passing mentions. There is simply not enough there for me. The first ref is a point source, proverbially speaking, the 2nd is a passing mention, in somebody else's context. scope_creepTalk 20:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Awards alone do not make a notable subject. They also require multiple in-depth reliable sources about them that are independent of the subject. Which this person seems to be lacking. Also, from how it sounds the award is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. As it's a sub award of a sub award Etc. Etc. that is given out to a bunch of people who clearly don't deserve articles just for getting the award alone. So this a clear delete IMO. Unless good sources materialize. In the meantime though, it would be cool if someone (preferably 6=thirteen) could fix the formatting of 6=thirteen's comment at the bottom of this so it doesn't detract from the AfD as much or potentially confuse anyone. Thanks ::Thumbs up emoji:: --Adamant1 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Adamant1 Sorry, but I don't know how to "fix the formatting." I was merely passing on what I was given. While I appreciate your concern, I can't help with it. Sorry. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool. Not like I do either. Just thought id ask though. Maybe someone else can do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lampert page up for deletionLeicapic (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a notice and do have material that will update the things pointed out but I'm not sure of how to do it as someone else set this page for e ,any help would be greatly appreciated..thanks in Advance Bob Lampert [email protected] I've attached several pictures..

Life Mag credit


File:Picture to go with copy Life mag

I received this on my talk page. Should take care of the factual questions, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:02, 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. Consensus was that the subject is notable having wp:significant coverage to meet WP:GNG but the article needs a major cleanup or rewrite of its content. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information ecology[edit]

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

This looks like a WP:SOAPbox for the ideas of Alexei Eryomin who, frankly, is also lacking in notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexei Eryomin). This particular article is either promoting his ideas or simply pulling together sources that happen to use the term to mean a variety of things. There doesn't seem to be a coherent subject here beyond WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noogenesis and previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noometry. jps (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. That said, if the term actually means anything real then maybe it can be redirected to the article about that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Information" and "ecology" are common words that are readily mashed together, so there are plenty of opportunities for WP:SYNTH here. We don't need to encourage that. Google Scholar dredges up many papers that use the text string "information ecology" (with many different meanings), less than 1% of which mention Eryomin. So, there isn't a well-defined topic, and Eryomin isn't the center of whatever there is. XOR'easter (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Compare knowledge ecosystem which is from B-school buzzwordology. jps (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The article was better before the Alexei Eryomin material was added. Don't delete the article because of that material: revert it to what used to be there. WP:DINC! Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an older version of the article, before most of the Eryomin material. It's more coherent and well referenced. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and I say this as the person who AfD'd the first of the these Eryomin articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noometry. Bondegezou (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a broad concept – "an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts". There are several books about it by this title and, as noted above, there are related concepts such as knowledge ecosystem. So, it's clear that this is a notable topic which readers will be expecting to find here. There have been attempts to address this since 2004 and, if they have yet to fully mature that's ok per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. See also WP:DEADLINE which explains that we don't have one. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bondegezou (version without the problems mentioned by nom exists), Bearian and Andrew Davidson (the concept seemingly passes the significant coverage criterion even if it is a broad concept which varies in meaning across the literature). Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 13:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 11k hits on Gscholar indicates the concept is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those were actually about the specific topic in this article and not just people using the phrase to mean various other things? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking input on whether the suggested merge is a better solution?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several of the concepts covered by the article seem like they might pass GNG but the article doesn't seem to be clearly about one thing: I'm not convinced there is a 'broad concept' here, as suggested by Andrew Davidson that covers both the 'informatics applied to ecology' described in the biology section and the user-centric knowledge management approach described in the SPI section. I don't think a good delete rationale exists and beyond deleting the problematic Eryomin puffery, figuring out what to do with the content is maybe best done on the article talk page without the AfD countdown running. Perhaps we should close as 'no consensus'? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The content is bad, so it shouldn't be merged. Vague, variously uncited or cited to poor references, synthesis based on woolly metaphors. The little that isn't "oh, a book with this title exists" is copyvio. And yes, that applies to the old revision suggested above as a good one to revert to. Keeping this around actively makes Wikipedia's science coverage worse. If kept, it would need a complete rewrite. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Bearian and Andrew Davidson passes WP:SIGCOV. Ambrosiawater (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely a well covered concept that passes notability critieria due to coverage in expert literatuere -- that is not a judgement of the content itself. Sadads (talk) 13:43, 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. signed, Rosguill talk 00:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie McSwain Jr.[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage (simply routine) to pass WP:GNG, and meets neither WP:COLLATH or WP:NBASKET. Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If article needs to be worked on more and supplied better sources then perhaps it goes back to draft. Nowhere in the Proposed deletion protocols does this article warrant erasure. Youngjtdyt (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)<smalll> Strike sock !vote. Onel5969 TT me 12:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your article was declined for submission multiple times then you decided to move it to main space without adding sources to establish notability. Maybe you should have left it as a draft. If you want it kept then go find more reliable sources. Rikster2 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn’t mean anything. My actions in moving the page do not change the deletion protocol. Sources or not, you need consensus and a reason other than you don’t like that I moved a page that others have declined. If you all feel it isn’t ready to be an article then it should be returned to draft, not deleted. I think he does meet WP:GNG and will add sources when I can. Deletion is an overreaction and if you’re abiding by the rules I’m not sure how you would justify it. Youngjtdyt (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing in a “deletion protocol” that says an article can’t be deleted if doesn’t pass WP:AfD. That’s what the process does. That said, “draftifying” articles is a possible outcome and most people would probably go along with it if it comes to that. Rikster2 (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn’t meet WP:NBASKETBALL and no sources indicate he meets WP:GNG yet. Rikster2 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Changing vote due to new sources added. The Indianapolis Star, Wichita Eagle and South Bend Tribune sources suffice in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Action I have now updated the article and included 9 new sources. As it stands now, the subject meets WP:GNG. There are in-depth articles on him, providing significant and reliable coverage: Yahoo Sports, Indianapolis Star (x2), South Bend Tribune, The Wichita Eagle. There is a significant number of secondary and independent coverage as well. I look forward to further discussion. Youngjtdyt (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck edit by sock (and page creator)—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context for those !voting or closing The article creator is a sock [23] [24] suspected of paid editing / COI. See edit history at Draft:Trace Cureton. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article was tagged under CSD:G5; I have declined the speedy deletion as there is insufficient evidence available to me that the creator is indeed a sock of Inspiralens. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - the creator's request to unblock as been denied, see User talk:Youngjtdyt#Blocked. Onel5969 TT me 18:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notwithstanding issues with article creator, sources need further analysis per Rikster2's !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the creator might be a sock, the article still passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the assertion of meeting some notability guideline contributes to a consensus because presumably the participant has done some analysis themselves, giving the analysis itself will help a lot more as it can be evaluated more fully than an assertion.

Relisting again to see if there will be more participants or a convincing argument will be made.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with not enough significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to write a substantial article per WP:WHYN. The article is mostly composed of redundant seasonal stat lines and a resume of his pro team transactions. A bulk of the content is just dependent team site and state site scraping, unlikely to be found in independent coverage. Then there's unreliable fan blogs like SB Nation and SI's rebranded Fannation (who are not SI employees (i.e. no oversight))—Bagumba (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the reliable sourcing is a tad too thin to establish a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:43, 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 keep. Even discounting the SPA's/IP's vote stacking, consensus is relatively clear that the subject meets SIGCOV.  JGHowes  talk 14:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. Surendran (politician)[edit]

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

One iteration of the page was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.surendran. This one in particular was at the time a rejected draft but was moved to mainspace by the nominator. User:BD2412 suggested to me that this should go through another AfD since the last AfD did not adequately discuss the notability of the subject.

So here I am, nominating it to another AfD. With regards to notability, it fails both WP:NPOL as he is not an elected representative but a party official, as well as WP:GNG as most the references that are in the article are either polling data from places he contested but lost, non-independent websites, puff pieces or are trivial mentions which quote him in his capacity as a party official. I couldn't find any more sources on him that hasn't already been used in the article.

The present article only uses 2 sources from a time published after the February 2020 AfD and both of them are similar trivial coverage; they just quote him, are on a topic that isn't him and give no other information about him other than his position in the party's internal structure. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What's going on here I don't understand... How can the notability of a person who sees more than a hundred different types of reliable sources be repeatedly questioned? You should clarify why he failed the WP:GNG.. According to GNG A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So Not satisfying WP:NPOL criteria does not per se indicate a lack of notability.The "WP:NPOL" standard is the only component needed to pass the WP:GNG. Are you saying that WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC can't be used because he didn't pass WP:NPOL ? Btw ,I can't proceed without mentioning your double standard ,why it isn't applicable here the same criteria you defined in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T._Geenakumari This discussion.? Please elaborate and It amazes me that you could not find more sources about him that are not already used in the article. Padavalam🌂  ►  09:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Padavalamkuttanpilla, accusing me of "double standards" doesn't help your case. I have commented in too many AfDs to remember one in particular but from what I can see, the subject of that article was cited to in scholarly works which isn't the case here.
      I've otherwise been pretty clear in this nomination on how the subject of this article fails GNG, and I have never made any claims which suggest that failing NPOL by virtue of itself means non-notability. If it did, one wouldn't separately take GNG into consideration in the first place. No one is stopping you from presenting sources which are reliable, independent and cover him in a non-trivial capacity, if they do exist. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tayi Arajakate, I think this AFD is due to your political animosity, Can you give me three reliable sources that in-depth description of this person T. Geenakumari to change my misconception  ? Then I will withdraw that words Padavalam🌂  ►  10:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannot keep until a new policy is proposed and accepted, hence delete: Tayi Arajakate said the facts I also wanted to say. There is no doubt that the subject fails WP:NPOL. He also fails WP:GNG because I cannot any references in the article giving him the independent in depth coverage to pass the notability criteria. All the sources are about him being appointed as his party president, some controversies in which he was a major subject and some polling datas from the assemblies he contested. If we are about to keep this article, we should have a new policy for Indian politicians. Otherwise, keeping this article without doing as per above would definetly be against our current notability criteria on politicians. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 10:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I can provide 50+ reliable sources. because the nominator said that he could not find any sources. I will give you more if you need it.
Collapsing reference bomb. Seemplez {{ping}} me 13:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... Padavalam🌂  ►  10:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Too late for a WP:REFBOMB alert :-) Padavalamkuttanpilla a good approach would be to point out which of these would satisfy WP:SIGCOV and which of these make trivial references. Plus, there is the issue of whether the person or the event is being given priority. Vikram Vincent 08:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable person. Appears as title in many RS. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Padavalamkuttanpilla, most of these sources are covering about something else. Surendran's response to some of the events have been covered since he is the president. Please provide atleast one source giving a detailed coverage about this person in the talking about the his life and his notable works. None of sources you provided are like that other than being something like Surendran tested covid positive, Surendran's response was this.... How can it be considered as sources covering in depth coverage? . Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 11:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kashmorwiki, His Notability stemmed from the coverage provided by major national and international news agencies such as The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express,The Hindu Padavalam🌂  ►  11:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Padavalamkuttanpilla, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between significant coverage and trivial coverage. Quoting from the footnote cited at WP:BASIC which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

        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. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not.

        In addition please refrain from making personal attacks as you did here. It's not like I'm the only one who has questioned the notability of the subject here, most of these sources were present during the 2nd nomination as well when it was deleted for the first time. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the previous nominations (1 and 2) which concluded that the subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Nothing has changed now that makes the subject particularly notable. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Malayala Sahityam, The first AFD retained this article and the news links I mentioned above that came after the second AFD and those sources clearly indicate his notability Padavalam🌂  ►  13:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per prev nom., the whole bunch of URLS seem to be only trivial coverage indeed. Padavalamkuttanpilla, please stop accusing other editors of not having WP:AGF. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The plenty of sources provided here actually gives just some trivial coverage about him, thus failing to establish notability criteria. Poppified talk 13:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable figure for many years in Kerala politics. Multiyear, in depth coverage in RS, passes the GNG. Analysis of seven sources found after spending 15 minutes trawling a Google search:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
New Indian Express Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Detailed in-depth story, with biographical background, covering Surendran upon taking Chair of BJP in Kerala from February 2020
The Hindu 1 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Detailed story covering violent protest led by Surendran from October 2009
The Hindu 2 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Detailed story regarding conflict between state government and Surendran during election campaign from April 2019
Deccan Herald Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Detailed story covering Surendran's role and internal party politics for the upcoming 2021 state election, March 2021
Huffington Post Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Detailed story during campaign, April 2019
The Hindu 3 Detailed family profile, April 2016
India’s 2019 Elections: The Hindutva Wave and Indian Nationalism p.338 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Mentioned in Paul Wallace's SAGE published national survey of the 2019 election
Total qualifying sources 7
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should probably clarify that The New Indian Express article is what I meant when I referred to puff pieces. The way it describes him, it appears like any other non-independent promotional pieces.

    It was Surendran's aggressive leadership that helped the BJP to unite the Ayyappa devotees across the state and ensure the success of the Sabarimala protest...Known for his sharp tongue, sarcastic comments and biting criticism...However, the biggest challenge for the leader will be to end the faction feud in the party. Known as the most prominent leader of the Muraleedharan group in the party,

    Doesn't help that the paper was embroidered in a controversy over undisclosed advertorials.[1][2] Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rowlatt, Justin (28 May 2018). "The story barely reported by Indian media". BBC News.
  2. ^ Kaushik, Krishna (27 May 2018). "Cobrapost: Sting claims media houses open to 'paid Hindutva content', firms call it misleading". The Indian Express.
  • Comment Leave aside that questioning a single source on the basis of guilt by association is essentially no different than an ad hominem attack (ie play the ball, not the player), there's six other sources there, so unless there is specific evidence that a particular piece was the result of corruption, it is only casting aspersions. Also, leave aside the unsurprising notion that much of India's mainstream media (like in most parts of the world) is corporate controlled, subject to undue influence and promotes right wing politics (at this level *all* are suspect, but our job is not to right wrongs). Surendran is a notable figure with a profile in Kerala politics that has only increased in recent years; the sheer scale of material on him available in English points to this. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point was that the source is not reliable and its independence is questionable. This kind of promotional article is pretty common among a lot of Indian newspapers unfortunately and is a valid reason for not considering particular news items for notability. I wanted to leave the others for others to judge, but if you want my opinion on them most of them are just quotations. The 3rd ref (The Hindu 2) appears more substantial although this is almost the same as an ADR directory entry derived from affidavits on cases against a particular candidates. The 6th ref (The Hindu 3) is also about a different person (K. K. Surendran). Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess you forgot writing this: ...there are other Indian right leaning news agencies which have reliable reporting (e.g: Deccan Chronicle, New Indian Express, Aaj Tak, etc) :) ... As I noted, on the basis of the criteria being argued for here, no source could be considered reliable. Striking the third Hindu article, my mistake. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware of Paid news in India an year ago. I became aware of them because of AfDs on Wikipedia to begin with, in particular because of how Deccan Chronicle is treated on AfDs. Anyways, what's the point of this? If you have a problem with my conduct or something, take it to ANI if you want.
      And no, this does not mean every source is not reliable for ascertaining notability, just TNIE and the Times Group ones (The Times of India and Times Now). Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tayi Arajakate I did not intent to convey that I was concerned about your conduct here, far from it; I was only trying (poorly in hindsight) to make light of an earlier comment you had made . In matters such as these, there's strength in being a Keynesian (albeit apocryphally): when the facts change, it's best to change one's mind. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that, I perceived that as an antagonistic comment at the time, which going through the thread again, probably shouldn't have been my first assumption. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Out of the 7 sources shown by Goldsztajn, I can find only the source from TOI which him atleast any significant coverage (still not sufficient)
  • 1. The first source from The Hindu is mainly about a Protest organised by Yuva Morcha.
  • 2.The second source from them is a news about the cases registered against Surendran.
  • 3.The source from Deccan Herald is about Surendran's opinion about E.Sreedharan's participation in the election.
  • 4. About the source from Huffpost; that is mainly about the BJP's chances of winning in these election by analysing their performances in the previous elections.
  • 5. The last one is just a mere mention about him.

These were the reasons I previously commented that he is only getting some trivial coverage which is not sufficient to establish notability. Regards.Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Same reason as with the first nomination. The subject is named in a lot of news items. None discuss him as a person in any great depth, but cumulatively they show that he is a fairly visible public figure and give enough for a substantial article. His statements and actions have been reported widely enough to show notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is indeed true that he has not won any legislative elections and hence the natural inclination would be to delete - however, WP:POLITICIAN also covers figures who have received significant press coverage - and hence keep. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That is a lot of press coverage for one person even if individually not WP:SIGCOV. I'd say the bio passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO and is notable. While I would generally apply WP:NPOL, I can also see that there are the exceptions and this is one of those. Vikram Vincent 21:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Clearly notable.† Encyclopædius 17:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:SIGCOV- the President of a large party is considered notable. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Party president is definitely notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by -noah- (talk • contribs)
  • Keep From the sheer depth of reliable media coverage provided, it is clear that the subject of the article passes NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep have enough coverage and independent reliable sources. Stop nominating for deletion again and again.007sak (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Let's keep the article for now and delete after he loses the election. I vote for keeping the article till May 2 when the election results will be out. Maybe a couple of people read this article and then vote for him. Let him not lose those crucial votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7C0:205F:8001:0:0:0:C (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please keep it he is a well known figure in kerala politics .its not good to delete his page only because some people don't like his political party. User:Vasucrossroads ,User talk:Vasucrossroads — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Says Vasucrossroads who targets the well written articles related to Communist party and nominate it for deletion [25] [26] just because he dont like that party. The list even includes the article of Kerala's Chief Minister Pinarai Vijayan [27]. So its clear that who is actually trying to play Indian politics here. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Vasucrossroads No one is !voting to keep or delete based on likes but rather on policy and our understanding of it. Vikram Vincent 12:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: It is clearly evident that these IP's just came here for vote stacking. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 03:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, an abundant amount of coverage to support GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the coverage identified by Goldsztajn is news reporting rather than biographical profiles, in my assessment it does comprise significant coverage. Glancing at the actual article, I am skeptical that so much detail could possibly be WP:DUE if this is the level of coverage that exists.signed, Rosguill talk 00:53, 30 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. signed, Rosguill talk 00:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K C Mittal[edit]

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

The sources provided could not establish notability of the subject. Apart from this [28], I was not able to find anything on doing WP:Before. This one also does not give enough WP:SIGCOV. Fails GNG. I would also like to show a suspicious activity [29] here. User Speedy King is permanently blocked and most of his/her articles have been deleted. Kichu🐘 Discuss 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions: 2020-12 no consensus
Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 08:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:32, 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Andrew L. Tan[edit]

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

Due to behavioral history of the author, this is highly likely a case of WP:UPE. The article fails to demonstrate notability and instead offers myriad of references to news about the subject's dad relinquishing his position and news articles covering his company's dealings. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: According to new evidence I am requesting Speedy Delete as per G5. Creations by banned or blocked users. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geroge Mason Nearlyevil665 (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - per WP:G5, if he is actually notable, someone that isn't a banned sock can write an article on him Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he is close to notable but I'm not going to weigh-in due to the other factors. I wish this page was properly cited. Eventually, he will be back...Miaminsurance (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question for User:Miaminsurance - You say that you wish that this page was properly cited. What do you mean? The article has been reference-bombed. Do you mean that you wish that the improper citations weren't there? If the article is deleted, the draft will be in draft space for six months, during which time a neutral editor can tediously check which of the references are any good. If a neutral editor works on it, it will last as long as the work continues plus six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Robert McClenon I think that as time goes by, this guy will end up running the big family business and will ultimately be notable. The only reliable citation I saw was an article that talked about the guys' affinity for electronic dance music. I didn't look at the other unreliable sources. I also have not reviewed the entire history of the page. When I said properly cited, I meant not bombed with unreliable references.Miaminsurance (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 15:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete g11, g5, vanity spam. See also this users deleted contribs. VAXIDICAE💉 16:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There was already a draft, Draft:Kevin Andrew L. Tan, written by a previous sock of the spammer before being blocked. This sock then made the necessary ten edits in four days, and then created the exact same article in article space. The less likely explanation is that the second account was ripping off the first account. The more likely explanation is that there is one spammer behind both accounts. The subject may satisfy biographical notability, but the use of this spammer makes it less likely, not more likely, that they will have an article in Wikipedia. But they will have an article in a bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim promotional content. The subject is notable per multiple third party sources cited in the article.--RioHondo (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:45, 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 speedy delete. Nomination withdrawn. Article was speedy deleted as per G5 by admin. (non-admin closure) Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Based on the author's behavioral history on other articles, this is a highly likely a case of WP:UPE on a Youtuber that is barely scraping the surface of WP:GNG. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now found that an identical article was previously declined in an AfC process. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: According to new evidence I am requesting Speedy Delete as per G5. Creations by banned or blocked users. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geroge Mason Nearlyevil665 (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article creator is a banned sock. Deb (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - per WP:G5, if he is actually notable, someone that isn't a banned sock can write an article on him Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. --Devokewater 15:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete vanity spam sourced to blackhat SEO and a tou violation. VAXIDICAE💉 16:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Present news coverage fails in GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant sock and G5. Envysan (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The West Wing characters. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ritchie (The West Wing)[edit]

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

There was an AfD about The West Wing characters nearly 11 years ago, but because a lot of characters survived the AfD, they were all marked as Keep at the time. However, some of these characters did deserve to be deleted or redirected to List of The West Wing characters. I'm nominating a few of them here for failing WP:GNG, and hoping to not fall into the same pit.

I am also, with fingers crossed that this does not become a trainwreck, nominating:

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of The West Wing characters. I participated in that earlier AfD discussion, and the primary article suggested for deletion at the time (Mandy Hampton) ended up being improved per WP:HEY with reliable secondary sources and real-world content and themes beyond just a fictional biography. I imagine each if not all three of the articles in this AfD (though I'm less sure about Ritchie than the other two) could be similarly improved if a Wikipedian put in the effort to do so. In the meantime, the articles themselves are mostly in-universe fancruft and clearly need to be worked on, but those are arguments for improving the articles, not deleting them (per WP:RUBBISH and WP:NEGLECT). So for now I'd suggest the redirect, a solution which strikes me as the best of both worlds and will preserve the edit history in case anyone ever wants to take a go and improving them in the future. Besides which, these character names are searchable terms, so a redirect to the list makes sense anyway... — Hunter Kahn 14:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. 100% WP:FANCRUFT with no evidence of being anywhere close to meeting WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of The West Wing characters as per all. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:53, 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 keep. North America1000 16:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Catholic Church in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
American Catholic Church in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As nominated in the last two deletions, this article is written with unverifiable information and is just a small sect of people. This organization has no real significance compared to the tens of thousands of other random Protestant or Independent Catholic denominations out there so why should this article which was given 16 years of time to make better get any special recognition if most if not all of the information isn't noteworthy. It is a small denomination which had 5,500 members 6 years ago which has no real verifiable or legit information outside of itself, nobody knows if any of these congregations actually exist as there are no Realiable Sources present. Therefore this article should be deleted. KEleison (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The past notion that all denominations were inherently notable was built without grappling with the real meaning of denomination in the US. Realistically there are lots of fully and total independent congregations in the US that are basically free standing denominations. Not all of them are notable, so we have to keep them limited to denominations that can pass some reasonable interpretations of GNG, which this organization is not at all close to doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- According to the article there are 14 congregations with 5500 members. Accordingly this is rather more than a local church claiming to be a denomination. The question is not one of whether inforation is verified, but whether it is capable of being verified. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See the sources in StAnselm's comment in the second nomination and Arxiloxos's comment in the first nomination (although I am unable to access some of the newsbank.com links—any help would be appreciated). In particular, the coverage in Texas Monthly and the TimesDaily is significant and in-depth. Regarding the arguments made in favor of deletion so far: the article has been around a long time (WP:IMPATIENT), the number of members is small (WP:ARBITRARY), and other denominations exist but don't have articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). None of those are valid reasons for deletion. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage is limited but there seems to be enough to justify WP: GNG, and general agreement with Adumbrativus above. Pipsally (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage is limited but its enough available to satisfy WP:GNG. Ambrosiawater (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage such as The Texas Monthly and The Times Daily referenced in the article so the subject passes WP:GNG and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 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. BD2412 T 01:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of education districts in Queensland[edit]

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

Basically for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_school_education_areas_in_New_South_Wales. This is outdated bureaucratic trivia, which seems to be motivated by the idea that "America has notable school districts so other countries must too". In Australia, we have no school districts in the American sense – a special-purpose tier of local government to run schools with its own taxes and elections. In Australia, public schools are run by state education departments. State education departments always set up some structure of "regional offices/districts/areas" for administrative convenience, and every few years they will rearrange that. But that's just non-notable bureaucratic trivia. Unless you work for a public school (as a teacher or administrative/support staff), it makes no difference to you (and even if you do, the local school is much more important than the question of who the principal's boss is.) And this list of non-notable bureaucratic trivia is out of date anyway. (There are no articles on these "school districts"; the blue links all point to articles on the localities, not their "school districts".) Mr248 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deus et lex, Adamant1, and TimothyBlue: since you commented on the related AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_school_education_areas_in_New_South_Wales you might want to comment on this very similar one. Mr248 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 06:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_school_education_areas_in_New_South_Wales. Mainly, this doesn't seem like a thing IRL and the links do not go to school district articles. So, it's all rather arbitrary and goes against the guidelines for lists. Adamant1 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of the justification for the articles on American school districts is to have some place to redirect/merge schools. I think this applies to Australia also. I Or is there an alternative. The comments above would imply that the only larger body is the State department of education, and that's much too large a unit for political groupings such as the states in Australia. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree, this seems purposeless and there is no rationale for it in WP:NOTESAL. Schools can be redirected to their locality. Tacyarg (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the article itself states, "This is a complete list of education districts in Queensland, Australia, prior to the recent reorganisation of the state into seven school regions." Don't see the need for an obsolete list of districts. Also, the single external link no longer exists. Teraplane (talk) 23:19, 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 11:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Meyer[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG - sourced largely to IMDb and brief mentions, article has been predominantly edited by an apparent WP:COI editor who has removed PRODs multiple times calling it "spam" Melcous (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable actor, no significant role in multiple television shows or films. So fails WP:NACTOR. No reliable source that I could find that shows significant coverage and establishes notability. So fails WP:GNG. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has appeared on screen with other famous actors and he has been on "NBC's iconic police-procedural Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, and the CBS hit CSI: NY", with no details if he appeared in a starring role or as a corpse found on the side of the road. The fundamental problem is the absence of in-depth coverage about him in reliable and verifiable source; none are in the article as it stands and I couldn't find anything more about him in a Google search that would establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater 15:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Present news coverage fails in GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Alansohn. No coverage available to support any WP:NACTOR criterion. PK650 (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He lacks multiple significant roles. -- LACaliNYC✉ 20:19, 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. signed, Rosguill talk 00:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Jabaley[edit]

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

Sources are totally unreliable. As examples, the CNN article is a paid segment with pictures provided by Jabaley, and Runner's World is by Jabaley himself. Picture is almost certainly not "own work". Prose, though sanitized of its copyright violations and most of its promotional language, is still promotional. Lastly, this article is the product of a paid editor. Mr. Jabaley is paying people to talk about him.

And the article forced me to read the words "Dabbin' Santa Sweaters". ♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for forcing Vami to read the words "Dabbin' Santa Sweaters" Delete per nom. Just doesn't have the sourcing to possibly be anything but promotional, and doesn't have the writing quality to justify its presence regardless. Vaticidalprophet 07:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable, can’t find anything that suggests notability. --Devokewater 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sadly i must agree. Delete this hot garbage. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 20:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The template says: "the article must not be blanked". This was however removed from the article: "In 2009 he signed a group named Travis Porter. In 2010 he cofounded music and artist management company Street Execs Management, and started working with 2 Chainz and Cap1.ref [30] . Isn't Forbes a notable source? Jjanhone (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy has declined the speedy deletion earlier because of "multiple RS and claims of significance. Stubifying seems possible to take care of the spammy language (CSDH)"Jjanhone (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And this is what I had written about his career back in January: "Jabaley started his first business in high school back in 2004. He sold cool clothes and shoes out of the trunk of his car in the school parking lot. He started a music studio in his bedroom having 30 kids writing lyrics. He got into producing hip-hop and started making videos for his artist friends. He created a media outlet for independent rappers called Spityourgame.com which started picking up traction. Jabaley and his friends were in the center of a dance movement in Atlanta. In his first year at community college, the website started to become more popular. In 2007 he dropped out of college to go on across the country tour with Soulja Boy as his cameraman. After Soulja Boy fired him he wanted to be a manager. His first signed group was called Vistoso Bosses. In 2009 he signed a group named Travis Porter, and they ended up with three top-10 songs on the U.S. radio charts without a record deal. In 2010 he cofounded music and artist management company called Street Execs Management, and started working with 2 Chainz and Cap1ref Forbes They were running a multimillion-dollar management company.ref name=RW20180726 ref name=CNN20180730 He created "Dabbin' Santa Sweaters" which was an instant viral Christmas success.ref name=CNN20180730 and Billboard" Jjanhone (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Runners World piece was edited interview by Marissa Stephenson and the CNN story by By Aisha Nga, CNN. So ♠Vami, what makes you think it was a paid section? Jjanhone (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Runner's World article. That is not an interview, it is a blog. And what makes me think the CNN article was a paid section is that Aisha Nga is an editor of paid sections at CNN, and all the photos used in the article are credited to Jabaley. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The format may be of a diary, but as it says it's "AS TOLD TO MARISSA STEPHENSON". So it's editorial. And if a topic of the CNN story is about losing weight, who else could provide the before and after photos than the subject himself? A journalist can do both paid sections and non-paid sections, right? If it's a paid section, then it needs to be marked, at least that's the way in Finland.Jjanhone (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjanhone: It might be under Finish law, but not American. I agree with Vami. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 00:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Wikipedia says about Advertorials: "Most publications will not accept advertisements that look exactly like stories from the newspaper or magazine they are appearing in. The differences may be subtle, and disclaimers—such as the word "advertisement"—may or may not appear. Sometimes terms describing the advertorial such as a "special promotional feature" or "special advertising section" are used. The tone of the advertorials is usually closer to that of a press release than of an objective news story."Jjanhone (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjanhone: Forbes is reliable, but most of forbes.com/sites/ are not. See WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. SmartSE (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you SmartSE! "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert". So how can we know that this Contributor "Shawn Setaro Media I write about the music industry" is or isn't a subject-matter expert? Jjanhone (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of articles at WP:FORBESCON are essentially ads paid by companies. If you think this particular writer is a subject matter expert, the onus to prove it is on you. MarioGom (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I might do that, just to educate myself, but I have no idea about the criteria so I don't know where to start.Jjanhone (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I vote for Keep.Jjanhone (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Notable, and promo. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see sufficient evidence of notability. CNN and RW were addressed above; as for the others:
Source analysis
  • Yahoo: Press release, listicle, unreliable
  • Forbes: Unreliable per WP:FORBESCON
  • Billboard: Mostly quotes, not really coverage of him as a person, and not about him
  • Insider: Not significant coverage of him.
  • CBS News: Single-issue feelgood story that reads like the result of a PR stunt.
  • TMZ: Unreliable gossip, the content is mostly just him talking.
  • Sjmedia: 404, nothing in the wayback machine
  • Sbnation: Mentions him once, in a list, not coverage.

--Blablubbs|talk 16:06, 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 speedy delete. Clearly not going to go anywhere. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Zaid (actor)[edit]

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

Highly likely WP:UPE for a non-notable Youtuber of Pakistani origin that purports the subject is "one of the most loved content creator of Pakistan". A bit of an overstretch, as he currently has 134 subscribers on Youtube and 0 online presence beyond the paid for Medium articles. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On further investigation the author of said article had already tried creating this spam article under M.Zaid. This was deleted yesterday by @Deepfriedokra: . I believe a speedy deletion and an action against the user is in order. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Comment: The AfD tag was removed by another user ‎Danishali01 with the preposterous edit comment: "I strongly dis delive that this article doesn't go under the criteria for deletion i have discussed it with my friend he is a Wikipedia administration and he also believe that his article doesn't go under the criteria for deletion". Nearlyevil665 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3rd Comment: Recreated today under different names, all tagged for speedy deletion: M.Zaid, Muhammad Zaid (actor), Muhammad Zaid (content creator) and M.Zaid (actor).Nearlyevil665 (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the good references are faked (they are on Zaid Ali, someone else). The non-fake references are self published from Medium.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - WP:G3 (hoax) and WP:G11 (spam) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - self-promotion. I've got rid of his other "creations". Deb (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manouchehr Azari[edit]

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

This article has two dubious references in the form of essays to establish its notability and significance. Unless there are some missing Persian sources, this seems like a clear-cut fail of WP:GNG Nearlyevil665 (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@GeneralizationsAreBad: I cannot seem to find any reference to this sock in the SPI for Chyah. Am I missing something? Nearlyevil665 (talk) 06:42, 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Butt (cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing notable in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to List of Sussex County Cricket Club players Has only played 1 FC match, and a search brought about limited responses. Sources though may well exist offline though, especially as the match was against a touring West Indian side. 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. No qualms if this page is kept though as there's a chance there may well be significant coverage offline. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having played in a FC match for Sussex, and has a mention in Wisden for his obit. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage, only passing mentions and a one line obit, so fails WP:GNG. Came into the Sussex team against the West Indies as a "local amateur" [31] replacement, and except for the scorecards of that match and local club cricket reports there don't seem to be any other mentions of him and it's unlikely any significant coverage exists. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be based on significant coverage, which is not at all present here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, a requirement for sports biographies. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage for us to write a biography. List of Sussex County Cricket Club players is basically a navigational list of blue links, so doesn't seem a suitable redirect target.----Pontificalibus 14:14, 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 redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) per WP:PRESERVE. Consensus against the continued existence of the article as it stands is clear. BD2412 T 23:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allen (Cambridge University cricketer)[edit]

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

first name and dates unknown, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article talk page narrows it down to two chaps. It needs a more detailed Cambridge (probably Pembroke) source to be certain though. At worst this can be redirected to the list of cricketers from that date range - it might have been better dealt with on the article talk page given that there's already some discussion there. An IP added the college information in 2017 and I suspect there is more out there if anyone had access to the appropriate sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) Has only played 2 FC matches, and an internet search was almost impossible with the details we know. Sources though may well exist offline, especially in the Cambridge area. 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's a suitable WP:ATD here. No qualms if this page is kept though as there's a good chance there's offline coverage
Thanks Blue Square Thing, does look a better redirect target. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since this is a case from the 19th-century in England the fact that we lack anything other than a last name shows virtually nothing is known of this person and having an article on them is just not justified at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. Entirely insufficient information available from databases to justify crafting such an article. The first-class status of the matches is highly debatable, with no such official or universally agreed designation in 1820. There is also no source to attest of the standard. Interestingly, in the second match it seems several of the CU team didn't even turn up on the second day [32]. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the ACS (who run CricketArchive) say it's first-class, then it's first-class. We're not here to question the status of matches. Alumni Cantabrigineses has a couple of possibilities for his identity, though no proof of course, just dates matching:
"ALLEN, JOHN ROY. .Adm. pens, (age 17) at Pembroke, Apr. 17, 1817. [3rd] s. of Jefferys (1778), of Bridgwater, Somerset. B. there. Matric. Michs. 1817; Scholar; B.A. 1821; M.A. 1825. Adm. at the Inner Temple, Jan. 27, 1821. Called to the Bar, 1826; disbarred by request, 1835. Recorder of Taunton, Andover and Bridgwater, 1841-61. Of Lyng- ford Taunton. J. P. Married Lydia Augusta, dau. of James Watson, of Bath, 1831. Died Mar. 10, 1875, aged 76, at Weston-super-Mare. Brotherof Charles J. (1S19)."
"ALLEN, SAMUEL JAMES. Adm. pens, (age 17) at Pembroke, Feb. 17, 1816. S. and h. of Samuel, sail-maker, of London. B. there June 16, 1798. School, Merchant Taylors'. Matric. Michs. 1816; Exhibitioner; Scholar; B..\. 1820; M.A. 1824. University Preacher, 1833. C. of Langho, Lanes. P.C. of Salesbury, 1822. Chaplain to Lord de Tabley. Sometime Head Master of the Free Grammar School, Burnley, Lanes. V. of Easingwold, Yorks., 1839-56. Assisted Thomas Dunham Whitaker, the historian of Whalley, Craven and Richmondshire, in his Uterary work ; on the death of Whitaker was engaged by the publishers of The History of Richmond- shire to complete the work. A learned antiquary and a clever draftsman; left a large collection of MSS. relating to the antiquities of Yorks. and Lanes. Author, Lectures in Defence of the Church of England; Sermons. Died Apr. 29, 1856, aged 58. Brother of Isaac N. (1831)"
If the latter person, he could well be notable. StickyWicket (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per User:Blue Square Thing to List of English cricketers (1787–1825). Per User:Wjemather's comments on other AfDs, University matches were more significant in earlier years than they are today, and there were very few first class matches as early as 1820. The ACS definition is, of course, the correct one as they control the classification of matches. Finding sources so early, however, would be nightmarish. DevaCat1 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article clearly fails WP:GNG, no SNG pass will help it here. I also don't think this is a plausible redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Those conducting original research to supposedly narrow it down to two people have failed to account for the fact there is no confirmation this player was an undergraduate in 1820.----Pontificalibus 12:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Even if the match is first-class; the only thing NCRIC (being a subject notability guideline) creates is a rebuttable presumption of meeting the general notability guideline (and therefore the expectation that we will have enough material to write a proper article). Given how far back in time this chap supposedly played cricket (which was then an entirely amateur sport), and given how unlikely we are to find coverage equivalent to the kind of stuff we get for modern players that far back; given finally that there have been no other sources (beyond alumni records to prove WP:ITEXISTS, which isn't sufficient) to demonstrate this supposed notability; the presumption finds itself strongly rebutted. If the only thing we can provide is a generic database like routine statement "X played cricket ...", this is not encyclopedia worthy material, and it fails both WP:NOT (not a database) and WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:25, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. Bull[edit]

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

Batting style/bowling style unknown, dob unknown. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes has only played 2 FC (which still passes him for WP:NCRIC in it's current form), but they were for Hampshire in the County Championship. While an online search didn't bring up much, likely due to the difficulties of not knowing his full name, it's likely that sources do exist offline due to the coverage the County Championship gets. One of his matches was against Yorkshire, one of the larger cricketing counties, so I believe that coverage likely exists out there. List of Hampshire County Cricket Club first-class players exists if WP:ATD needed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rugbyfan22. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete keeping articles that this clearly fail GNG would be a sure sign we are cricketpedia, which we are not and should never have tried to be. This person is just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean we are "everything-else-pedia" because we have articles on other things too? There are articles on topics other than cricket, surprisingly. Bobo. 12:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we're stretching a bit here. If the only reason we're trying to get things deleted is because we don't know someone's birth/deathdate and/or bowling action, that's stretching it slightly. Bobo. 12:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

  • Comment. Article updated and corrected with his first name and further detail of his appearances; it seems the second of them was only a last day cameo, rather than a full appearance, for what was described as "a very weak team". wjematherplease leave a message... 12:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the British Newspaper Archive link that provides his first name? Not meaning to badger - just a general question as we cannot access said link without subscription. Bobo. 12:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the relevant quote is at WT:CRIC if you're interested. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, forgive me for being sceptical. That's just the kind of thing that happens when people send hundreds of articles for deletion indiscriminately. Considering what we had when the article was first set up - which is absolutely fine for an article, by the way - the article looks good now. Bobo. 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A comment left by a member on this AfD discussion was deleted by wjemather without any warning or permission to do so. Bobo. 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was removed per WP:NPA (WP:RPA), as noted in the edit summary. Anything further? wjematherplease leave a message... 15:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question you left on my talk page, I wasn't leaving it as a personal attack, I was leaving it to let people know that people were editing others' comments. I'm not certain that's particularly ethical... Bobo. 17:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, and I wasn't suggesting you did. No comments were edited or refactored; an unambiguous personal attack was removed (as it should be). I've now added the rpa template, if that helps, but I won't restore the signature. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think his personal attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zulqarnain (cricketer, born 1998) was more offensive. People need to remember that this is a volunteer project and such attacks really do damage the project. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No loss, the user in question is rude, berates the work of others (across AfD and FAC), and does not contribute beyond trolling those areas. They've been taken to ANI numerous times, yet nothing is done by the admins about their uncivil conduct. I'd swap them for someone who expands content anyday. StickyWicket (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What did we say about badgering? Please stop removing other people's comments. Bobo. 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way (trying to be pleasant for a second in what has become a toxic atmosphere), I hope you didn't mind my asking about the BNA link. Always hard to access subscription material. Unless of course it's so painfully easy to get past a paywall! (One day Cricket Archive will take note of this and spoil it for all of us!) Bobo. 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs for your accusations or withdraw them. And of course I don't mind any questions regarding the sources added. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me. Maybe I duplicated my comment from earlier because I'm too tired of all this. You're making it sound like it's an excusable action. We're all too tired out by this process for it to matter any more. Doesn't excuse it though, eh? Bobo. 21:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're getting somewhere with this guy. I've given Hampshire's cricket historian the heads-up about what Wjemather and Johnlp have found out about him, so hopefully he will have the material to dig even deeper. The circumstances surrounding his two FC appearances are, I would argue, rather unique in County Championship history. There's no reason why more sources can't be found and the article expanded further, especially as more information becomes available. StickyWicket (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find anything on him in my own historical archive search because of F.G. Bull, who played for Essex, is clearly notable, and whose article needs to be desperately expanded. In terms of notability, making a delete !vote is still a heck of a lot more justifiable than a keep at the moment since SIGCOV really isn't there even with the match reports, but given the historical nature of the article and the improvement so far, it's not impossible for this to be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG which supersedes any presumed notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Including *every* cricketer who played in two matches and did *nothing* else is not for Wikipedia. NCRIC is only a soft rule which presumes there will be other sources to establish a cricketer's notability over and above the standard statistical sites but not every one/two/three appearance wonder does generate significant coverage. Most of them don't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stevie fae Scotland, oh but it is, Lewis (baseball) anyone? StickyWicket (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that and was very surprised that there would be an article for someone who played one baseball game. Tbf, he does/did hold some MLB records but it's still classic sports anorak stuff. The only reason there are articles like that and this one is because there are enough people who have an interest in sport but don't always see the difference between someone who is notable and a bit of trivia. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:56, 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 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. North America1000 16:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bark.com[edit]

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

badly fails WP:CORP Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Julian[edit]

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

I don't think this meets the standards for notability of creative artists, There do not apear to be any works in major museums--even some of the exhibitions listed are "private viewings." There do not appear to be any substantial critical studies--all of the references appear to be notices or promotion. As I understand it, part of the purpose of afc is to keep articles like this out of mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of dcontemporary.com, gabrielfineart.co.uk,edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk, globalartagency.wordpress.com,issuu.com, view.publitas.com, artisttalkmagazine.com, blurb.com or larajulian.com are independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack the indepdent reliable sources needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is great to read about new upcoming artists. There are many interesting references to exhibitions and articles. I do not think exhibiting in big museums should be the the criteria for being shown on Wikipedia. I enjoyed reading Lara’s biography and believe it meets Wikipedia guidelines.Marishyr (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Striking vote from confirmed sock puppet account of Alyaww. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    — Marishyr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vexations (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting the page about Lara Julian is not right. The page has enough references directly about her which are independent sources. The deletion needs a review. Alyaww (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyaww: Sorry but your sockpuppet vote above this one (Marishyr) does not count.--- Possibly (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : All the Magazines that are mentioned in references are independent sources. Moreover, Lara Julian’s works were shown in Venice Biennale which is a major art event. All commercial art galleries do private views, however only the opening night are private and the public can surely visit the exhibitions after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:C99A:C101:B1:EF70:59EE:3F2 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I think what you mean to say is that she had a show in Venice during the Biennale, similar to how I myself might have stayed in a hotel or had some nice pasta in Venice during the Biennale. I would guess that any show she had there was a paid one, as such paid show sin Venice are very common. According to the source, the pieces she showed in Venice, apparently, were at the "Venice Art House", which only has a Facebook page as web presence. --- Possibly (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete carries the hallmarks of paid spam sources. I don't see any genuine sources amidst the promotional junk pile. --- Possibly (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed the source for "artist talk magazine", after seeing that it's a paid placement.--- Possibly (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find any reliable sources at all. Curiocurio (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet the GNG guidelines/artist guidelines e.g. none of her works are held in the permanent collections of significant institutions. MurielMary (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST, have been unable to find anything that shows that work has received any wikisignificant attention, part of wikinotable exhibitions, or in any wikinotable gallery/museum collections. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zahid (Faisalabad cricketer)[edit]

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

Did a search but found nothing about him. He clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NCRIC. Played in TEN first-class matches, along with 3 LA and a T20 match. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has played 10 FC matches, 3 List-A matches and 1 T20 match so comfortably passes WP:NCRIC. Article needs expanding and not deleting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. All I can find are database directory entries and a very short match report, and GNG supersedes any sports SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should say that the updated notability guidelines don't say that GNG supersedes any sports SNG or any SNG for that matter. They currently state "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." While your view that the article doesn't have enough coverage to pass GNG is a fair one, the latter point on GNG superseding SNGs is an incorrect one. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It actually appears as if I wrote the text you're citing (2 December). The text is written very specifically because some SNGs do override GNG, mostly WP:NPROF. That's not the case for sports. This RfC clearly shows that a sports SNG does not matter when GNG is so clearly unsatisfied There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Basically, we can presume that Zahid qualifies for an article, but the purpose of an AfD for a sports biography is to check to make sure the article really satisfies WP:GNG, which this either does not, or sources haven't been found. Further exacerbating the issue is that unlike other sports, WP:NCRIC does not accurately predict when a player will pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking this SportingFlyer, I was reading from WP:SNG which may have well been from the discussion you've cited. If this is the case then can sports and athletes be removed from the subject-specific guidelines box at the top of the WP:N page as this has clearly confused me. As WP:SNG is saying one thing, yet the RfC has completely changed what actually appears to be true. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're incongruent: this player passes a SNG, he's presumed to meet a notability guideline, but he falls under a notability guideline that requires GNG to be met. SNGs are far too broad to have WP:SNG be this specific for sports - that was one of the challenges of drafting that text. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this discussion is probably for elsewhere and for other discussions past and present and so can be rhetorical. But if the case is has to pass GNG now, why do SNGs still exist apart from WP:PROF which seems to be the only one that supersedes GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ease. We try to tailor SNGs to meet GNG, because while it's not difficult, the GNG isn't the simplest thing in the world to understand. It also helps greatly with providing a barometer when sources will exist for historical topics or non-English-language topics that may be harder to research: for instance, stubs of historical politicians from non-English speaking countries are routinely kept when they pass WP:V, since it's clear they'll have received historical coverage. Cricket's a bit difficult because the SNG has been around awhile and has not been tailored to the GNG, so we can't assume there's coverage when none has been demonstrated, and attempts to remedy this have been resisted. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on SNGs and GNG you refer to in that RFC is "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline" - Wikipedia talk:Notability#Request for Comment on the Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) shows that consensus has changed since then. Peter James (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I, at least in part, wrote the text at that RfC. Nothing about that discussion deprecates what was said before - it was just to provide a description for how SNGs work currently, not to create any new policy. A small subset of SNGs does not supplant GNG. Sports is not one of those. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As was made abundantly clear in the discussions that culminated in the RfC. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Lugnuts, he played in first class matches which passes WP:NCRIC criteria. Pilean (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is simply no way this discussion would be held if there was an Australian or English player who had played 10 first class matches, including scoring a half century. It's an easy pass of WP:NCRIC, and reflects the lack of good access to sources in Pakistan for most editors on an English language site, which would have the potential to provide a GNG pass anyway. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the fact there's a technical WP:NCRIC pass doesn't matter, considering not a single keep !voter has pointed to an actual source which qualifies for GNG. The Cricinfo site is just a list of statistics, which doesn't count towards SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Afzal (Multan cricketer)[edit]

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

No real expansion in 5 years. Nothing in sources found (5 years are enough to discover sources). Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "No real expansion in 5 years" is not a valid reason to delete any article. He passes WP:NCRIC having played in ten first-class and ten List A matches. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 10 FC matches and 9 List-A matches so passes WP:NCRIC comfortably, playing in multiple seasons in notable competitions in Pakistan. Just because the article hasn't be expanded in 5 years doesn't mean it's a valid reason for deletion as Lugnuts states. He played in just under 25% of Multan's FC and List-A matches in the period he played for them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's the potential to redirect to Multan cricket team as a valid WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only sources listed are statistical directories. It's probable sources here, if they exist at all (they don't clearly exist for these competitions) aren't online, but as it stands, he fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any sources that exist are likely to be offline- Pakistani newspaper reports, for example. Your comment illustrates really effectively why I disagree with using WP:GNG for professional sportspeople- it drives a heavy bias towards players who have played since the internet came into existence, and a heavy bias towards players who have played in anglophone countries. Neither of these features is desirable. That's why WP:NCRIC is clearly the better and more appropriate notability standard. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you DevaCat1, this is a point I've been trying to drive home for ages, but which has been reaching deaf ears. StickyWicket (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with such assertions is that, in all those years, not a single such source has ever materialised. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which if anything speaks volumes about our failure to attract editors from Pakistan. Our achilles heel has always been how Anglo-centric we are. StickyWicket (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article, created by a sockpuppet, possibly eligible for a G5 with no intervening edits, that hasn't had a GNG-qualifying source or even a substantial edit made since it started. There's been over five years - when's the next AfD going to be when no more sources turn up? SportingFlyer T·C 23:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer that's below the belt and reeks of desperation to get rid at any cost. Hardly 'sporting'. StickyWicket (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not desperate or below the belt, just completely frustrated with the total lack of source analysis. Not a single keep !voter here has identified a single source that passes WP:SPORTCRIT (the sources in the article are all statistical databases) or has identified sources which might exist apart from claiming they might exist. It clearly fails WP:GNG, and nobody has countered that argument. SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily passes WP:NCRIC with 10 first class and 10 List A matches. Lack of recent updating is supremely irrelevant. See also my comment above. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 20 matches at domestic level is an easy pass. And with 20 appearances, it's highly likely coverage exists in Urdu/Punjabi sources. StickyWicket (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Failure to meet GNG is more persuasive than a presumption of meeting GNG afforded by a SNG, Further discussion warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I understand that articles that trivially pass the SNG should not be given a 'free pass' but someone that has played 20 matches at the highest level of their sport surely is notable enough to warrant an encyclopaedia article Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:38, 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]
  • Keep - once again, stretching desperately for deletion rationale. "Article has not been edited in five years" is not rationale for deletion. Bobo. 09:39, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuva Novotny[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable actress. Not much source found and only 1 source given in the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:50, 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 merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anauroch (accessory)[edit]

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

Despite the disambiguator, this article is about a book, not an "accessory". I was unable to find any indication that this book has any real world significance. The word Anauroch does not appear anywhere in the Forgotten Realms article, indicating that it is not a particularly important part of Dungeons and Dragons lore. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Face of Beauty International[edit]

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

Non-notable beauty pageant. I cannot find significant discussion of the event in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 01:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 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 speedy delete. Per G14, doesn't disam to any existing articles. GedUK  15:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kakueta[edit]

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

The only mention of the word 'Kakueta' in Wikipedia is Kakueta Canyon which is used once. Perhaps this could be a redirect until a disambiguation page is needed. Leschnei (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:G14, as this page disambiguates zero extant articles. I have tagged the article accordingly. —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could this be a set indice? Boleyn (talk) 11:14, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Raymond[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE search only found one even remotely decent source, which was this post in Her Canberra. I could not find anything close to the significant coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:05, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_March_22&oldid=1017733312"