Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 23	March 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 00:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parasol Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable local charitable foundation. Google search returns the business-related and non-independent sources one would expect. Fails WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They have some routine local news coverage but nothing that establishes notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO, article is unscourced, does not meet WP:GNG Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 11:17, 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. JGHowes ^talk 00:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Fein[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage in independent sources is practically non-existent. The coverage assembled here suggests that the subject's film, The Blessing, is likely notable, but overall the subject does not appear to meet WP:NCREATIVE. While looking for sources online, I found coverage of off-Broadway theater reviews in NYT for productions directed by a Jordan Fein, but given the total omission of these accomplishments in this article (despite it having been written by an editor with a declared conflict of interest), I'm given the impression that this is likely a different Jordan Fein. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did not find any indepedent coverage for him, fails WP:NCREATIVE CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rosguill, I think those Jordan Feins are the same based on a source I found that refers to him as an opera, theater and film director. ...by Brooklyn-based opera, theater, and film director Jordan Fein. Fein’s work in film has been recognized with three Cannes Lions awards, while his work in opera and theater has been produced... ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A Google search returns that he is an "Emmy award-winning filmmaker" but there's no record of a win (or a nomination) on the Emmy site. Also: never a good sign when the second sentence of a two-sentence intro is where the subject of the article attended university. Unless they are 9 and went to MIT. (Doesn't meet GNG or creative.) JSFarman (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he meets WP:NCREATIVE#3 for directing a number of works that have been the subject of multiple independent reviews. The Singlet: Theater Mania, New York Times, Vulture. Rags Parkland: New York Times and all the other sources in our article. War Lesbian: Seems the NYT really likes this guy, Pride.com, Stagebuddy. Here's a review of an opera he directed. This is leaving out The Blessing which may well be notable on it's own. As he is the creator of all of those, in as much as a director is the creator of a performance, I think he's past the NCREATIVE #3 bar, and possibly #4C if you count multiple reviews in the New York Times and other publications as won significant critical attention ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so it looks like there are two directors named Jordan Fein that both went to NYU and both look pretty similar. I had to swap back and forth on their respective websites to eventually come to that conclusion, and even now I'm not sure that it's not one guy who keeps his two fields of art separated. Color me confused. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources, he directed one documentary which also has no notable coverage Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 11:20, 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 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Odeneho Oppong[edit]

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

Placing third in a Ghanaian parliamentary election isn't enough to meet WP:NPOL, nor is the "technical advisor" role. The sourcing doesn't appear to be sufficient to pass the GNG, either: most of it appears to be trivial, routine, and/or unreliable. At twenty-seven years old, he's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator - the subject is an aspiring politician in the beginning of his journey. The coverage for now consists of trivial mentions - mostly on him running for an MP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL for now.Less Unless (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just running for elected office does not make one notable. As it stands, subject does not meet GNG. Agree that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Kbabej (talk) 14:47, 31 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 Sri Lanka Navy Sports Club (cricket). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duminda Wijeweera[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant about his career in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sri Lanka Navy Sports Club (cricket) Has played 2 FC and 2 List-A matches, but a search brought about no coverage. Sources may well exist offline or in Sri Lankan sources though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Finding coverage of Sri Lankan FC and List-A cricketers has proved difficult through these AfDs, but these matches must be covered somewhere, even if they're not significant coverage for the players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC having played first-class and List A cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, which supersedes NCRIC. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Desai (cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing comes up in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers Has played 1 FC match, but a search didn't find any significant coverage. Sources may well exist offline or in Indian sources though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC having played first-class cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:21, 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. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amulet (band)[edit]

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

Does not cite importance Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The German entry indicates that the group charted in Norway, which meets WP:MUSIC. I do not have confidence in the WP:BEFORE work done here based on the nomination rationale. Chubbles (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep insofar as I was able to add a citation for the chart. The albums earlier than that might fail album guidelines, though. Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there is not much news on them, but having the Top 100 album would mean they meet WP:MUSICBIO. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Two albums had low chart results in Norway and lasted only three weeks in total on the charts (https://norwegiancharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Amulet). If the charting had produced some actual press, and not just web store pages, which is what the German site showed, and https://www.punknews.org/review/3226/amulet-danger-danger, I would have to agree that MUSIBIO was met, but it did nothing to contribute to their notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read that as "they had two albums that hit the charts in Norway". One of them came close to breaking the top 10; that's WP:MUSIC by a mile. I don't see why we'd require digging up Norwegian music magazines from 2003 to further bolster the claim (though, of course, that'd be a nice bonus for article improvement). Chubbles (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the sources found citing charting in Norway.Hoponpop69 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the nominator has now !voted keep, we can speedily close this. Chubbles (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:NBAND. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Kung Fu[edit]

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

This company isn't notable enough; no evidence of notability from an organisation perspective; does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. In addition to the one passing mention in an independent source cited, I found a passing mention in BBC and one in Wales Online. I could not find any in-depth coverage.

There is no evidence that this label was notable from a music perspective, so does not look to meet WP:NMUSIC. It had a few non-notable artists on its roster and three notable artists released one piece of work through the label (Cerys Matthews, Marissa Nadler and Richard James), however, it is clear to see that the albums/songs released were not themselves notable or significant enough to make this one of the more important indie labels. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The reference provided in the article mentions the subject only in passing; so do the two sources found by the nominator. I have been able to retrieve another piece of coverage, also in Wales Online. This might constitute significant coverage towards GNG if Wales Online is indeed reliable. These pieces are all from more than 10 years ago and it does not seem that the label has risen in stature since. It seems the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a lengthy discussion has taken place about Wales Online but it's owned by Reach plc, which owns the Daily Mirror, Daily Express and Daily Star. The first of which, there is some disagreement about its reliability. The latter two, there is clear community consensus that these papers should be avoided. At best, I would be cautious about using Wales Online as a main source for notability of a subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree; it's just that I knew nothing at all about Wales Online. But if it is anything like the "Cambridgeshire live" type of publications, it's probably safe to assume it's unreliable. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; nothing to suggest encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 06:48, 1 April 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. JGHowes ^talk 00:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Doctors Orchestra[edit]

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

Does not cite importance Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — A quick Google search of the WDO reveals international press coverage, bookings at major venues, and collaborations with notable performers. The article, unfortunately, reflects none of that and requires some major work. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the external links (regrettably not used to back up content in the article) is a perfectly suitable article in Der Tagesspiegel. Other pieces of coverage include: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. These aren't all from independent sources but I think they show that this subject meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above such as German national newspaper coverage which shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 00:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blood or Whiskey[edit]

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

No sourced content or context Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found https://www.hendicottwriting.com/2017/09/blood-or-whiskey-interview/ and https://www.overdrive.ie/interview-blood-whiskey-talk-exclusive-christmas-show-new-album-u-s-tour/ not sure that these WP:ROUTINE interviews help the subject meet GNG. There is one review for their 1996 release at AllMusic: https://www.allmusic.com/album/blood-or-whiskey-mw0000948178 but nothing there for the other two albums and nothing at Sputnik Music https://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Blood-Or-Whiskey/23515/ . I also found https://folknrock.com/bands/blood-or-whiskey but without an author, it's not a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also found a couple of mentions but nothing significant to verify notability in this book and also in this pdf file. Both merely mention their style. ww2censor (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Against Sexism[edit]

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

No sourced content or context. Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tagged for speedy deletion by WP:A1. Aasim (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that we can apply A1 since previous versions of the article had sufficient context, even if the content was unsourced. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I didn't see the AfD template. I reverted back to the last admin version who had reverted the blanking and call to speedy it, and cleaned it up. It was easy to source. Bands like U2 played RAS events, and RAS archives are at Universities like Harvard. It was simple enough to cut the unsourced stuff and source what was left, or add new sourced content. It's a small, but sourced article now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, as others have noted, that as Hoponpop is the nom, and has now switched to Keep, this nom is now basically withdrawn, making this a Speedy/Snow Keep. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's been restored with sources.Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are several high-quality sources that specifically discuss the topic cited, absolutely no reason to delete. The nominator has also functionally withdrawn their nomination so there’s basically nothing left to debate. Dronebogus (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sourcing demonstrates that WP:GNG is met Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator has changed to keep, so this can be speedy closed. Chubbles (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this definitely was a widely discussed movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the UK, in British music magazines and in Spare Rib and other influential magazines – some of the material from the time can be seen here [5]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 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 with no prejudice against restoration for the purpose of merging if a suitable target should become available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo Bike Project[edit]

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

Questionable notability per WP:GNG. The current sources are all affiliated with the project or the university that sponsored it; thus they lack independence. My WP:BEFORE search yielded a few borderline sources. An article from SFGATE and another from Good.is both have a decent level of detail, but the publications are not the most reliable. A feature on bamboo bicycles from the NYT is good on reliability, but lacks in-depth coverage of this particular project. Further, all these articles are from 2007-2010, it looks like the project itself kind of petered out since then. An inactive project can still be notable per WP:NTEMP, but it seems unlikely this topic will become more notable in the future. Overall, I suspect Bamboo bicycles generally are notable, while this specific project is not. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the nomination,^[1]^[2] and the article in The Economist,^[3] there are several book sources.^[4]^[5]^[6] SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Nancy Davis Kho (July 5, 2008). "Bamboo bikes have benefits". Sfgate. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
^ Morgan Clendaniel (July 29, 2009). "LOOK: Bamboo Bikes for Africa". goodinc.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
^ "On your bike". The Economist. November 29, 2008. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
^ "Non-wood News" (18). Food and Agriculture Organization. 2009: 24. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Michelle Mulder (2015). Pedal It!: How Bicycles are Changing the World. Orca Book Publishers. ASIN B00UUDND6A.
^ Paul Collinson; Iain Young; Lucy Antal; Helen Macbeth, eds. (2019). Food and Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Berghahn Books. p. 170. ASIN B07KH5ZHDR.

Delete The correct guideline for organizations is WP:NCORP and not GNG. None of the references either in the article or mentioned by SailingInABathTub above meet the criteria as folows:
- This cogito.org reference is based entirely on an interview, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from The Earth Institute at Columbia University copies directly from the proposal submitted by David Ho, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. This from Columnia University (and other articles posted on Columbia University website such as this) all rely on information provided by people involved in the project. The references fail to provide "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND. Also failing ORGIND for the same reasons are this PR from the "Millenium Cities Initiative" who are "connected" with the project and this announcement, all of which fail WP:ORGIND.
- This from SFGate is based entirely on an interview with a Calfee who is involved in the project, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
- This from Good.is only mentions the Bamboo Bikes Project in passing and focussed on an offshoot called Bamboo Bike Studio, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
- This from The Economist talks about bikes made from bamboo and about the initial proof of concept project in Ghana (which is a different company named Bamboo Bikes Limited) but doesn't mention nor provide any information on the topic organization, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- Non-wood News (pgs 23 and 24) has two references. Issue 19 has a general article on Bamboo Bikes and mentions the topic organization in passing, fails CORPDEPTH. Issue 22 provides another mention and a simple single-sentence description of the topic organization and also fails ORGIND.
- Pedal it! How Bicycles are Changing the World has a section on "Bicycles Made From Plants" where it discusses and describes bicycles made from bamboo. In a single sentence, it descibes how scientists Mutter and Ho founded the Bamboo Bike Project in Ghana to help factories produce low-cost, high-quality bamboo bikes. Fails CORPDEPTH.
- Food and Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives mentions the topic company in a footnote and copies information from the bamboobike home page and provides a link. Fails CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV and ORGIND.

In a nutshell, a lot has been written about bikes made from bamboo and there are a variety of organizations involved in the manufacture of these types of bikes, but this particular organization fails the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to Drafts until the article meets Notability, which it currently does not (agree with comments above).--Greysonsarch (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Found a few more sources that I believe are not mentioned above:

But even though over all coverage appears to have been substantial, it doesn't look the project is active anymore (last blog post is from 2011), as the nominator says. For this reason an stand-alone article might not have a chance to develop much. I suggest merging content into the article of the leaders of the project, David Ho (oceanographer), which is currently undergoing its own AFC discussion but might have a chance of surviving, especially if the sources talking about him and the bamboo bikes are added there. Alan Islas (talk) 04:48, 1 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Brady[edit]

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

Was no consensus in 2014. Fails WP:GNG and never played in an WP:FPL. Playing in the last 16 of a European tournament doesn't make anyone notable unless it's two teams from a FPL. Dougal18 (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Struway2 made an excellent argument at the last AfD, unfortunately nobody has seen fit to improve the article much since then. For now I'm happy with the assumption that this does pass WP:GNG since the Irish Times archive search does bring up a lot of hits, but I can't access the archive to make a definitive declaration either way. SportingFlyer T·C 14:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know why, but I feel this AfD is somewhat unfair, I am finding it hard to find sources, but that doesn't mean they are not there. The guy played a lot of Irish football, a couple of games in Champions League, two in UEFA Cup and one Cup Winners Cup. [6]. I think it's just finding the right sources to build a better article. Govvy (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per me at the previous AfD. Assuming my opinion of the amount and quality of the Irish Times coverage would be the same now that I can't see it, as it was then when I could. At that time, I didn't have the inclination to expand the article, and I no longer have access to that newspaper archive, but just because I can't see that coverage doesn't mean it isn't there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Struway2. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Irish Times archive search returns 155 hits (not all about the footballer). I can only read the headlines but they are mostly match reports/team news and unlikely to give significant coverage of Brady. Dougal18 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both this discussion and the previous one have keep votes which essentially rest on the presumption that as the player had a lengthy career there must be sources. There does seem to be coverage but paywalls restrict the ability to assess whether this is significant enough for GNG. The problem is if we can't access sources we can neither use them to create and article nor assess their significance. As such they are essentially useless. I am relisting this as a courtesy to the keep voters to highlight any they have access to in order to support gng. However if this can't be done there is nothing in this discussion which indicates the sunset passes GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and [[WP:NFOOTBALL] CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We know that there is coverage. Multiple appearances in European competition are indication that he is notable. Participation in European competition could probably be included in WP:NFOOTBALL criterion. Кирилл С1 (talk) 13:00, 1 April 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. JGHowes ^talk 00:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Precision Medicine Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. IPMC sounds notable, but I can't find any reliable sources on it. The two references have nothing to do with IPMC itself. If anyone can find reliable sources, I would welcome them. Right now, this article reads like a big press release. Rogermx (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep rebuilt as a list. If the list turns out to fail LISTN/LISTPURP, no prejudice against renomination, but the consensus here is confident that there's a good niche to be filled. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creat Studios[edit]

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

Looking through WP:VG/SE's search results, there appears to be no significant coverage, as required by WP:GNG, about the company. The name appears in passing in several articles where its games are covered (some of which are undoubtedly notable) and in interviews connected to these games, but coverage of the company itself is lacking. WP:NCORP is seemingly not met. IceWelder [✉] 22:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 22:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 22:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of keeps I'm of the opinion that when you have a studio that is the creative side behind more than 2-3 games (and definitely over a dozen) that otherwise don't fall into a higher level (like a franchise series), a landing page for that studio is helpful to have only for navigational purposes, even if its hard to show notability for the studio otherwise; this page meets that. That said, I know it fails WP:N/GNG and NCORP so I would not fight strongly to keep it. --Masem (t) 16:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masem Renaming the article to List of games developed by Creat Studios would make more sense then, wouldn't it? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a valid title, but you'd still have a LISTN problem. At least keeping at the studio with a list of games (where each game's existence and evidence that it was created by Creat here can be sourced) can be augmented w/ first-party sources to outline the studio's history until (if ever) such a time more sources come. Be aware that this is obviously not meeting GNG's or NCORP significiant coverage requirement but it would be better than just a list. --Masem (t) 17:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I fail to see how the article is viable as what would essentially be a list of games if a list of games by itself would fail LISTN. Wouldn't a navigation template be a simpler solution to this? IceWelder [✉] 10:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid list article, plenty of blue links, just changed the name to have "list of" in the title. As for coverage of just the studio, I see an interview giving information about them https://www.engadget.com/2009-04-30-joystiq-interview-creat-studios-vladimir-starzhevsky.html but doesn't matter since the article is clearly a list article and unlikely anyone will bother expanding it to anything else. Dream Focus 10:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, this stands in stark contrast to the above comment that rules out renaming it "List of ..." as it would fail WP:LISTN. Recall that LISTN requires that there are sources that discuss the games developed by the company as a collection, not individually. A plucked-together table with a handful of bluelinks does not satisfy LISTN. IceWelder [✉] 10:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Navigational lists don't follow the same standards as other articles. Never have, never will. Its listed somewhere at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists Dream Focus 10:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of games developed by Creat Studios, which is where the consensus seems to be going for. The company itself fails WP:NCORP as there is no significant coverage of it in reliable sources, but the article should be instead repurposed into a navigational list. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need discussion about WP:NLIST and other alternative solutions to a list such as navigational templates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 03:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they have over a dozen notable games and are notable. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. IceWelder [✉] 17:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited from the parent topic and nobody who voted keep has been able to prove it is notable on its own. Namcokid 47 21:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 23:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as navigational list at a minimum, and note the retitling suggestions above. Whether the company itself merits coverage per se, it produced numerous games on which we have articles, and we index games by the company that produced them. As Masem notes above, "a landing page for that studio is helpful to have for navigational purposes", which makes LISTN not relevant or particularly helpful; see also Dream Focus's comments above. The nominator's suggestion of a navigational template undercuts their argument that this page should not exist in any form, per WP:CLN. I just don't see how deletion accomplishes anything other than poking a hole in a standard way we organize content. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Top Model of the World. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top Model of the World 2020[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable as an instance of a beauty pageant. ... discospinster _talk 17:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, did not meet WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Seems like a redirect to Top Model of the World will be a better option. Iflaq ^(talk) 10:50, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top Model of the World 2019[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable as an instance of a beauty pageant. ... discospinster _talk 17:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, did not meet WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 02:06, 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 20:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Management Group[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP. The organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE search shows multiple press release and sponsored adverts, nothing cogent. The sourcing also is filled with mere mentions and multiple press release. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are affiliated with the organization from what I saw when I looked them up. Can you provide evidence that they are paid advertisements or dependent? Further, there are multiple sources from those industries covering the news Less Likely (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Lesslikely, as you are the article creator the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary, I’m merely stating that the article does not satisfy NCORP and I have provided rationale as to why, & if you can’t understand that then there isn’t anymore I can do. Mere mentions, press releases and websites that advertise the companies services do not constitute notability for the organization. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at several of the sources used for similar topics for example Cumberland Farms, which are all convenience-store related, they are the same/similar reference sources used in the Atlantis article such as csnews.com. Further, few of the criteria there would easily fit for a majority of the retail-chain convenience stores on Wikipedia. I vote for a Keep and refine of the topic Less Likely (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesslikely, Generally speaking, if an article abc on mainspace looks bad it doesn’t give you leeway to create an equally bad article xyz. That’s WP:POINTy and such rationales or arguments constitutes WP:ATA in an AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, but what I'm generally contesting it that the sources are not mere mentions, are generally the same types of sources that cover the convenience-store industry, and that they are not dependent Less Likely (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesslikely, the sourcing is absent & not what is required by WP:RS. The fact that you are still raising the point of similar sources used in other articles on mainspace means you don’t still understand you are WP:POINTy. I would suggest you use the AFC method to create articles in future especially if you have a potential conflict of interest with the article you are creating. Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These sources are all about transactions that the company has engaged in, while my searches turn up only press releases and more of the same thin reporting. None of the sources appear to be the in-depth coverage that would support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NCORP sets a pretty high bar for the quality of sources required. None of the sources presented, upon examination, meets it. If Less Likely would care to identify those specific sources he feels do, they ought to be pointed out. Otherwise, if he feels that the sourcing on other articles is inadequate, he's free to deal with them in the appropriate manner. Ravenswing 23:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more or less per the above. Sure you can find press-releases (which are not WP:IS), and yes there are sources in the article which are largely about individual transactions this organization has effected, but with WP:CORPDEPTH completely lacking. Without at least three available reliable and independent sources with WP:CORPDEPTH we can't be sure we are writing a neutral and verifiable article. I understand that it sucks to have an article you created deleted, but given available sourcing that's how this has to go. 83.136.106.119 (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Rovers[edit]

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON. Club is brand new after a merger between two clubs and doesn't meet the old WP:FOOTYN guidelines for clubs yet, doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTY. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely to be notable in the future, but WP:CRYSTAL applies, and there's no evidence of notability currently. Giant Snowman 20:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into Glenfield Rovers, the more prominent of the the source teams. Given the history of the clubs involved, it may become notable later, but it's currently too soon to know that. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would of just moved the article into draft space! Considering the age of the club, more sources would come out locally to that location there, seems rash running this to AfD without giving the creator a chance. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, drafting would work for me too. Grutness...wha? 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy if original user or someone else wants the article changed to draft but otherwise it's just a case that of too early. The club will be notable in the future I'm sure, just not now! NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 02:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find significant coverage Nexus000 (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugo Ugochukwu[edit]

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

Non-notable young racing driver, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. A much more in-depth article about the same person was deleted last month. John B123 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article shouldn't be deleted because he just signed a deal with McLaren Racing and I guess he is notable now Robert Jamal _{…talk to me💬} 17:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Robertjamal12 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not saying he is sufficently notable, but the fact that he just signed for McLaren, something that was widly reported across F1 media, makes him significantly more notable than he when the first nomination succeeded.18:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs)
Delete: Lacks notability. Aasim (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too Soon may have signed with Mclaren but still too early to see if more than a one off event to prove notability.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space or similar (keeping current sources preserved at the very least). If anything vaguely approaching the current level of coverage continues then the subject can be presumed notable. At the moment WP:BLP and WP:BIO1E concerns are obvious but it's rare to see any kart racer receive any level of significant coverage from independent reliable sources whatsoever. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could be years until he becomes notable. Draft space has a six month ceiling. There is also very little worth preserving (it's a 3 sentence stub). Wouldn't it be better to delete and we can go to WP:REFUND, 5, 6 years down the line in the unlikly event we can't find something?
SSSB (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. Recent coverage focuses on the announcement, not the subject, and signing to a driver development program is not inherently notable.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it isn't inherently notable it has received a substantial amount of coverage. If Ugochukwu's actual karting career receives any substantial coverage from independent reliable sources in the next few months then we'll have grounds to create an actual article. Since him merely being signed to the programme has received so much coverage I don't think it's unreasonable to say that such continued coverage may occur, as karting usually receives little to no coverage from such sources, even specialist ones like Autosport. However as it stands I agree that the subject of this article is not independently notable separate from the programme. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the subject is not meeting general notability criteria. Iflaq ^(talk) 11:40, 31 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 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane (Roblox)[edit]

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

Non-notable game. I tried searching for the game on Google. But I could only find primary sources and unrelated content. Koridas 📣 16:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The game is made by Ponchokings (not Pochonkings as the article states), but that doesn't help to find anything outside Wikia, youtube, and primary sources. Fram (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to demonstrate notability for this particular game. Fails WP:GNG as I can't find any reliable sources which talk about the game. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a search and nothing came back other than fandom Wikis and YouTube videos Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and because it's five in the morning for me I'm glad this doesn't need brainpower. Found no sources and therefore fails WP:GNG. P anini ^🥪 09:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the text is copied from Airplane at Roblox Wikia.— Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Spiderone. Ajshul ( 🗣 | 😃 ) 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IceWelder [✉] 16:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You'd need an airplane to clear the abyss between this subject and our notability guidelines. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game is not notable at all. This article seems to be promotional in nature. Iflaq ^(talk) 10:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable article and I agree with the other users. There is no notable info online. JennilyW (talk) 02:03, 31 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 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Count Leo Stefan of Habsburg[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2011. Only non-genealogy ref is to a local obituary. Googling '"Leo Stefan" "Habsburg"', '"Count Leo" "Habsburg"', and '"Leon Stefan" "Habsburg"' revealed nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a member of a royal family doesn't automatically mean notability. I didn't manage to find anything to pass WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Less. There's nothing here but genealogy, and the subject was born after the Austrian nobility was abolished, so I would need something more than genealogy to believe he was notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need coverage beyond "he lived and died" . Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability of Mr Habsburg. (If kept, move to legal name: unlike German ex-nobility, Austrian ex-nobility do not keep their former titles as part of the name). —Kusma (t·c) 10:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero coverage, not even in PR news. VocalIndia (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leo Stefan fails in the "count" of sources. Good nomination, JoelleJay! gidonb (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and that's basically all that is presented here. He was a person, but does not meet notability requirements. --Kbabej (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ameer Hamza (cricketer, born 1994)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers Has played 1 FC match, but finding coverage was difficult. There seems to be some confusion over whether his forename is Ameer (as stated by Cricinfo) or Aamer (as stated by CricketArchive), searching both brought up a few match reports but probably not enough for significant coverage. Sources may exist offline or in Pakistani sources I haven't been able to access though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's called "Ameer Hamza Jnr" on the Pakistan Cricket Board site ([7]). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wjemather, looks like CricketArchive just have his name wrong as all other details are the same, listing him as Aamer Hamza Khan, so not sure where the Khan bit's come from. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a cricketer with a (relatively) recent first-class debut, there is probably newspaper etc. material available which talks about this cricketer. I would be very surprised if there wasn't coverage in local sources that could probably have been found before sending this to deletion. Bobo . 18:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC having played first-class cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only two sources are his statistics page and the scorecard of the match he played in. Clearly fails WP:GNG, which supersedes any NCRIC pass. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references only seem to from a single source, and it is just statistics. No evidence GNG is passed. Eldumpo (talk) 22:58, 31 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TaskY[edit]

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

Non-notable; WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up any significant coverage (and there is currently nothing cited). Elli (talk | contribs) 15:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced promo stub created by apparent COI editor. No independent sourcing found. Created as a draft, immediately moved to mainspace, then moved back to draftspace after this nomination, all in the space of two hours. --Finngall ^talk 17:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tagged for speedying by WP:G11. Aasim (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and declined. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COI vanity piece on a non-notable software product. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 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 Withdrawn. SmartSE (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maitland McDonagh[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources which demonstrate WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO are met. SmartSE (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Broken mirrors/broken minds, republished in 2010 by a university press (Worldcat), has received reviews. E.g. Book review: Broken Mirrors/Broken Minds, by Maitland McDonagh (Bright Lights Film Journal) and Review: Maitland McDonagh’s Broken Mirrors/Broken Minds: The Dark Dreams of Dario Argento (Slant Magazine). WP:GNG should also be considered. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I just added two sources to the article (from Vulture.com and Rolling Stone) that speak of how "indispensable" the Dark Mirrors book is. That pretty much establishes notability for me. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--A leading author in the fields or horror and erotica, with a long list of books and of essays in books. A well-known film critic in major publications. A frequent on-camera commentator in documentaries and on DVDs, including from the Criterion Collection, with one such commentary nominated for a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award. A speaker at arts festivals and cultural institutions including Lincoln Center and Museum of the Moving Image. Whatever issues anyone may have with me, they have nothing to do with this accomplished, internationally recognized person in her field.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: One's notability as an author is exemplified by being invited to speak at major museums. Here is a source for the Museum of the Moving Image: [8]. Also, here's a Filmmaking on the Fringe review from Bright Lights Film Journal: [9]. Film Threat: "one of the most recognized film critics in the US media" [10]. Additional cites from The New York Times, the MoMI, and various TV networks and cultural institutions had appeared in the article but were removed?--Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough for an article. The genesis of the article is hardly pristine, but, then, all of us were born the non-immaculate way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I must not be up to date with what BMK is referring to, but I coincidentally have read one of this author's book and believe that she meets WP:CREATIVE in that she is regarded as an important figure in her genre given the numerous documentaries that cite/interview her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GNG is ok now. Alcremie (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yep, despite the COI angle here, she is notable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:06, 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 15:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coppa Misura (Cesena)[edit]

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

Not notable. Not even it.wiki has got this article Dr Salvus 14:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable friendly. Time of match makes sourcing harder than if it were in the internet era, but I don't think there would have been sufficient sources for notability. StarM 18:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability; searches are only coming up with Italian articles about bra measurements... This appears to be part of a series of about 20 to 30 of these Italian friendly match articles, none of which, at a glance, appear to be notable in the slightest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per others.--vote by Alcremie (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no signs of notability at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torneo Città di Bologna[edit]

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

Not notable. Not even it.wiki has got this article Dr Salvus 14:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; my searches have only come back with sources relating to a bridge tournament of the same name Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails clearly WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:05, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Wood (baseball)[edit]

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

H.S. prospect. Routine coverage. Fails WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for now, upon reflection the article could use a bit more national sourcing beyond the current Baseball America article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete top draft prospects do not have notability just for being prospects. If he fails to make the grade, he won't be notable. WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 14:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 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 merge to Draft:Kyun Utthe Dil Chhod Aaye. As the merge target is a draft, this article will also be moved to draft space while awaiting the merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyun Utthe Dil Chhod Aaye[edit]

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

This page doesn't have any information and doesn't have a single article. Doesn't meet a single criteria to stay on the article space. DasSoumik (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Give it a minute~~ - a Google search shows it may be notable. I've seen a lot of these sort of TV and movie articles, for some reason the creators like to create a stub and then slowly build it up instead of drafting it like they should. Chances are, it will be fleshed out eventually, but I will say ~~delete~~ if nothing happens after a day or two. A S U K I T E 14:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Actually~~ Merge, as below I see a draft here Draft:Kyun_Utthe_Dil_Chhod_Aaye? that looks better, perhaps we can just merge that in? It's much more complete than this page. A S U K I T E 14:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Draft:Kyun_Utthe_Dil_Chhod_Aaye?: I found another draft created by an IP user. Draft:Kyun_Utthe_Dil_Chhod_Aaye? looks more complete and informational than this one and has enough sources added, so merge it into that.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the draft, unorthodox as it may be. (It stands out to me that the draft was force-draftified.) Vaticidalprophet 20:07, 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 Knanaya. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knanayology[edit]

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

I am unable to find multiple independent reliable sources about this subject, apart from those which discuss the Knanaya community, but do not use this word specifically. Perhaps some of the information could be merged into the Knanaya article, but I do not see justification for a separate article. ... discospinster _talk 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep -- possibly merge. I find it difficult wholly to reconcile the content of Knanaya with this article. However that one indicates that there are several expatriate communities in USA. This article seems to be about one of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE BE PATIENT. MORE MATERIALS ARE ON THE WAY. THOUGH THIS IS ABOUT KNANAYA, IT SHOULD STAND ALONE AS A STUDY ON KNANAYA COMMUNITY. IF THIS MERGES WITH THE LONG ARTICLE "KNANAYA" IT WILL LOSE ITS IMPORTANCE. THERE ARE MANY SIMILAR SEPERATE ARTICLES IN WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbijo1 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Knanaya. This concept is only meaningful in relation to the Knanaya community that it studies. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Knanaya Community is a one of the rich community derived its root from Old Testament. Today world is looking for this community’s existence and survival history. Knanayology is really helpful to understand, study and research about Knanaya Community. There’s no platform to learn about this Centuries old community. This site have so much information to learn and therefore this precious information and site must be protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.66.79.109 (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see Knanayology separate from Knanaya though Knanayology is a study on the Knanaya Community. Zoology is a study of animals but we treat them as different articles. So also plants and botany. Keeping Knanayology and Knanaya separate would be more helpful than having them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.176.160 (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this modern era, people are looking for to study about ethnic community and Knanayology is one of the rare online tool to learn about a precious ancient Community. Until recent, there’s not much information available about Knanaya Community for study, learn and understand in a scientific manner. Today Knanayology is became number one area of science to professionally study about Knanaya Community. This area of history study must be considered as scientific study and Knanayology is the right terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.105.31.183 (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Knanayology is getting wide acceptance, especially among the Knanaites all over the world, as a branch of study on the Knanaya Community. Knanaya and Non-Knanaya students, researchers, and sociologists are interested in the study of this unique community that survived 17 centuries. Teachers and research guides are promoting the study of this community as an example of how the communities evolved and survived in the past and continues in the present. Historians and a team of experts are working on developing this branch of science. Mixing the article on Knanaya and Knanayology will not be effective. So, let us keep this as a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbijo1 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went through this website and see that it differs from all other Knanaya related websites. All other Knanaya related websites and the articles on Wikipedia provide information on their religious inclination, traditions, culture, history etc. Knanayology is hundred percent different in the following cases:

1. Knanayology is a digital resource for people who would like to learn history, religion, and distinct cultures.

2. Knanayology has uploaded a huge number of books and publications for reading and learning materials on different aspects of the Knanaya Community.

3. Knanayology also provides opportunity to their viewers to see and enjoy rare collections of audios, videos, and photos from ancient families of the community and from the archives of the Archdiocese of Kottayam.

4. Basically, it is like a research museum and library on Knanaya Community.

5. The purpose of this website and the Knanaya pages we have in Wikipedia are totally different.

Hence, on all the stated facts, Knanayology may not delete or redirect. This will kill the whole interests of the history lovers. Also, the creator of this page should update the content, clearly matching to the essence of what a viewer sees in the Knanayology website. It may clear the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicminds (talk • contribs)

Dear Logicminds, I appreciate your reasonable evaluation. I realize that there is some duplication of the knanaya and knanayology articles of the Wikipedia. I am going to avoid the repetition in the knanayology article so that it would be independent from knanaya article. Those who would like to read on knanaya can go to that page. Thank you.Jacobbijo1 (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Knanayology article - First I thought this article can be merged with Knanaya. However, after the revisions made by the contributors, I think it needs to be kept separate because Knanayology seems to be a new and developing branch of study. I reviewed the knanayology.org website and found that what they claim is right. They have a lot of items for students and researchers on the Knanaya community. It would be useful for Wikipedia lovers like me to see knanayology separate because knanaya itself is a long article and needs further expansion. I would recommend to keep the Knanayology article as it is now.50.236.73.132 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 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. In line with usual Wikipedia practice, the submissions of very new users have been given low weight. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Memory System[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable characteristic of a car. ... discospinster _talk 14:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Apart from using one manufacturer's name for this aspect of car technology, this article seems to have nothing which is not already in Power seat (including the image). PamD 14:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survive This article is considered to be useful providing detailed information of a frequently applied automotive technology. It seems reasonable to maintain the article which differ in context that it focuses on the technology itself apart from history and also extends search term options. Jamielee805 (Talk) 14:37, March 29, 2021 (UTC)
Survive This information is being frequently used for the automobile industry. Please maintain the article the way it is. Decfirst (Talk) 11:04, March 29, 2021 (UTC)

— Decfirst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. PianoDan (talk) 19:04, 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 redirect to A Little Bit Longer. Daniel (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelf (song)[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. The available coverage comes from only album reviews. One low chart entry. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Little Bit Longer - fails WP:NSONGS. I found one capsule review published by Billboard which can be easily discussed within the album article, and another brief listing in Cosmopolitan, which is a perenial source with no established consensus on it being reliable. The chart position on the now-defunct Pop 100 is not notable, and given that the song has not been covered outside album reviews or received any certifications or accolades indicates that there is no need for a standalone article. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, The Cosmopolitan is basically a comment that the song made her cry. The Billboard one could be added to the album article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:25, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brady House (baseball)[edit]

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

Typical routine coverage of talented high schooler. Fails WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue that having feature stories in Baseball America and The Detroit News (when you live in Georgia) are not routine for a high schooler. House also has received coverage on MLB.com (ex) and more Baseball America (1, 2) articles where, while not focused solely on him, he has received coverage as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is at best WP:TOOSOON. The articles discussed above only list him in a list of draft prospects, which doesn't make him notable. Other articles fail WP:YOUNGATH. He'll probably be notable at some point, but as for now he doesn't really qualify for GNG even with some coverage. Also fails the WP:10YT as we don't know how his career will go, and failed prospects aren't inherently notable. SportingFlyer T·C 14:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Aasim (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:48, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Painstake[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. There is one decent piece of coverage, this article from Westword, a local news outlet. Other than that, however, I can not find significant coverage, or any other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:33, 16 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) 13:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any significant coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was alerted to the discussion through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. I looked at the article and wondered how an band with an AllMusic entry could be up for deletion. I checked and it was an archived version, and the link was bad. I found https://www.allmusic.com/artist/painstake-mn0000008780 and there is no biography, so the sourced genres are based on the "genre cloud", which is machine-generated, not by a human. In fact, neither of the albums have reviews, and so, I'm afraid, that source is of no use. I tried to find some and liek ther otehrs posting here, could find none. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st National Assembly[edit]

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

Disambig to only red links. See MOS:DABRED Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: YOu were to fast... Check again. --Ruling party (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Premature, I was mistaken because user created at least 4 nearly identical disambigs with just red links. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JGHowes ^talk 00:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arsalan Anwar[edit]

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

Nothing notable about him other than that he is a brother of former international cricketer Shaiman Anwar. No coverage found, just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG which supersedes WP:NCRIC (previous nom comments were all about WP:NCRIC). Störm (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played in first-class cricket, so meets the notability critiera. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep This article was kept per deletion discussion literally less than one month ago. Nothing has changed in that time, if anything it's been slightly improved. It shouldn't be back at AfD so soon. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The case remains that still none of the coverage rises to the level of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing in first-class cricket give him a pass for WP:NCRIC. Setreis (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played in both first class cricket (which passes for WP:NCRIC) and U19 international cricket (which improves general notability). Plus, articles shouldn't be up for AfD every month in the hope that there is a different result. This looks like bad faith gaming of the system. DevaCat1 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Shaiman Anwar, where he is mentioned and add one sentence. While it seems premature to bring this back the AFD so quickly, participation and discussion was minimal the first time round. No significant coverage, only wide-ranging databases built from scorecard data – which the prose has been synthesised from – and passing mentions in reports, so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the trivial pass of NCRIC, which by consensus is one of the weaker, more permissive SNGs. Redirect would be an accepted ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC and arguably passes WP:GNG as well. One of his performances early in his carrier earned him a fair bit of coverage that can be read here. Also not much has changed since the previous deletion discussion, that was also closed as a keep. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was renominated too soon, but that article is for a youth international, which we generally discount per WP:YOUNGATH. SportingFlyer T·C 16:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is still a strong delete, but not quite as strong as the other deletes considering there actually is an article that covers him! Unfortunately, it was a match report from a youth international, which generally do not count towards notability, and even though there are a lot of references they're all statistics or vague waves at his brother's notability. Still does not pass WP:GNG, the requirement for sports bios. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. This should not be nominated one month after the previous nomination resulted in keep. That's not in good faith. Also keep because there are plenty of sources, played at first-class level and has recently played in Irish interprovincial cricket, playing Twenty20 for Munster Reds. Meets GNG and SNG. StickyWicket (talk) 17:12, 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 no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus that barely being over the line for the criteria to keep a subject is still being over the line. However, it remains to be seen whether the potential sources will actually be found upon which several "Keep" !voters premise their decisions. BD2412 T 06:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Rhodes (cricketer, born 1883)[edit]

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

No obituary on his death, nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG - the references are to a statistical database and the 2011 club yearbook, which "contains detailed records of various matches played in the 2010 season." I don't have access, but I wouldn't expect anything there apart from historical statistics/what's in the Cricprofile source. Furthermore, other sports frequently delete players who barely pass the SNG. This barely passes WP:NCRIC with only one match, and that SNG isn't finely tuned to predict when someone is notable anyways. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this one after a few days, there still hasn't been a keep !vote which has addressed which sources pass WP:GNG, just that there's a vague wave that one additional source might (even though the only source which might is a very short obituary, which I don't think counts.) Sports SNGs must comply with the GNG (based on a 2017 RfC), recent discussion shows WP:NCRIC isn't properly tailored to GNG, and therefore simply passing WP:NCRIC isn't enough for us to assume that WP:GNG is met. SportingFlyer T·C 16:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What do you call a doctor who barely passes his exams? That's right, it's Doctor. If an article "barely passes" WP:NCRIC then it passes. He's a first class cricketer, so he's notable because of that. The whole point of wikipedia is to be comprehensive, and there's no point of having a list of every first class cricketer who's played for Yorkshire if some players are left out. The article gives full details of the game he played, there's no doubt about his existence or first class status, so he should stay in. Nick mallory (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. There is far too much sophistry in AfDs on cricketers. There is a clear bright line test for notability as a cricketer, which is more restrictive than most other professional sports. DevaCat1 (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick Mallory. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has only played 1 FC match and sources are limited. But his first-class match was for Yorkshire. I imagine the 2011 yearbook may have given more detail due to it being the 100th anniversary of him playing for the side. Searching is difficult due to other Will Rhodes cricketers who played for Yorkshire or were from Yorkshire including one current player. I believe it likely other sources exist offline. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he passes WP:NCRIC by virtue of having played for Yorkshire against India, which can hardly be seen as an irrelevant match. It will inevitably have been reported in Wisden 1912- it would be correct to check that edition of Wisden before any decision to delete, even if the obvious pass of the relevant notability guideline were to be ignored. DevaCat1 (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article fails GNG which is what we require to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meeting a presumption of meeting GNG afforded by a (dubious) SNG is not a sufficient reason when the article subject actually fails GNG. And having played 1 match a long time ago, back in the days when not everything was immediately reported on the (at the time non-existent) internet, is further indication that this subject is unlikely to meet GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment very small obituary in Wisden 1942 - the almanac archive is online on ESPNCric site it's easy to search.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these are becoming ever and ever more peculiar justifications for beginnings of AfD discussions Especially when the claims are outright lies. As for current justifications of taking to AfD discussions: "Lack of obituary in Wisden", "no birthdate available", "not sure whether right or left handed"? These are becoming ever and ever more peculiar. Next it will be, "did not die on the Titanic". (Don't worry John B. Thayer, you're safe!) Bobo . 22:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a policy based argument for keeping in your diatribe, except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT directed at those who disagree with your stance; and even a small obituary might not be enough to meet GNG, which requires significant coverage, not just run of the mill things... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an ironic observation of logic. Sarcasm is hard to express in as toxic an atmosphere as we have today. ;) Please don't assume any malicious intent - none was made, honestly. Bobo . 01:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's biographical information is more complete than a recent FA and therefore meets our standards. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. StickyWicket (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's bit of a stretch to disambiguate this as "cricketer" when he played just a single known game! With zero significant coverage here, this is the epitome of non-notability. Other stuff exists is not a valid argument and should be disregarded by the closer, with the linked article showing a failure of FA. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would you disambiguate, given that this individual was a cricketer? William Rhodes (human)? Bobo . 14:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept, but the article surely needs expansion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't just say "needs expansion" as a reason to keep, it's rather hard to expand when there are no substantive sources to derive content from in the first place. Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mushtaq Ahmed (cricketer, born 1997)[edit]

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

Nothing notable found about his short career. Fails WP:GNG which should be met even though he passes WP:NCRIC. Störm (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NCRIC, having played in six F/C and two L/A matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Bank of Pakistan cricket team Has played 6 FC matches and 2 List-A matches, but coverage is difficult to find due to his more famous and international cricketing namesake. Sources may exist both offline and in Pakistani sources, but as I can't find any then using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few appearances but no coverage, is redirected/deleted. If have no problems if this page is kept though as it's borderline for me due to number of games played. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails GNG which is the bare minimum for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has clearly passed WP:NCRIC through virtue of 6 first class matches- as even the proposer of the AfD notes- and at 24 years old is reasonably likely to play more. Notable people shouldn't be deleted simply because they have the same name as someone more famous. I'd note that it isn't whether the article passes GNG, but whether the subject of the article does so, and that would require looking at match reports in the Pakistani press for the 2017 and 2018 seasons. DevaCat1 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not have enough coverage, or independent sources to pass WP:GNG. It's not borderline from where I'm sitting as it is the bare minimum requirement for inclusion. Page should be deleted. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect if that's appropriate. Meeting a dubious presumption of GNG from a dubious SNG is not a valid reason when GNG is actually failed and hard to establish as in this case. Born in 1997, this might be a case of TOOSOON. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails GNG. No issue with a redirect, but deletion would be my choice. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NCRIC's stated purpose is to provide "guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to satisfy GNG". In this case the guidance fails because a more detailed search for sources reveals a failure to meet GNG. A biography based only on sports statistics is against policy (WP:SPORTCRIT and see WP:WHYN).----Pontificalibus 12:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TommyInnit[edit]

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

No reliable sources; vast majority are personal social media ManyGrunt (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few passing mentions of this individual on non-social media channels but nothing that indicates notability.VViking_TalkEdits 13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is one of the most popular streamers on Twitch, he should have his own Wikipedia page as creators that are less popular than him also have a page. His Wikipedia page just needs more work and time spent on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoexm (talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject seems to be notable beyond just association with larger YouTubers. A cursory check on google leads to a plethora of news articles detailing the individual, though a lot of it seems to just be fluff. Here are some more reliable sources:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Mukherjee, Sarjyo (2021-01-10). "TommyInnit aged 16 reaches 40k subs on Twitch". talkesport.com. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
^ ~~Edwards, Luke (2020-12-19). "Who is Tommyinnit? Twitch's fastest-growing streamer from Minecraft fame". Dexerto. Retrieved 2021-03-24.~~ [Unreliable]
^ ~~Knight, Kyle (2021-02-25). "Why Has YouTuber Tommyinnit Been Banned From TikTok? #FreeTommy Trending". DualSchockers. Retrieved 2021-03-24.~~ [Unreliable]
^ D'Anastasio, Cecilia (2021-02-28). "いまやマインクラフトは、物語を生み出す「舞台」になっている" [Minecraft is now becoming the stage for storytelling] (in Japanese). Yahoo! Japan. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
^ Asarch, Steven (2021-01-25). "Minecraft's top streamers are taking over the internet with their exclusive roleplaying server called Dream SMP". Yahoo. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
^ Struthoff, Noah (2021-01-10). "16-Jähriger dominiert Twitch mit Minecraft, lockt mehr Zuschauer an als alle anderen" [16-year old dominates Twitch with Minecraft, attracting more viewers than anyone else] (in German). MeinMMO. Retrieved 2021-03-24.

The article does need a major rework, however.

Orcaguy (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orcaguy: DualShockers and Dexerto are listed as unreliable on WP:VG/RS. SK2242 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've marked them as unreliable. Orcaguy (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per
Lee, Helen A. (January 20, 2021). "Twitch Streamer Tommyinnit Makes A Surprising Admission". SVG. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
There’s also Tech Times and Distractify sources but reliability on those is unclear. SK2242 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. He is the 20th most-followed channel on Twitch, and reliable sources establishing notability do exist. ~~The article just needs a rework.~~ (Edit: Sources below show that the individual passes WP:GNG, and a rework seems to be occurring / have occurred.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While having the 20th most-followed Twitch channel is an achievement (obviously), it doesn't immediately indicate notability; for example, the 9th, 17th, and 18th most followed channels don't have their own page. ManyGrunt (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The article is good enough with reliable sources that proves notability. He is the 20th most-followed channel on Twitch and has over 7 million subscribers on YouTube - which proves notability. Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the published sources on TommyInnit are questionable in reliability, which leaves only a few that can be considered "trustworthy". Even among those trustworthy sources, many of them concern TommyInnit's role on the Dream SMP (which was rejected for a lack of notability) instead of TommyInnit himself. This is far from the "significant coverage" mandated per WP:BASIC. ManyGrunt (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would like to see some more high quality sources before we write an article on TommyInnit. We gotta be extra careful with WP:BLPs on minors, and I'm definitely not seeing that kind of care being placed here right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Dream SMP sources are the strongest evidence for Tommy's notability. The Yahoo Japan source is a translated version of this wired article ^[1] Another article on the Dream SMP has recently been published in The Verge, which also prominently mentions Tommy.^[2] Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ D'anastasio, Cecilia (January 12, 2021). "In Minecraft's Dream SMP, All the Server's a Stage". Wired. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved March 14, 2021.
^ Alexander, Julia (March 19, 2021). "Living the Dream SMP". The Verge. Vox Media. Archived from the original on March 21, 2021. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

Delete Sources being vouched from Dream. 180.194.151.160 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @180.194.151.160: If this is the case, then I say we make a section on Dream's article for TommyInnit. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @KullyKeemaKa: Oh gosh no, that is not a good idea. If there are enough sources for notability, then we can write an article. It isn't appropriate to use one WP:BLP as a WP:COATRACK to talk about another WP:BLP. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @MJL: Understandable, but if not enough notability can be found, then I say we either move the contents of this article into a draft or just delete the article completely. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Wikiuserworldwide (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this, this and this are all reliable sources who give this person SIGCOV, meaning he passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat: Fair enough, then I'll be waiting for an admin to close this discussion. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch! Edited my vote from "Weak Keep" to "Keep" due to these sources giving SIGCOV, passing WP:GNG. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paintspot: If this article does pass WP:GNG, I'll be waiting for an admin to close this discussion. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: An admin going by the name of CodyGaming999 has reviewed this article and has officially determined the result as a "keep", so they may close this discussion. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:ListUsers, it appears as though that user is not an administrator. In fact, they created their account only two days ago. IanTEB (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. It does seem that that user is not an administrator. Should we add the Articles for Deletion template back in, as it has not been actually reviewed by an admin? The list of active admins does not show CodyGaming999 as an admin. Edl-irishboy (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just saw that the template has been re-added. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As it turns out, CodyGaming999 is not an admin. The account was created just two days ago, which makes it suspicious. The deletion discussion template has been re-added to this article. We apologize for any inconvenience that this fraudulent admin has caused anyone. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 15:47, 1 April 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) 13:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gül Kaplan[edit]

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

None of Kaplan's appearances meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Most recently, Kaplan was recorded playing in the amateur third tier so it does not seem likely that she will ever meet that guideline.

One source in the article contains more than a passing mention but none of it is third person coverage (just Kaplan speaking about herself) and it is very brief and not enough on its own. No coverage found in a Turkish search. Unlikely to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL plus WP:GNG, only amateur playings CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Chua[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABLE. Has won junior prizes in violin festivals not notable by WP standards (except for Menuhin prize, where winning the junior division category scarcely makes the person notable). No recordings, musical achievements or any comments by third-party reliable critics or commentators to justify notability. If she's still remembered or around in five years time, and there are suitable citations, she may then be ready for WP..... Smerus (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I see that the editor who created this article has created several other articles about winners of non-notable violin prizes and I am wondering if these may all be WP:PROMOTION.--Smerus (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put in a bunch of refideas for RS as well as some primary source articles that are independent of the subject on her talk page. If the outcome of this AFD is to delete because of WP:TOOSOON then this should be pushed back into draft space so that notability can be established with further events AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional verbiage should be rewritten or scrubbed out, and any editors who have an association with Chua or the school/academy need to disclose their conflict of interest. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG/WP:MUSICBIO/WP:NMUSICOTHER, and coverage such as: Chloe Chua — More Than an “Ordinary” Wunderkind (Interlude, 2021), Chloe Chua's distinguished Mozart almost steals the show in Singapore (BachTrack, 2020), Young violinist Chloe Chua: a video journey ahead of her Singapore Symphony concert (BachTrack, 2020), Singapore Embassy honors anniversary of Republic Day with Chloe Chua’s rendition of Turkish national anthem (Daily Sabah, 2020), VC Rising Star Chloe Chua – Mendelssohn Violin Concerto [2019] (Violin Channel, 2019), Violin Virtuoso Chloe Chua Wows At The Atlanta Festival Academy (WABE/NPR, 2019), A celebration in strings (China Daily, 2019), Different Duos Sunday #11: Kevin Loh (guitar) and Chloe Chua (violin, age 11) Play Piazzolla’s ‘Café 1930’ (Classic Guitar, 2018), Singapore 11-year-old violinist Chloe Chua wins first prize at prestigious Menuhin Competition (Straits Times, 2018), The Menuhin Competition Richmond 2021 Is A Go (NPR, 2021, "It’s known as the “Olympics for the violin.”). The Yehudi Menuhin International Competition for Young Violinists win appears to be significant and well-known, in how it is reported and how it is mentioned repeatedly in reports about Chua, who is also frequently covered in publications dedicated to a notable music sub-culture. Beccaynr (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These refs are all in the article. But they don't alas amount to WP:NOTABILITY, as I mention in the nomination. nor do they show that she is 'frequently' covered. Nor is playing the Tuskih national anthem a particualrly notable achievement.--Smerus (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of these references are in the article, diff, and to clarify my comment, per WP:MUSICBIO, she "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition," and per WP:NMUSICOTHER, she appears to be "frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture," that is WP:SUSTAINED over time, and several of the sources cited above offer in-depth coverage, including biographical information, per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not have any connection to Chloe Chua or any other person I have written about and I am not trying to promote their work onto an educational platform like Wikipedia. On the basis of the other articles I have created, people like Stella Chen, In Mo Yang, and Kevin Zhu have won notable competition prizes and I would say that they should be passed. You could argue with Mone Hattori but I would say she has been included in more well known like the Strad and theViolinChannel. This also applies to Chloe Chua. If needed, we can push the page into a draft space like AngusW🐶🐶F had previously mentioned if it is too soon. WP:MUSICBIO can be the basis of the decision to let this article pass and seeing how Chua has won prizes, have had works like theViolinChannel, has appeared on FTV News and has performed for the Embassy of Singapore in Ankara to record a rendition of the Turkish National Anthem in celebration of Turkey's Republic Day and was invited by Saudi Arabia's General Authority for Culture to perform at two recitals in Riyadh and Jeddah. I think this should apply as notable on the topic for Chloe Chua and if it doesn't we can put this on into a draft space for any future notablity. -- JeffreyViolin (talk) 20;03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage and there does not appear to be any need to userfy this article given the significant coverage of Chua and the multiple notability guidelines that Chua appears to meet. Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per criteria 9 of WP:NMUSIC. While I sympathize with Smerus as to the potential of this artist to not have a sustained career in music, we have to look at policy as written. She won first place in a major international competition, even if it was in the junior category. There is also plenty of RS. That satisfies our inclusion policy. This is no different than all the minor athlete articles that squeak by AFD just barely. We follow policy rather than WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per general coverage, and the fact she has made her debut as a soloist playing a concerto with a first-class orchestra now Reviews of her work with SSO and getting reviews from various countries, so it's not a case of parochialism. While her major prize was in the younger category, it should also be noted she won when she was 11 against 15 year-olds [and the join-winner Christian Li set a new record for the youngest winner at 10 - they were born in the same year] Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO for having won awards or contests. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the other comments are right, but to reiterate, WP:MUSICBIO at point 9 says Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. She won first place at the Menuhin, which is a major music competition, and therefore meets the criterion. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And for clarity (though I did a different version of this article here), I have no association with her or her academy. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies musical notability, and marginally satisfies [[[WP:GNG|general notability]], and that is good enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as meets WP:MUSICBIO thru winning major music competition. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 31 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 Take Me Home (One Direction Album). Daniel (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Me (One Direction song)[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. Its coverage comes from only album reviews. Some very low chart entries. One interview with the producers that could fall under the "other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work" umbrella. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Take Me Home (One Direction Album) as with most other songs. Agree that this particular song does not meet notabliltiy per WP:NSONGS. Redoryxx (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the album is undoubtedly notable, but the song can not be said notable per WP:NSINGLE, WP:INHERITED. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Patent Marketing[edit]

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

The company was only in business for 3 years and is one of many scam start-ups in the "invention/patent" industry. The company is only notable for its choice of advisors who were high profile individuals, and now those individuals are noncompliance issues per WP:GUILT as none were mentioned in the FTC action against the company. Atsme 💬 📧 12:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that it unequivocally fails WP:ORG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. It's only claim to notability is non-compliant with GUILT. Atsme 💬 📧 12:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added reasoning to SPEEDY DELETE: WP:ATTACK PAGE, and at minimum fails WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NEGATIVESPIN. The following diffs support the aforementioned concerns as follows:

On Nov 7, 2018 the “WPM news" was added and rewritten in the Whitaker BLP - it is not in any of the other high profile BLPs of advisory board members, including the scientist or the occupy Democrats founder, even though other high profile people were on the advisory board.
The high profile names were originally listed when Smartse first created the article, but were later removed.
On Nov 7, 2018 Trump announced Whitaker would assume the role. (It was added to the Whitaker article on that date - the same day the WPM article was created.
My edit to add back names was reverted by Smartse. ::I'm of the mind that there is enough evidence to demonstrate what appears to me to be an attack page. This article should be deleted considering the large number of marketing/patent company refunds the FTC handles. All mention that is noncompliant with WP:GUILT should be removed from our BLPs. There is no mention of WPM in Ronald Mallett, there is mention in Brian Mast, a Republican, and no mention in Occupy Democrats that associates the founder, Omar Rivero. Atsme 💬 📧 14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Atsme 💬 📧 12:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Atsme 💬 📧 12:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Atsme 💬 📧 12:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep comprehensively referenced article, don't see issues with verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns. Acousmana (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep since no policy based argument is made for deletion. WP:CORP is clearly met per the references I'd included in this version. SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep folders full of RS meeting the GNG and CORP. Hard to understand the logic for AfD here. --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for re-editing to. ensure NPOV coverage. The article as it is seems grossly over-detailed. The various named people can just be listed with their professions, and linked to the WP articles. The details of their practice are unnecessary. From the way this has been written , I think it was indeed intended as an attack page, and is therefore unsuitable for mainspace. But since the firm is actually a notable scam, we can justify an article, but not this article. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you state that this "is indeed intended as an attack page." I don't agree. It should be noted that this is not a run-of-the-mill scam--this scam is so bizarre that it takes a fair amount of space to report the company's ruthless activities, and the article contains only a fraction of them. For example, not one patent was ever brought to be profitable after the thousands of dollars that trusting people spent--actually one was but it was dropped by the company after a time and then the owner took out a patent on it for himself. Or for example you believe that the so-called board members need only their names listed. This would really be an egregious fault of us as editors because the board members, other than Whitaker, appeared to have no idea that they were taking part in a scam. That is not to say that they should have followed up on their initial agreement to check the company out, though, other than Whitaker they all returned and money they had made. Gandydancer (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it a sufficiently notable scam for an article, but it was nothing sensational. This sort of exploitation of naïve people applying for patents was not their invention. It is possible that much of the notability is due to the fact that they were able to enroll or pretend to enroll a particularly high number of notable people as members of the board. W. was just one of them. His notability and their notability overlap, but do not depend on each other. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind, of course, that we do not conflate the company's advisory board with their board of directors. The advisory board provides non-binding advice, it is very informal in nature, and has no authority to vote on corporate matters or bear legal fiduciary responsibilities. Readers who don't know or may not understand the capacity/duties of an advisory board could easily misinterpret the role Whitaker played, and the manner in which this article has been presented is part of what makes it unacceptable. Atsme 💬 📧 14:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that Whitaker had any more idea of the scam than any other board member; the actual investigation resulted in no finding of wrongdoing on Whitaker's part, and it is therefore just as likely that he was scammed as any other board member. DGG's point is well-taken. This article is being used more as a vessel of highlighting board member affiliation than in examining the company itself. BD2412 T 03:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence? Please read this Forbes articles:

"Documents in the FTC’s docket show that Whitaker, who served on the World Patent Marketing board from 2014 to 2017, was not just a paid advisory board member -- he threatened at least one victim who complained."

"The emails the FTC obtained, in fact, suggests Whitaker used his background as a U.S. attorney to try to silence customers who claimed they were defrauded by the company and sought to take their complaints public." [11]

Gandydancer (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes cites Telegram who cites WaPo where there is political bias. Read the Telegram article that Forbes cited. They quoted other advisory board members, as well as the court receiver: There was no evidence that Whitaker knew company salespeople were making false promises to inventors, court receiver Jonathan Perlman said in an interview. “I have no reason to believe that he knew of any of the wrongdoing,” Perlman said. To imply otherwise in this article or Whitaker's BLP is noncompliant with WP:GUILT. It's not always easy, but our job as editors is to avoid the tempation to RGW. Atsme 💬 📧 00:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it has not been demonstrated that Whitaker's alleged behavior would have been any different whether or not the company was in fact scamming people, and whether or not Whitaker was aware of that. This could just as easily be interpreted as Whitaker confronting a would-be extortionist on behalf of the company because he believed it was legitimate, and that the customer complaint amounted to an effort by the customer to concoct a smear against the company. That sort of thing happens with regularity—Michael Avenatti is sitting in prison right now due to such an extortion attempt against a company. To be clear, the sources do not hesitate to say that the WPM's founder, Scott Cooper, was aware that it was a scam. There is not a single source that says that Whitaker in fact knew that the company was a scam, or provides information that could not as easily be explained by Whitaker believing that he was defending a legitimate enterprise from extortionists. BD2412 T 00:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify is a reasonable outcome pending determination of whether the article has been constructed so as to highlight roles of some parties while diminishing that of others in order to present a biased narrative. BD2412 T 03:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per Goldsztajn. If BD2412 has any RS that supports favorable conduct of any parties that have been diminished it should be presented at the article talk page where discussion is ongoing. Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per DDG. The talk page of the article and the way the article is written certainly make it appear this is an attempt to smear a person rather than to actually talk about a business of questionable notability. Springee (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do not have a BLP1E equivalent for companies: if they only become notable as a scam, then they're still notable and that's how we report on them. It's not Wikipedia's fault that secondary sources have tied Whitaker to WPM, and any debate about the mention in his bio needs to be had on that talk page, not here. There was coverage before Trump's pick of Whitaker, so this was not simply a blip of reporting related to Trump: Courthouse News, Portico (discusses Brian Mast), NBC Miami (discusses Brian Mast), NBC Miami, NBC Miami, Clarion Ledger, TCPalm, Lexology, Miami New Times (mentions Whitaker), Sun Sentinel. However, it's no surprise that the surge of reporting in late 2018 was what brought the company to the article creator's attention and there is no evidence of ill-intent. Since then, many reliable sources have prominently discussed Whitaker's role at WPM, including that he was aware of and involved in responding to complaints (e.g.Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, Slate, ABC News). The FTC have a FOI page specifically on his involvement, [12] and the House Oversight Committee highlighted the connection.[13] Wikipedia is only following the reliable sources. On the other hand, I doubt other advisory board members should have quotes from WPM press releases included - that seems WP:UNDUE if there's no secondary sourcing. Creizman's role was noted by the Wall Street Journal, but any other advisory board member for whom we cannot find secondary coverage should only be listed, nothing more. See Theranos#Management for an equivalent situation. Fences&Windows 18:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no-brainer. Policy states unambiguously that an organization is notable "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis in original). World Patent Marketing has been the subject of such coverage; see Washington Post, WaPo again, New York Times, New York Times again, Bloomberg, Fox News, The Guardian, Vanity Fair, Miami New Times, etc. This one isn't even close, and to claim as the nominator does that it "unequivocally fails" WP:ORG shows—to be charitable—a complete lack of familiarity with relevant policy.
The nomination lists a context-free alphabet soup of other policies. Citing WP:ATTACKPAGE suggests a deep lack of understanding of that policy—and constitutes a completely unsupported aspersion against the creators and editors of the article, as well as a massive and inappropriate assumption of bad faith. Bizarrely, WP:NEGATIVESPIN is cited as a reason to delete, when that policy actually states that an article spun out of a BLP "is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject". In other words, the cited policy directly contradicts the point the nominator is using it to advance.
Moving the article to draftspace is inappropriate. Draftspace is intended to develop articles that don't yet meet notability or other criteria, but this article is already amply sourced and comprehensive. It can of course be improved, and issues of weight can be hashed out, but in that regard it is no different from hundreds of thousands of other mainspace articles. Policy states that draftifying "is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion", but that seems to be exactly how it's being employed here.
As best I can tell, the underlying complaint seems to be that the article reflects negatively on a Trump-Administration figure. First of all, an article describing a scam that bilked people out of large amounts of money will—if neutrally written—sound "negative", because most people perceive scamming people out of money negatively. I don't see any actual BLP violations identified or even posited, just vague waves at irrelevant policies and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The kindest explanation for this nomination and the support for deleting or hiding an article that clearly meets notability criteria is that there's been a collective, hopefully temporary, collapse of competence on the part of several experienced editors. I mean, this borders on a disruptive AfD nomination, given how patently obvious it is that this subject meets WP:ORG. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 1 April 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) 13:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Open-air museum of the Forest Railway in Janów Lubelski[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to have sources in the Polish wiki, they would seem semi-good. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find any in-depth coverage of this minor attraction. It is mentioned in passing in one academic article ([14]). ~~I found one news article about the project - seems it was a volunteer initiative that never got completed, and now is abandoned (due to no support form local government/business): [15].~~ I have doubts this initiative ever was notable... both refs used on pl wiki seem 404, and they seem primary. Ps. To clarify, the passing mention in that source is one short paragraph, so actually it is a good start (at first I noticed just a half a sentence mention earlier in the article). So we have one decent source. I started a discussion on pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:03:09:Skansen Kolei Leśnej w Janowie Lubelskim) where an anon mentioned the entity was covered in some Polish magazines about railways, but so far nobody provided detailed bibliographical entries for them. This might be rescuable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given discussion above identifying that there is coverage in Polish magazines about railways, and wp:ITSAMUSEUM. Tag it, if you must, to call for sources to be added whenever.--Doncram (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 03:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yusri Abas[edit]

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

As per FlashScore and Soccerway, fails WP:NFOOTBALL as has never played in a game between two teams playing in a league listed at WP:FPL. The article itself makes no claim to ever playing in such a game.

Searches of Malaysian news sources as well as Google News yielded no significant coverage so WP:GNG is not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find any IRS. Fails notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFOOTBALL. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:06, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Barkai[edit]

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

I don't think that the person qualifies notability per WP:PROF. I couldn't find any significant news about the person. However, the Scholar results may be notable, but I'm unsure because it's an area which I don't know that much. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prof. Barkai has made seminal contributions that completely revolutionized the field of non-stationary statistical physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrerc (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His top-cited papers are cited 749, 620, 537, 448, and 371 times according to Scopus, and he has an h-index of 51. JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. clearly notable by his citation counts and various awards that he won, he passes WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 17:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Keep Although the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 with the high numbers of citations, none of the stated facts is supported by IRS - I failed to find anything as well. We might need some help from Hebrew speaking editor, but for now per WP:BLP we can't keep the article in the mainspace. Less Unless (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Changed to keep after the JoelleJays fair point. Less Unless (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less Unless, meeting NPROF supersedes GNG, so it's not necessary to find independent RS. His university profile is considered adequate for verifying the routine info currently in the article, and reasonable summaries of his research can be crafted from his high-impact scholarly output. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, You are right, it slipped my mind the academic guideline is independent. Changing my vote to keep then. Thank you.Less Unless (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:NPROF. Article needs better referencing, but WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, impressive citations in pure science domain. Passes WP:NPROF. Though the article needs improvement for sure. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 12:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think full professor at Bar-Ilan University should be enough. Furthermore, He has an impressive citation index. Tzahy (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tzahy according to WP:NPROF and current consensus, it is not enough to be full professor somewhere, even full professor at Harvard is by itself not enough. However, most full professors at large western research universities have done enough research to pass the actual bars set in NPROF. In most cases it stands to reason that the faculty at a major university have promoted him to full professor which means that his academic contribution are substantial. (note that not all full profs are research profs, they could also be doing other work such as teaching which would not make them notable) --hroest 17:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hroest, thank you for acknowledging me, how do you know that ? However it doesn't matter, he has a very impressive citation index, more than many or most of the full professors in research universities, and it should be enough I think. Tzahy (talk) 15:08, 31 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) 13:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities whose population has fallen under a million[edit]

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

Notability Darrelljon (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being larger than a million then falling under a million is an arbitrary line and does not well depict what a shrinking city is. A very large city could shrink substantially but still be over a million, or one just under that could also shrink substantially, yet instead we have Perm which drifted above and below the line a couple times, half as many exceptions as actual examples, and failure to take metro areas into account. Reywas92^Talk 18:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a weird list for me, actually. Cities constantly change depending on many different factors, they shrink and then they grow again. The article looks a lot like WP:OR. However the number of pageviews for the past 30 days is over 750 - this makes me think - maybe a better option is to merge with Population decline, for example.Less Unless (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely user based synthesis. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shrinking cities, perhaps? The threshold of a million is pretty arbitrary (as eg the Dublin example demonstrates) but a globally-oriented list of examples of substantial decline would seem to fit well there. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically an arbirarily chosen line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Heredia[edit]

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

Non-notable priest, found this but it is related to subject so not independent. Nothing else found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If the content is true, the subject was a significant human rights campaigner in Pakistan from the 1970s until he moved to Australia in 2005. The circumstances of his move are not explained in the article, but it may be that his campaigning had made Pakistan unsafe for him to remain in. You should not expect to find as good Internet sources on religious subjects in Pakistan as you would in UK or America. Furthermore there may be transliteration issues, for sources in local languages; and some Christian activity in Pakistan has to operate at a clandestine level, due to infamous anti-blasphemy laws. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Pakistani-Australian priest, minority/refugee rights activist. Founding member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. Target of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi assassination attempt in 2001.^[1] Prominent leader in inter-faith protests against Pakistan's blasphemy laws.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Subject of Amnesty profile.^[6]

References

^ Hoodbhoy, Nafisa. Aboard the Democracy Train: A Journey Through Pakistan's Last Decade of Democracy. Anthem Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-85728-906-3.
^ Walbridge, Linda. The Christians of Pakistan: The Passion of Bishop John Joseph. Routledge. p. 245. ISBN 978-1-136-13178-3.
^ Hendon, David W.; Greco, Donald E. (2001). "Notes on Church-State Affairs". Journal of Church and State. 43 (2): 384. ISSN 0021-969X.
^ "Pour faire abolir la loi sur le blasphème – Portail catholique suisse". cath.ch (in French).
^ "Priests strive to save Pakistanis targeted under blasphemy laws". The B.C. Catholic. 23 August 2017.
^ "Communities Behind Refugee Sponsorship" (PDF). Amnesty Australia. Amnesty International. March 2021. p. 15-16.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is enough reliable sources coverage identified above to enable a pass of WP:BASIC so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 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 Dog of Two Head. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerdundula[edit]

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

The article has been restored four times after being converted to a redirect, so I am nominating this for discussion to produce a consensus on whether the song is notable. I propose restoring the redirect to Dog of Two Head.

Only inspecting the sources in the article (permalink):

The first source is clearly not wp:independent.
The second source is not wp:sigcov.
The third source is not wp:sigcov.
~~The fourth source, however, may be valid.~~ The fourth source is WP:USERG per Richard3120.

wp:Before source searches:

One result on newspapers.com, which is from Canada.
Doing an online search, the front pages do not offer any wp:reliable sources that contains wp:significant coverage. Filtering for news, the four pages of results look like passing mentions only.

Therefore, I conclude that the song is unlikely to pass WP:GNG as it fails the multiple criteria. As for WP:NSONG, there are three points in which the song meets none of them, so the song is unlikely to be notable under WP:NSONG. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment has been edit once. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dog of Two Head. Clearly does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dog of Two Head. I'm a big fan of 70s Quo and know this song well: it's a world away from the hard rock boogie that would soon make them famous across Europe, being a curious, downbeat Irish jig-style song played on what sounds like acoustic guitars and mandolins. It was released as a single by their old label to cash in on their new fame, but didn't chart anywhere, and it's unlikely to have got much attention from the UK music press in 1973 as it was clearly a leftover from the band's previous era and sound. The editor who restored this is right that it has since become a popular song among the group's fans and has become a concert staple, but that doesn't really translate into notability outside the band and their followers: none of the current sources pass WP:RS or WP:NSONG, and Songfacts fails WP:USERG because it's a random collection of anecdotes added by anyone, none of which are verifiable or attributable. Richard3120 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Richard3120. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dog of Two Head: Barely found anything about the movie aside from being talked about in a [16]. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Cup[edit]

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

No indication of notability and nothing convincing found during a Bulgarian-language search. I found a BTV article and one on Darik News, both of which are fairly routine news coverage, nothing more significant than the usual coverage you would find for any pre-season friendly match.

The Bulgarian Wikipedia article is also completely unsourced and there is no assertion of notability there. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas A. Jones[edit]

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

PRODding editor self-reverted after the edit was recognized as an accidental violation of their TBan, but busy as this person may be, I currently don't see this getting past any notability thresholds. Offered sources are either WP:PRIMARY or strictly local, but nothing to meet WP:GNG to a sufficient degree. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither restaurateurs nor unsuccessful election candidates are entitled to automatic notability freebies just because they exist, but the sourcing here isn't solid enough to suggest that he clears the actual notability criteria for those occupations. Three of the five footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and of the just two that are media, both are local coverage in local-interest contexts that don't clinch notability all by themselves if they're all he can show. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sourcing to meet the GNG from a preliminary search, fails NPOL, reeks of PROMO. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability. How are the fries? Miaminsurance (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both GNG and NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:51, 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. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology[edit]

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

Fails NSCHOOLS. Another non notable institution using Wikipedia as a web host. Zero refs with a BEFORE. Vikram Vincent 06:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks any references, seems to have been created and mainly by COI editors purely to promote the institution, and nothing comes up in a WP:BEFORE from what I can tell except for trivial name drops in some books about other stuff. There isn't any in-depth coverage of it anywhere from what I could find though. Let alone in multiple sources. So, unless someone can provide WP:THREE good, in-depth, usable sources this article should clearly be deleted. Since ultimately, Wikipedia isn't a directory of trivial basic run of the mill facts. Especially ones that aren't even sourced to anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School of Management Sciences, Lucknow[edit]

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

Lacks references. No RS with a before. Fails NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 06:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 06:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find is name drops in things about professors from the school. There's nothing in-depth out there on the school itself though from what I can tell. So the article clearly fails WP:NORG. Unless someone can find WP:THREE in-depth, independent sources that are actually about the school. Then I'd be more then happy to change my vote to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NHSCHOOL says for private (for-profit Colleges) organizations, we need to satisfy WP:NCORP and such institutions should be treated as commercial organizations. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 12:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrovirus RTS[edit]

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

This article concerns a video game released for an obscure South Korean video game console. The article, which was created in 2007, does not cite any sources and links to only two pages that host a demo of the game. BEFORE searches did not return any significant coverage of the game. Thus, I believe it fails WP:GNG and cannot presently meet our criteria for inclusion. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zero hits in WP:VG/SE. IceWelder [✉] 06:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any coverage by reliable sources either, that would justify inclusion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am finding pretty much no coverage on this obscure game in reliable sources, which indicates a failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per others.--vote by Alcremie (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Namcokid 47 19:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Aerospace Medicine[edit]

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

Non-notable topic with no independent coverage. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This category is about people. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for confusing academics with institutions. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article with poor notability. Tessaracter (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flay (James Madison)[edit]

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

I don't see thisartwork as notable, tho the artist certainly is. most of the references discuss him and his oeuvre in general, not this painting in particular. And I don;'t think it's really his best known work, which probably would be his one of Jefferson--which is the one the refs seem to be most ly about. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[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 under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maana Johal[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable musician. No indication of how the subject satisfies either musical notability or general notability. Naïve Google search finds the usual vanity hits; we expected them. Already submitted once and deleted as G11 within past 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject really has created these works, but has received no coverage in secondary sources that I can see. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it seems the creator (and probably the subject) of the article added the following sources but damaged the nomination. I restored the nomination page, cleaned up the article and am now re-adding these sources, with SineBot's initial unsigned action. granted, all they do is show that the music exist and none are independent of the subject, and not contribute to notability. The BBC entry is a dead link. I could not find the subject mentioned on their site, but that could be because of my location. https://gaana.com/song/fire-chalde https://timesofindia.com/topic/MMaana-Johal https://music.apple.com/in/album/follow-single/1108861488 https://music.apple.com/in/album/highcourt-single/1294582730 https://www.amazon.com/Prada-3-Maana-Johal/dp/B07H7P634Y https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/maana_johal0000sh6 https://www.jiosaavn.com/song/tabahi/NRksYTh-bVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ELllR_0Iak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87xxqIEwwUU — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaanaJohal (talk • contribs) 05:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.timesofindia.com/maana-johalvideoshow/70124918.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaanaJohal (talk • contribs) 09:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.timesofindia.com/topic/Maana-Johal https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chrattangarh/maana-johals-wife-wins-immigration-battle/amp_articleshow/78961135.cms https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/maana-johal https://www.nytimes.com/section/ maana-johal/arts/music https://gaana.com/song/fire-chalde

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3M6fH6oTrY

https://music.apple.com/in/album/prada-3-single/1437199772

https://music.apple.com/in/album/follow-single/1108861488

https://music.apple.com/in/album/highcourt-single/1294582730

https://www.jiosaavn.com/song/tabahi/NRksYTh-bVQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaanaJohal (talk • contribs) 09:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Hello Wikipedia team I am giving you a link as your proof of Times of India I'm a singer and music composer song writet maana johal Please you improve my article I am very thankful to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaanaJohal (talk • contribs) 09:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Hello Wikipedia Team I am singer-songwriter and music composer maana johal please sir improve my wikipedia article I am very thankful to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaanaJohal (talk • contribs) 10:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not Notable, doesn't meets WP:MUSICBIO. Owlf (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A general consensus to keep. No consensus definitively to rename, but such an action could be taken outside of this AfD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Berbera[edit]

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

Previously deleted, this page is a work of Original Research that has created an entire 'Battle of Berbera' out of thin air. It's all nicely decorated, but it's a fantasy. The key work cited (James Marshall's Royal Naval Biography) is 434 pages in extent - there is no page 436 and 437. Lowe's 'History of the Indian Navy' does, however, mention an action taken at Berbera in February: 'Berbera was burnt after a skirmish'. There is no history that mentions a 'Battle of Berbera' and no evidence given in the page that any historian has ever conferred the title 'Battle' on this minor incident. David Laitin, a cited source, does not even bother to mention the bombardment, let alone refer to this incident as the 'Battle of Berbera'. The author has gone to great pains to create links to the 'Battle of Berbera', creating an online false positive for an historical event of no significance that only bears this name because it has been conferred by a Wikipedia editor. Suggest merge any salvageable (properly sourced) content with the Berbera article under the subheading 'Conflict with British' but not 'Battle of Berbera'. To be honest, I worry about other page creations by this editor, such as 'Isaaq Sultanate'... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax or embellishment of actual events. The Royal Naval Biography was written by one John Marshall, not James, and makes no mention whatsoever of Berbera, let alone a battle. That alone makes the article highly suspect, and I can find precisely zero references to a "Battle of Berbera" elsewhere. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck following further explanation regarding the principal source below. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and WP:SALT. No RS this happened. Mztourist (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will provide the reasons below for why my article is accurate.

It's all nicely decorated, but it's a fantasy. The key work cited (James Marshall's Royal Naval Biography) is 434 pages in extent - there is no page 436 and 437. Lowe's 'History of the Indian Navy' does, however, mention an action taken at Berbera in February: 'Berbera was burnt after a skirmish'. There is no history that mentions a 'Battle of Berbera' and no evidence given in the page that any historian has ever conferred the title 'Battle' on this minor incident.

Patently false, here is the cited text which is 456 pages long! You've just tried to discredit the entire article based off that. I implore you to read those pages where the events are described. You can even find John Bremer's biography on wiki source.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Royal_Naval_Biography_Or_Memoirs_of_the/8ThEAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=burburra

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Royal_Naval_Biography/Bremer,_James_John_Gordon

David Laitin, a cited source, does not even bother to mention the bombardment, let alone refer to this incident as the 'Battle of Berbera'.

Regarding Laitin he was the authority on the settlement money that's why I used him since it covers the rest of that sentence. As for the bombardment I forgot to add Richard Burton's First Footsteps in East Africa. He credits the Elphinstone commanded by Capt. Greer that did exactly as I claimed on page xxxii.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/First_Footsteps_in_East_Africa_Or_An_Exp/nMlyAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=berberah+fire+on+shore+1825&pg=PR32&printsec=frontcover

If it does not constitute a 'battle' as claimed then it should be renamed to Berbera Punitive Expedition, the events laid out in the Background, British Arrival, Battle, and Aftermath sections all align with the sources in the article and this Burton one I've displayed now that should assure you about the 1825 bombardment.

Gerald Sandford Graham's 1967 book summarizes what I am trying to detail in the article. Great Britain in the Indian Ocean A Study of Maritime Enterprise 1810-1850 pg. 302

In 1827 a small squadron under Sir Gordon Bremer had attacked and blockaded Berbera.

The only thing you're hinging to delete the entire page off of is the word 'Battle'. The chronology is 100% accurate and your unfamiliarity with the content in the key source is disappointing, despite you claiming otherwise with the page length. I also emplore @Mztourist: and @Firefly: to review this evidence and reconsider their votes. WanderingGeeljire (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a battle, but a blockade. Some part of Berbera was burnt but its unclear what and by whom. My !vote stands. Mztourist (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the chronology provided on the page inaccurate?? How was this unclear, your what and whom regarding the fires are answered. There were lives lost as British soldiers landed and forcefully occupied the town. The blockade had already been implemented from 1825 this was the engagement to gain restitution for the 1825 losses in life and property of Captain Lingard.WanderingGeeljire (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upon its coming to anchor the natives set fire to the town in several places and commenced a general plunder

Read this page CLXV shows this and much more the 2nd link is a clip of what I am trying to display to you

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_Quarterly_Oriental_Magazine_Review_a/jSgJAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

https://books.google.ca/books/content?id=jSgJAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PR165&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&bul=1&sig=ACfU3U13SAgVtEpCWTxOnG1roQPZXZVapg&ci=85%2C662%2C397%2C879&edge=0

Keep but rename -- This gives the appearance of being a well-researched article. However, rename to ~~Bombardment of Berbera~~. This is clearly an example of gunboat diplomacy, where the gunboat had the overwhelming advantage. Even the opening of bombardment was in some cases enough to result in capitulation, which seems to have been the result in this case. One such case is claimed to be the shortest war in history. I fear that some such articles are driven by the desire to use a Battlebox, even where that is not wholly appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the problem: "This gives the appearance of being a well-researched article." but it's not. It's entirely OR. There is NO documented historical reference to a 'Battle of Berbera'. None. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Burton as a source to the table is also interesting - he was 6 years old in 1827. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input Peterkingiron, the sources I've shown indicate British troops deploying on shore and killing several Somalis and losing 1 Royal Marine after Somalis started burning the town. I would suggest 'Berbera Punitive Expedition' since the goal of their arrival in Berbera was to secure restitution for a prior massacre in 1825.

As for Alexandermcnabb if we ignore the term Battle, what do you deem OR about this article?? Are the events described false and fabricated? You claimed certain pages (which are the ones that are relied on for the key events) didn't exist in the main book. I have proved that the pages do indeed exist, so I would please ask that you read them since your assertion of fabrication hinges on that.

Regarding Richard Burton of course he's a credible source he was an officer, he literally provided a background of British mapping and trips in the region and cites several prior explorers and voyages which can be found in the preface section of his text. Keeping in mind my wording of this detail of an 1825 bombardment means that I am not definitively stating this happened despite me being able to do so given the quality of the source. Burton met and stayed with Haji Sharmarke Ali Saleh who was the man that intervened when that 1825 massacre happened. He's very much an authoritative individual on the topic. Thanks WanderingGeeljire (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response the Royal Navy enforced a blockade and some accounts narrate an immediate bombardment of the city.

Keep Marshall's book has an addendum on page 436 regarding James John Gordon Bremer. It details an event in which Bremer blockaded Berbera, fired on several ships, parts of the town were set on fire (Bremer, via Marshall, claims the locals set the fires), Bremer landed troops, conflict ensued, British marines captured the city. Is there some reason to doubt Marshall? To doubt Bremer's account published in Marshall? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if the other side viewed it differently, sure, but we'd need some RS to contradict Marshall.

I must say, this is one of the strangest AfDs that I have ever seen. We have an official history that mentions the event, but some editors want to ignore it because, apparently, some editions have different page numbers? Arguing over the difference between a battle, skirmish, or blockade? Is there something that I'm missing here? Because I'm having difficulty seeing how this AfD was even brought, and the nominator should have withdrawn it once it was clear that he'd made a mistake regarding the Marshall source. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you this is what I've been trying to demonstrate in defense on the AfD page WanderingGeeljire (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. It is unclear why this AfD has been filed. The article cites reliable sources to describe a notable event. I fail to see how it breaches any Wikipedia guidelines; the existence of editions of a source with different page numbers is no grounds for deletion. If naming of the article is the issue then the place for that discussion is on the article's talk page and not AfD. --Kzl55 (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(varying vote above) Rename to Berbera Punitive Expedition. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. This article is well researched, well referenced and cites reliable sources. It describes a notable event. Just because there are different editions of the source with different page numbers doesn't mean the whole article needs to be deleted. I do not see the purpose of this AfD. Dabaqabad (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 procedural close as wrong venue--WP:MFD would be the proper place to discuss deletion of a draft. Further, reasons for deletion are either invalid (per Robert McClenon) or moot now that nominator's version of the article in mainspace has been G11-speedied. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 15:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tubbo[edit]

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

I have already created the page regarding Tubbo. Please delete this draft. EGL¹²³⁴ 04:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close - Not an article, and not a reason to delete a draft, which can instead be speedy redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tubbo has been nominated for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 08:38, 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) 22:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Rao[edit]

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

Non-notable Politician, academic and social worker. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable party functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 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. With no contribution in three weeks and one person on each side, relisting and spinning the wheel again is unlikely to be constructive. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debut Video Capture Software[edit]

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

I nominated the firm for deletion last month, but the article was perhaps not reasonably kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCH Software (2nd nomination). This does not however imply that all its products are notable, and I don't think this is. Most of the contents of the article is a copy from the article on the firm--as there isn't enough worth saying about this program--almost all the refs here are about the firm in general DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ellis, Cat (2020-01-29). "Debut Video Capture review. An amazingly capable free screen recorder, and much more". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
  The review notes, "Debut’s interface isn’t the most attractive, but what it lacks in gloss, it makes up for in clarity. Everything is clearly labelled, and you’ll never be left casting around for the option you need. ... The design really doesn't matter, though – Debut is exceptionally capable video capture software, and can easily serve as the heart of a home security system."
2. Chadwick, J. D. (2020-09-14). "Debut Video Capture Pro review. Debut Video Capture Pro is a top quality video capture and screen recording program, but it's missing one essential feature". Top Ten Reviews. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
  The review notes, "The main drawback of Debut is that is doesn't have a built-in editor. ... In terms of quality, the finished video created by Debut was very good, but not the best. Our video experts examined the video created with Debut and noted minor problems with pixelation and jumpiness in parts of the video. And while it's not as smooth and clear as the video produced from the award winners, it comes close."
3. Nawrocki, Matthew (2012-05-11). "Review: NCH Software Debut Video Capture. Debut Video Capture gives you all the tools you need for professional video capture while keeping the experience consistent". TechRepublic. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
  The review notes, "However, during my use of the tool, not everything was perfect. I had issues getting the configuration for the AVI file format settings, which eventually caused the program to hang and crash. ... Also, when the application would first load, sometimes the mouse would stick momentarily and then unstick itself within a few seconds. These issues aren't serious by any means, but they might slow you down a bit at first."
4. Popa, Bogdan (2021-03-06). "Debut Video Capture and Screen Recorder Software". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
  The review notes, "Everything worked very smooth during our test, but a minor slowdown in performance on slower computers may be noticed. To sum up, Debut Video Capture and Screen Recorder Software is one of the best apps of its kind and in case you wish to record screen activity either for tutorials or just for fun, perhaps you can consider giving this app a try."
5. "Debut Pro Video Screen Recorder Editors' Review". Download.com. CNET. 2011-03-11. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
  The review notes, "The ability to work well with a wide range of such devices sets Debut apart from less capable shareware and freeware video recording tools."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Debut Video Capture to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:06, 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) 22:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfind[edit]

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

I am filing this on behalf of User:Ewpigs44 who had the following concerns about the article: "Sorry! I work for this company and the user who added our financial information is a bitter former employee. We are a startup with investors and he is using that to misrepresent our finances. We aren't really sure why our company even has a Wikipedia page, is there a way to simply delete the page all together? Thanks so much!"

You can see the conversation here: User_talk:Ewpigs44. I am neutral at the moment and will !vote when I have time to review the article and sourcing. StarM 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I trimmed this article when I found it in a backlog late last year and forgot to go back to it to look for notability. There's some sourcing, including this overview and this airport that they work with and some Chicago Tribune articles, if anyone has access. They appear to have notable clients, but I'm not sure if there's enough to say about the company itself to build an article on. I did remove some text that Ewpigs44 contested (see Article Talk) as I concur with him that it doesn't belong in the article. I had removed similar info when I edited the article, but don't recall why I left that. StarM 21:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is some coverage of usage of their product ([17] was in "a publication put out by the Chicago Tribune geared toward 18 to 34-year-olds") but I don't see substantial coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Western mass hardcore[edit]

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

Article is about two bands who both have pages, content already exists there. Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the "mass" refers to the US state of Massachusetts, so presumably this should be capitalized as "Mass" if the article was kept. Could probably be merged into Music of Massachusetts#Rock – there doesn't seem to be enough here to warrant a separate article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's nothing TO merge here. Other than citing those two bands (each of which has their own extensive articles), all this article says is that the hardcore scene spread to various Northeastern cities. It says nothing at all about the ostensible subject, and honestly is a Speedy candidate. Ravenswing 15:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outpatients aren't mentioned in the Music of Massachusetts article, that's the part that I suggested merging. If someone wants to just add their name to the list of bands in the "Alternative rock" section and then delete this article, that's fine by me. Richard3120 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the list as suggested by Richard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably written long ago by nostalgic fans who fantasized a "scene" that was made up of two remembered bands and maybe some others that have long since been forgotten. The articles for the two named bands already state adequately that they were from this geographic area. There is no evidence of a "scene" that received coverage in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anyone wishing to have the article recovered to draft/userspace can make a request at WP:REFUND in the normal way. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jean-Pierre Renaud[edit]

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

This article was tagged for A7. I declined to delete it per that criteria as there are sources to The Guardian and Le Monde. However, I'm concerned there is not a long-lasting claim to notability here, and simply a one event biography. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a single event with no lasting significance. For example Google News only returns articles from August 10th - August 13th for the search Jean-Pierre Renaud murder. Is there a List of unsolved French murders or somesuch it can be merged into? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only thing that makes this particular murder stick out is the 30 years that elapsed before his body was found. That's not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BLP1E CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I did the original A7 tagging. Discussion here reenforces the deletional rationale. No notability.. – S. Rich (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - It too soon to have this as an article, or decide to delete it or not. This is primarily the work of a single user reporting the event where the local police have opened a homicide investigation. Such investigations tend to take a long time (often several years) to resolve, so I think it is too soon to decide if this article is worth having or not. In the meantime, I think Wikipedia judgement should be suspended at least until some judicial authority decides on the facts of the case. In the meantime, the article should be moved to the creating user's workspace to await developments and so the user, and others, can improve it. Also, if there should be a corresponding article on French Wikipedia, what treatment did that article receive? We should not be deleting here if they are not deleting there, we should do the same thing with the subject on both wiki. At the moment there is hardly enough in the article for me to call it a stub for a murder, at the moment it is basically a suspicious dead body found in an abandoned building that the police are investigating as a homicide. It is not even definitively a murder, although that is currently suspected to be the most serious possibility. The article has potential to increase or reduce in notability given time. Meanwhile wait. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:17, 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 11:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gale (loudspeaker)[edit]

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

While this has been at AfD three times prior, the underlying issues remain, a BEFORE does not indicate significant, in depth coverage to meet WP:ORG. There is this review, but there's no indication that is a reliable source This is probably the best source along with this review and even together they're not enough.

A merger to Audio Partnership would also make sense as neither is too long as is, but given three prior AfDs I think this conversation deserves more light than proposed mergers do. StarM 16:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AFDs as the template didn't pick them up. Feel free to remove if you know how to add into the template:
Delete nothing to suggest it actually meets the inclusion criteria for an organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems like past attempts have failed due to lack of participation, but this is a blatant advert with no secondary sources. Stereophile looks like a blog; The Age is not in-depth; What Hi-Fi? is possibly usable but not hugely impressive. (Good WP:BEFORE check by the nominator, it seems—can't find anything further, though it's tough to get the search terms.) The other claim to notability is the "awards" their website claims to run. I believe these types of consumer goods awards are given out to basically anybody who pays for them (they'll do 6 products per category and companies will enter their products in 6 categories for a few thousand pounds so it's very hard not to win). I would check that these particular awards fall in that category but it doesn't matter anyway as this wouldn't be enough for GNG given the context of at most one further good source. — Bilorv (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bilorv and nominator - fails WP:NCORP quite clearly in my opinion. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly fails WP:NCORP. The topic is the company, not the product. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 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. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Nutritional Consultants[edit]

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

The article is a WP:COATRACK for a complaint that the organization allows members to join without checking whether they have special qualifications as nutritional consultants. It is my understanding that professional associations don't necessarily have an obligation to check whether their members have accredited qualifications or not, and membership in a professional society should not be construed as an accreditation in itself. Professional associations are typically more concerned with activities like publishing journals, sending out newsletters to their members, organizing conferences, giving awards to accomplished people, offering insurance discount programs, and lobbying the government on behalf of their members. They might offer certification programs, but certification and membership are two different things. The whole article is currently devoted to the qualification checking question for membership, especially for pet animal applicants (which only exist because a few people want to demonstrate the lack of restrictions on membership). No special awards were given to the animals in question – only association memberships. The membership fees of professional associations often support the cost of the organization overhead and the publications that are sent to the members. Allowing unqualified people to become dues-paying members is not necessarily a big problem, as long as other people don't interpret the membership as something different from what it is (and as long as the members don't act like it is something different from what it is). See also Talk:List of animals with fraudulent diplomas § Henrietta. Regardless of whether this organization has a good reputation or not (and I suppose it doesn't), it does not seem very notable. There are many organizations that basically have no verified requirements for membership other than the payment of dues. (I am not sure whether to consider the Quackwatch and Wordpress references to be reliable sources, but all of the cited sources seem to be primarily about the lack of checking of qualifications for membership rather than about the organization itself.) — BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Any content issues should be discussed on the article's talk page, where I will be pleased to defend the reliability of the sources used (none of which are "Wordpress"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the reference to http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2000/4.pdf. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed you were. It's not a "Wordpress reference", though, is it? It's PDF copy of a printed publication, with an ISSN, a named (and notable) editor, and a large team of editorial consultants, most of whom have PhDs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had assumed that if I found "Wordpress" in the pathname, it was coming from a Wordpress site (and I had not noticed that the term was not part of the domain name). That assumption may have been incorrect. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- About the Quackwatch article, I was just referred to WP:RSP by a comment on the AANC article talk page. WP:RSP says that articles on Quackwatch by Stephen Barrett (like the one cited in this article) are generally reliable but should be considered self-published and "should not be used as a source of information on other living persons". I don't necessarily see a problem with citing that source in this article, since what is referenced is commentary about the organization rather than any particular person. Although the Quackwatch article does make statements about particular named people, the Wikipedia article does not reference those aspects of the Quackwatch article. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep marginally. It's a dodgy organisation alright, but notable for being dodgy as RS demonstrates. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I researched news sources and have added to the article a New York Times article referencing the association’s lack of credibility and a press release from a major university touting a new nursing dean who was affiliated with the association. The organization is without a doubt of dubious credibility, but it does appear to meet the WP:GNG standards for notability. ABT021 (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the discussion of the press release about the nursing dean as WP:OR, since we do not have a secondary source reporting that this happened or is notable – we have only our own observation that someone's background description included a claimed qualification from the association. Incidentally, I think the article has a disproportionate dependency on Ben Goldacre's criticism of Gillian McKeith. The NYT piece that you added was more of that same theme. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We dont remove articles because the subjects are dodgy, nor, indeed, because the articles are poor. Rathfelder (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not the reasons for my suggestion of deletion. The reason is lack of sufficient notability and WP:COATRACK. Much of the coverage is really just stemming from Ben Goldacre's criticism of Gillian McKeith rather than coverage of this organization itself. The only extensive coverage of the organization itself is the Quackwatch source, which is self-published as described above. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per aboveRajuiu (talk) 13:47, 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.

[1] Nancy Davis Kho (July 5, 2008). "Bamboo bikes have benefits". Sfgate. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[2] Morgan Clendaniel (July 29, 2009). "LOOK: Bamboo Bikes for Africa". goodinc.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[3] "On your bike". The Economist. November 29, 2008. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[4] "Non-wood News" (18). Food and Agriculture Organization. 2009: 24. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[5] Michelle Mulder (2015). Pedal It!: How Bicycles are Changing the World. Orca Book Publishers. ASIN B00UUDND6A.

[6] Paul Collinson; Iain Young; Lucy Antal; Helen Macbeth, eds. (2019). Food and Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Berghahn Books. p. 170. ASIN B07KH5ZHDR.

[7] Mukherjee, Sarjyo (2021-01-10). "TommyInnit aged 16 reaches 40k subs on Twitch". talkesport.com. Retrieved 2021-03-24.

[8] ~~Edwards, Luke (2020-12-19). "Who is Tommyinnit? Twitch's fastest-growing streamer from Minecraft fame". Dexerto. Retrieved 2021-03-24.~~ [Unreliable]

[9] ~~Knight, Kyle (2021-02-25). "Why Has YouTuber Tommyinnit Been Banned From TikTok? #FreeTommy Trending". DualSchockers. Retrieved 2021-03-24.~~ [Unreliable]

[10] D'Anastasio, Cecilia (2021-02-28). "いまやマインクラフトは、物語を生み出す「舞台」になっている" [Minecraft is now becoming the stage for storytelling] (in Japanese). Yahoo! Japan. Retrieved 2021-03-24.

[11] Asarch, Steven (2021-01-25). "Minecraft's top streamers are taking over the internet with their exclusive roleplaying server called Dream SMP". Yahoo. Retrieved 2021-03-24.

[12] Struthoff, Noah (2021-01-10). "16-Jähriger dominiert Twitch mit Minecraft, lockt mehr Zuschauer an als alle anderen" [16-year old dominates Twitch with Minecraft, attracting more viewers than anyone else] (in German). MeinMMO. Retrieved 2021-03-24.

[13] D'anastasio, Cecilia (January 12, 2021). "In Minecraft's Dream SMP, All the Server's a Stage". Wired. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved March 14, 2021.

[14] Alexander, Julia (March 19, 2021). "Living the Dream SMP". The Verge. Vox Media. Archived from the original on March 21, 2021. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[15] Hoodbhoy, Nafisa. Aboard the Democracy Train: A Journey Through Pakistan's Last Decade of Democracy. Anthem Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-85728-906-3.

[16] Walbridge, Linda. The Christians of Pakistan: The Passion of Bishop John Joseph. Routledge. p. 245. ISBN 978-1-136-13178-3.

[17] Hendon, David W.; Greco, Donald E. (2001). "Notes on Church-State Affairs". Journal of Church and State. 43 (2): 384. ISSN 0021-969X.

[18] "Pour faire abolir la loi sur le blasphème – Portail catholique suisse". cath.ch (in French).

[19] "Priests strive to save Pakistanis targeted under blasphemy laws". The B.C. Catholic. 23 August 2017.

[20] "Communities Behind Refugee Sponsorship" (PDF). Amnesty Australia. Amnesty International. March 2021. p. 15-16.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]