Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 06 March 08 >

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 redirect to List of The West Wing characters#Federal executive branch. — The Earwig (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Russell (The West Wing)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG– There was an AfD about him a while ago but they were all kept because too many people were nominated at once. Ten years later, Russell still isn't a notable part of The West Wing, and he should absolutely be removed. There are basically no reliable sources talking about him in-depth the way they talk about Jed Bartlet or Josh Lyman or any actually notable character. It should be deleted or merged. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Vernon, New York. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Vernon City Council[edit]

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

City council of a midsized suburb (under 70,000) does not not meet WP:ORGCRITE or WP:GNG. If no consensus to delete, open to a redirect to Mount Vernon, New York. KidAd • SPEAK 22:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 8th largest city in New York State is not a significant statistic. Avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd • SPEAK 03:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mount Vernon, New York. I would vote merge, except it seems all the information is already at Mount Vernon, New York. There isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mount Vernon, New York. Unnecessary CFORK of content that exists at the target. Keeping the article just increases maintenance/updating, with no benefit. Nothing really to merge, but if someone wants to merge anything properly sourced, no objection.  // Timothy :: talk  13:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee#District 2 per deletion by redirection. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 08:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Hoyos[edit]

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

may not pass wp:POLOUTCOMES wp:NPOL; unsuccessfully running for office is not usually grounds for notability. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee#District 2. The policy you should be applying here is WP:NPOL, not WP:POLOUTCOMES. POLOUTCOMES supplements WP:NPOL. It is not official policy. KidAd • SPEAK 22:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and for a non-winning candidate to get in the door she must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her a Wikipedia article regardless of her victory or defeat in the election, or (b) demonstrate and reliably source a credible reason why her candidacy should be viewed as significantly more notable than the norm for unsuccessful candidates, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But this demonstrates neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per above, being only an unsuccessful candidate does not normally qualify you for notability. SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current sources doesn't make him pass WP:NPOL. Hulatam (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean her. KidAd • SPEAK 19:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have decided that unelected candidates for political office are not notable for that. About the only exceptions we have given are candidates for US senate, and even then the vast majority of failed candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep the above discussion is only regards her as a political nominee, does her activities in water industry meet criteria, or be capable of improvement.Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People aren't automatically notable just for being heads of organizations, either. She would still have to demonstrably pass WP:GNG on that basis to be able to claim notability on that basis, and we can still only consider sources that are shown to exist rather than simply theorizing that GNG-worthy sourcing might exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wushu Federation of the Philippines. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at the World Wushu Championships[edit]

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

Article has no importance and is the only one of its kind. Yinglong999 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge This appears to be about a national team, competing in what appears to be the top international tournament in this sport. It appears that this tournament is sanctioned by the appropriate international organization for that martial arts style, the IWUF, and that this is the governing body for this sport as recognized by the IOC and other groups. I will admit that I am not very familiar with Wushu, but on a cursory look everything checks out to confirm that this a legitimate major international tournament. WP:NSPORT does not directly address this situation, but I suspect that it is because it is focused on individual athletes, and I cannot imagine how an entire national team would fail to be notable, especially a successful one (although even the Jamaican Bobsled team is notable). The article does seem short and bare, but that can be improved with more information and more sources. I would suggest starting with the IWUF and the website for the national-level Wushu governing body in the Philippines. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The pages for the International Wushu Federation and the Wushu Federation of the Philippines already exist so I am considering merging the info of this page into the WFP one. I forgot to state this when starting the discussion. I believe that having two separate articles, one for national federation and one for statistics at the World Wushu Championships is unnecessary and even if this article in question is favored over the WFP one, it will exclude all other awards from various other competitions. Yinglong999 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I had not realized that. Yes, that sounds like it might make more sense. I strongly support a merge. Hyperion35 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Not useful as a separate article. Nigej (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wushu Federation of the Philippines There is nothing in this article that is not in the national federation's article. In fact, the federation's article actually has more IWUF world championship results than the article currently under discussion (which claims to be about the IWUF results). That's why I voted to redirect instead of merge. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above Noah 💬 19:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wushu Federation of the Philippines per above. I don't see anything properly sourced to merge that isn't already in the target and unsourced material should not be merged.  // Timothy :: talk  14:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kyal Sin[edit]

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

2 times PRODed and DEPRODed, Obvious WP:BLP1E, article was renamed from her name to "Death of" to suggest more notability, so bad the fate it remains a BLP1E CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: only for your info, one out of a bunch since yesterday, as discussed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think BLP1E only applies to articles about individuals. Since this is an article about a death, I don’t think it qualifies. Regardless, do you think this violates WP:NOTNEWS? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This indeed does violate WP:NOTNEWS in my opinion. Since this article is about somebody who died during protests, I do not think it passes. A new page should be made about her entire life. R3alPTg (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2021 (MMT)
  • Keep per WP:VICTIM as The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. or The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure. Pls don't use AfD as a weapon. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The event is significant and covered by many sources. Brave Kyal Sin is worth to be remembered. --Lt2818 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination seems confused; the page was only prodded once. And that was once too many as the prod process is only for "uncontroversial deletion". The subject is actually quite notable, being the subject of worldwide coverage such as From first vote to bullet in the head ...Kyal Sin has become a symbol of resistance for a younger generation defying military rule and She is a hero.... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Not sure why the article is nominated for deletion. This article satisfies the criteria for WP:VICTIM and WP:ONEEVENT under WP:BIO. For better understanding of WP:1E or WP:ONEEVENT, consider the examples of wiki page for Rodney King or George Floyd under the same criteria. Even a better example is that of Shooting of David McAtee, David McAtee died during the protest of George Floyd killing. For notability, the current subject not only has wide coverage in international media but also in local media of many countries in the world. BBC and New York Post has covered it in Myanmar coup and Grave of respectively. -Kaisernahid (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the defense, but the others have few good points that I was already considering when making my previous comment. Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per argued for above. Although, I appreciate if the protest article is edited to necessitate a standalone article. At the moment, the content in the protest article about Kyal Sin is almost a copy of this article (or is it the other way round? either way...). – robertsky (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I want to note that this is basically similar to the Mya Thwe Thwe Khine case where a woman was used as a symbol for protests, and the previous article was merged before being recreated again. While this is not as notable as the previous case, however, WP:BIO1E may apply to this case. MarioJump83! 02:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above, i agree that the article satisfies the criteria for WP:VICTIM --Kemalcan (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know why there is some efforts to delete the deaths occured during Myanmar protests. It is well-covered by media, and even in Asian news such as "JTBC" in South Korea as "[5]" or "[6]" -- Wendylove (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think because they believe that these deaths are not notable due to strict interpretation of WP:BLP1E, and also setting the notability bar too high. MarioJump83! 02:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • MarioJump83, you have to see the development of those articles - they were all started as Martyr BIOs of clear WP:BLP1E and after recognising this directly after nominating them for deletion they were "converted" into WP:VICTIM articles. What worries me more is why there is so much effort to keep them. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know guys. How about we create an article about Casualties of 2021 Myanmar protests and put everyone in there? Halskw (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has gained international attention. The death is notable. Sun8908 Talk 14:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While her death is very unfortunate, it should be kept in the deaths section of the protests. There’s no reason why it should be up there, as no major news channels aren’t talking about her death. The people who are voting to keep, are being bias. 65.128.175.162 (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)— 65.128.175.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong keep; Her death further intensified the protests and provided a morale boost to the protests. Her death also made headlines around the world even more so than the protests' first death, and its attention has been particularly prominent in social media networks outside Myanmar. – Azurevanilla ash (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Handmaids to Kitty Girls[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NEPISODE. Much of the episode is WP:FANCRUFT and is already covered at the parent season's page: RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 3). It gets on average 11 views per page versus the 1500 the parent season gets. Clearly, readers get the info they need from the parent season page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, along with all of the other recent episode nominations by same editor. There's enough secondary coverage to justify keeping and expanding, and nominator should please stop tagging so many articles at once because this does not give editors enough time to help improve. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not create articles on the "expectation of notability" or "future notability when someone gets around to expanding it". The mainspace is not for drafts or partially complete articles. That's what sandboxes and the user space is for. We do not need articles for the sale of articles. Additionally, its not just about the lack of detail on the page, page views show it is unlikely that readers will find/come to the page. They're much more likely to find the information on the parent season's page as demonstrated by the page views. Its a weak keep at best if you're arguing for keep. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we're now going to be having this discussion multiple times, here's how I replied over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PharmaRusical: 'The main space is not for partially complete articles? Are you kidding? Wikipedia is full of incomplete articles. Nor do page views speak to notability. Next time try assessing secondary coverage WP:BEFORE nominating." ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divas Lip Sync Live[edit]

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

Not enough reliably sourced information that stretches beyond a synopsis as which isn't already covered at RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 3). Per WP:GNG and WP:NEPISODE it is not warranted. At just 27 page views per day, on average, versus 1500 that the parent season gets, it would suggest that few people are actually interested/find the page. Most if not nearly all probably get all of the information they need from the parent season page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I wish nominator had shared concerns on the article's talk page and/or at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race before submitting, rather than nominating a bunch of articles at once as this make expanding difficult. I believe there's enough secondary coverage to justify keeping and improving, and ask the nominator to please slow down on nominating so many similar pages at once. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not create articles on the "expectation of notability" or "future notability when someone gets around to expanding it". The mainspace is not for drafts or partially complete articles. That's what sandboxes and the user space is for. We do not need articles for the sale of articles. Additionally, its not just about the lack of detail on the page, page views show it is unlikely that readers will find/come to the page. They're much more likely to find the information on the parent season's page as demonstrated by the page views. Its a weak keep at best if you're arguing for keep. I was cleaning up topics I am interested in - there's no laws against tagging/nominating things for deletion. WP:NEPISODE is clear about when things should and shouldn't be created. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For this subject, we've got notable people portraying notable people on a notable show. In the way of coverage, there's definitely ample coverage to meet notability requirements, including the New York Times here; Pride here; and others already used on the article. I'd also like to remind editors of WP:NOBODYREADSIT, which states "Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable." It doesn't matter if it's 27 or 27,000 readers a day; the article should be judged on its notability (which I think is met). --Kbabej (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why was this renominated after the previous AfD? It does not appear that any WP:BEFORE was done. This article meets GNG as well as the (admittedly vague) requirements at WP:NEPISODE. Plenty of standalone coverage in RS and can be easily expanded. Low page views is not an argument for non-notability. Lots of FAs get fewer than 27 views per day (see, for example, Ferugliotheriidae). This, and the nominator's other points, have already been addressed at the previous AfD, where keep !votes were unanimous. Nothing has changed since then, apart from the article being improved.
Also, can this AfD somehow be bundled with the other five nearly identical AfDs started by the same nominator for articles about episodes of the same TV show on the same day? It does not seem productive to have the same discussion spread across multiple pages. Armadillopteryx 23:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep - I'm not a fan of these episode articles that say very little beyond what happened in the episode, and a couple of sentences of critical reception. However, this episode (and the others listed by the nominator) does meet the GNG by having coverage in independent, secondary sources. I may not like it, but that isn't a reason to delete something, nor is a lack of page-views, as discussed above. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article meets requirements for WP:GNG and WP:NEPISODE. --Kemalcan (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments of nominator seem to have been thoroughly refuted. Go Phightins! 11:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna: The Unauthorized Rusical[edit]

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

Topic received little coverage beyond its existence and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's appearance. There isn't enough high quality, reliably sourced information to warrant a standalone article. Much of this information, if not all, is already at the [RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12)|parent season's page]]. It gets on average 98 views per day versus 5677 that season 12 page gets. Doesn't meet notability criteria (WP:GNG and WP:NEPISODE). ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, same as all of the other recently-nominated episode articles by nominator. There's enough coverage and page views have nothing to do with notability. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:NOBODYREADSIT, page views have nothing to do with notability. The subject has coverage from multiple RS. Besides the four sources on the page currently, there's also coverage from Gay Times, In Magazine, Entertainment Weekly, and others. --Kbabej (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media Kings Into Queens[edit]

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

Duplicates coverage at the parent season's page. Stub which is mainly synopsis does not pass WP:NEPISODE or WP:GNG as coverage does not substantially go beyond the existence of the episode. Page views for the last month show that, on average, it gets just 20 views per day versus the season 10 page which gets 3508 per day. Any information which is not already contained there should be merged there. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I wish Lil-unique1 had expressed concerns on the article's talk page or at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race before nominating for deletion. I believe there's enough sufficient secondary coverage to flesh out this entry and vote to keep for further expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would encourage the nominator to read WP:NOBODYREADSIT, which states "Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable." Separately, there’s more than enough RS covering this subject. On the page so far are In Magazine, Bustle, Billboard and others. —Kbabej (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Stars: The Musical[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEPISODE. Although there is coverage of the existence of the episode, there is little on this page that goes beyond a synopsis of the episode, which is already on the parent season's page. What little there is which isn't already on the season 9 page could easily be merged into the season's reception page. Page views of the topic have petered off massively since it's creation. Viewers are more likely to access this information directly from the parent season. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I wish Lil-unique1 had expressed concerns on the article's talk page or at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race before nominating for deletion. I'm not worried about page views here. I believe there's enough sufficient secondary coverage to flesh out this entry and vote to keep for further expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page views have nothing to do with notability, as covered at WP:NOBODYREADSIT. This subject has coverage in multiple RS. Even just reviewing the sources used on the page currently, there's coverage from the A.V. Club; Houston Chronicle; Slant Magazine; Us Weekly; Bustle; and In Magazine. Sources not used on the page include The Stranger here; Culturess here; Entertainment Weekly here; among others. --Kbabej (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it have coverage in multiple RS it passes WP:BASIC. Sliekid (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Behind Bars[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NEPISODE. The majority of the page is synopsis which is already contained on the page for the parent season RuPaul's Drag Race (season 4). According to page views, this receives very little attention compared to the amount the parent season page gets. Furthermore, episode names are not commonly known by the casual viewer. If there was information on this page that isn't already in the parent season's page, it should be merged there to ensure it reaches the maximum number of people. But at present, this page is unwarrented, duplicates much of what is already at the parent season's page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I believe there's enough secondary coverage to justify keeping and expanding further. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I stated on the AfD for Divas Lip Sync Live, I believe this nomination falls under WP:NOBODYREADSIT, which states "Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable." The subject has coverage from the A.V. Club; Queerty; Vulture; and others (all of which are notable publications on their own). --Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current sources satsify WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Davey[edit]

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

The article falls very short of WP:BIO and WP:GNG standards. Capt. Milokan (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear GNG fail and is a promotion of a non-notable fitness model. Not enough reliable sources. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notable reliable sources are not found and non notable fitness model. TheDreamBoat (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is per WP:RS. Right now, there is no reliable source showing the won a major title. Am willing to change my mind if siginficant coverage is found, I don't know enough to search for it myself. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fails notability and Reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A fitness model who does not pass NMODEL or GNG. —Kbabej (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Vexations (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malvika Raj[edit]

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

Previously deleted not enough notable. Pilean (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if it is the recreation of same content-based article that was deleted one year ago per this AfD; and if nothing adds to her notability, this new AfD is unnecessary, the article should be G4ed. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to Keep per the coverage provided by Beccaynr. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it or G4, we will see if is applicable.--- Possibly (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pilean, TheAafi, and Possibly:, I removed the G4, as it is not the same person as was discussed at the AfD in question. That person spelled their last name Raaj, with two a's, and is described in the discussion as an actor and model. This person is an artist and fashion designer Theredproject (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate the note that the sources are in the article; I was referring to articles I had reviewed to support my conclusion, and could have made that more clear. Also, I think specifically discussing the sources here can be helpful for a determination of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, because the sources are facts that can help support an argument per relevant guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wp:gng. Significant coverage in wp:rs. Vikram Vincent 13:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have checked with two people with more knowledge of the Indian media environment, and both confirm that these sources are legit WP:RS. Theredproject (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone who knows Indian media, and in particular, the issue of marginalized knowledges within this context reasonably well, I can confirm that all the sources are WP:RS - they include well known national newspapers, a government-led cultural institution's site, and the blogs are also well known sources. Anasuyas (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given by AnasuyasKaybeesquared (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears to have formed that subject meets WP:GNG Go Phightins! 11:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Ramos (businessman)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability fails WP:NCORP Pilean (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MrOllie! Yes, I agree that there are some PR listings. But, as also mentioned above by Rogermx there are definitely many other sources too which gives him a pass for WP:GNG like some of these below refs I just found google search.
  1. https://forbes.co/2019/11/10/tecnologia/gobierno-cede-a-revelar-precio-base-en-subasta-del-espectro/
  2. https://www.telecomlead.com/telecom-services/millicom-ceo-explains-how-telecom-operator-achieved-cut-in-opex-85399
  3. https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/home-banner/ceo-spotlight-mauricio-ramos-millicom
  4. https://www.telesemana.com/blog/2015/03/05/mauricio-ramos-deja-liberty-global-para-asumir-como-ceo-de-millicom/
  5. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/liberty-global-brings-european-playbook-latin-america-eyes-more-acquisitions-1029153
  6. https://www.thedailytelevision.com/articulo/mas/talento/mauricio-ramos-nuevo-ceo-de-millicom
  7. https://www.nacion.com/el-pais/servicios/millicom-confirma-intencion-de-rescindir-trato-con/DZPI6DJWS5AFDJVYN7HOXJUN4A/story/
  8. https://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-15339458
  9. https://www.elfinancierocr.com/tecnologia/ceo-de-tigo-el-tigo-costa-rica-de-ayer-no-es-el/GMULCJH5NFHJRPUWWWJYDHDZME/story/
  10. https://theorg.com/org/millicom/org-chart/mauricio-ramos
  11. https://www.produ.com/semana/personaje/1671
  12. https://news.cision.com/millicom-international-cellular/r/mauricio-ramos-appointed-millicom-s-chief-executive-officer,c9733298
  13. https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/home-banner/ceo-spotlight-mauricio-ramos-millicom
  14. https://tdameritradenetwork.com/video/rB4AoWgbEeWBaDNRf_YFwA
  15. https://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-15339458
  16. https://blogs.worldbank.org/digital-development/leveraging-digital-technology-tackle-covid-19-power-joint-action
  17. https://www.newslinereport.com/negocios/nota/mauricio-ramos-ser-el-nuevo-ceo-de-millicom
  18. https://eldeber.com.bo/economia/ramos-millicom-esta-en-bolivia-con-tigo-para-largo-plazo_13374
  19. https://www.estrategiaynegocios.net/empresasymanagement/1241234-330/4-claves-de-liderazgo-de-mauricio-ramos-ceo-de-millicom
  20. https://plataformas.news/alianzas/nota/mauricio-ramos-fue-elegido-presidente-del-consejo-empresarial-estados-unidos-colombia- Hulatam (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this paid-for puff piece to Millicom, since this CEO is not notable independent of the company. Sources are largely press releases, churnalism or from outfits that 'profile' CEOs indiscriminately. - MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ramos is the CEO of Millicom, a highly notable multinational company with many household brands in various countries. In general, CEOs of major companies like this are notable enough to have their own articles, so rewriting rather than merging would typically be the best choice. Other than the mention about the 3 recognitions which can be removed or fixed later, I don't see how the rest of the article is a puff piece as it just mentions the basic facts in a neutral way. There are enough reliable sources online to back up this biography, so some of the press release references can eventually be replaced with better sources later on. Overall, fits into the scope of an online encyclopedia. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WSJ, CNN and Yahoo are major media. He meetsWP:GNG. Expertwikiguy (talk)
  • Delete as a WP:UPE concern. Onel5969 TT me 16:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Whether it was created in COI or not, the fact can't be denied as this person has coverage in some major publications. Sliekid (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the first 8 references, 6 are profiles, 1 is an annoucement of being a new ceo, and 1 is a best place to work in, for the company. There is no WP:SECONDARY sources in the article that can satisfy a WP:BLP, for WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. The other 8 references are company references. Nothing to do with man at all. There is not real coverage outwith the company. There is several annoucement of the new position, but nothing else. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The Yahoo is an annoucement to a new position, the CNN reference is a press-release, the WSJ is a paid-for profile. There is really not that much on. Lots of standard notices of employement, company news and press-releases. scope_creepTalk 19:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am not going here in details if there is some press coverage or not. But I would request to the closing admin to take a look at these featured major publications such as CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/02/24/selling-broadband-to-emerging-markets.html and TD Ameritrade Network https://tdameritradenetwork.com/video/rB4AoWgbEeWBaDNRf_YFwA where no one can easily get featured unless they have done any notable work in their field. Sugarikon (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep He appears notable but the page needs better citations. CEO of a significant company with some notable coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 01:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per all above, He is a notable CEO of a reputed telecom company Millicom. Sources like CNBC, WSJ, CNN, Yahoo and TD Ameritrade Network should be enough here to meet WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has significant news coverage. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:UPE spam that doesn't want to go down without a fight, it seems. The non-blocked keep voters have yet to show any significant coverage by reliable sources. MER-C 17:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MER-C! I want to clearly disclose my COI if you think I have any. I am not connected to the subject in any way. Nor, someone is paying me for doing edits on Wikipedia. When I was in Spain I was using their network. So, just searched about company and CEO. I used to see his page. But one day I saw that it is redirected I just removed the redirect nothing else. I don't think it is wrong as he is a notable and popular guy. Most of people were searching about him like people search for who is CEO of Microsoft, Apple etc. I hope you understand. You said sources to show, they are already been shown and added to the page. I guess all these are big websites and should be eligible to make a person appear on Wikipedia.
This is another collection of interviews about his company, quotes, and trivial mentions. All we seem to have here are a few rewritten press releases about how he took over as CEO of Millicom, and interviews where he talks about Millicom or the industry. I don't see much of anything outside of his role at Millicom. So why wouldn't we just merge to Millicom? - MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MrOllie Thanks for your reply. I understand some sources are not up to mark but others are good which surely meet WP:GNG. Also, I respect your Merge proposal but there are many people out there like me who do searches about the CEOs of the company. If you will check through the chart you will see he gets 1000+ page views per month. So, you can assume how many people are searching for him. https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=all-agents&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Mauricio_Ramos_(businessman)
Also, Another thing to note if you will see same another qualifications CEO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_%C3%81lvarez-Pallete You will see he have last coverage then Ramos. He only has coverage in Spanish. But Ramos has coverage in Spanish and English both. I guess he deserves a separate page for him. I hope you understand. Sugarikon (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sugarikon, we don't count pageviews for AfD, but anyway: most of the traffic to this article started because of this AfD, not before. MarioGom (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchaya Sudbanthad[edit]

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

Sources don't meet WP:GNG Pilean (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There appear to be a lot of third-party reviews and coverage of the novel, which itself would seem to be notable, but much less of the coverage is about the author himself. Those that focus on the author appear mostly to be interviews. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He has received attention and reviews from many major publications: NPR,Washington Post,NPR,Prestige,Ilmanifesto,Esquire,Straits Times,New York Times,Tampa Bay Times,Yes,Financial Times. I can't read Thai, didn't bother to try and translate and find because it is obvious to me with the coverage above, this author will have coverage in Thai sources.  // Timothy :: talk  14:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per reliable sources presented by TimothyBlue. Grailcombs (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by TimothyBlue. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikbal sandhvani[edit]

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

I placed a PROD on this article with the rationale "No evidence that the subject meets the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Nor does the subject requesting construction of a bus stop provide clear indication of attained notability." The article author Ikbal sandhvani then changed the PROD text, delinking the WP:POLITICIAN notability criteria. I am interpreting that change to indicate a PROD challenge, so I am now bringing this to AfD on the same rationale. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and has not achieved anything noteworthy. The title is not even capitalised properly. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Not worthy of anything and fails WP:BASIC Kichu🐘 Discuss 06:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete LoL! A minor politician, none of the offices he held would make him anywhere near notable according to WP:NPOL and I could not find significant coverage. Indian National Congress is a party not a legislative body. VocalIndia (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only coverage I can find is self-published twitter/facebook/youtube; not a word in news, and that would be absurdly unlikely for any active activist. The article was apparently created by the subject himself, and the editor's own user page has previously been deleted as promotional. This article seems to be one more self-promotional attempt. TJRC (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity self-promotion ploy. --Soman (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reliable sources not found. Non notable politician. TheDreamBoat (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOL, WP:MILL, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:DICDEF, and finally WP:SNOW. Non-notable politician - run of the mill community leader - no reliable sources - no record to speak of - such a short article it's not even a stub - and ultimately no regular editor will support its inclusion. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, No sign of notability Alex-h (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn clone on which people are entitled to start articles about themselves just it's technically verifiable that they exist. To be includable here, he would have to demonstrate significance, such as actually being elected to an WP:NPOL-passing office. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteFails WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rullo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL scope_creepTalk 14:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and also NFOOTBALL (if my reading of the USISL leagues at WP:FPL is correct - if not ping me please). GiantSnowman 18:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current sources fails in passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Hulatam (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage demonstrated nor is there anything found in a search. Google has nothing and ProQuest has a few passing mentions in college soccer match reports but nothing more; no focused attention on Rullo. The fact that this was apparently created due to WP:UPE (see messages on creator's talk page and their indefinite block notice) makes me feel even more strongly that we need to delete this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1175[edit]

AfDs for this article:
United Airlines Flight 1175 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was undeleted after a recent deletion review, but it should not have been - this failed notability guidelines at the time and still does. It was restored on the grounds that a single local news report from Honolulu, the NTSB report being published (even though having an NTSB report does not make an incident notable), and being very briefly mentioned in articles about the cowling which fell off a United plane in Denver constitute "new significant coverage." At the original AfD, I noted that this might be notable if coverage of the incident continued, but it didn't. Still fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT, WP:LASTING. SportingFlyer T·C 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Pratt & Whitney PW4000#PW4077 in United Airlines Flight 1175 where it's already mentioned. I'm not sure whether anything needs merging.----Pontificalibus 16:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an FYI to the closer, someone posted on the article talk page instead of here wanting to keep the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Too soon. Really, renom the day it is restored? First, the previous AfD is moot--that was then, this is now. And that AfD was littered with drive-by insubstantial or conclusion jumping comments that have not aged well. The restoration was not based on a single local news report--there was a significant NTSB investigation over two years with over 200 pages of PD text that can be used to improve the article. Notability is about coverage in RS, and NTSB is an exemplar of RS. It would be unusual if a non-trivial NTSB report was not sufficient all by itself to satisfy WP:N. NTSB does not pursue an investigation for months and years into something not notable. If something new is "mentioned" in relation to something old, then that means the old thing is still relevant. I would not characterize the new mentions as insignificant--I think that is not supported by a plain reading of the many mentions. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean that something in the news is not notable. WP:NEVENT is not really applicable two years later. WP:NEVENT is part of that, but specifically this event lead to an AD that initiated the 6500 cycle inspection interval, which was obviously insufficient since a subsequent failure occurred at less than 3000 cycles, and identified significant shortcomings that lead to major changes in the inspection process, that still did not prevent two subsequent failures.Dhaluza (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, if you click on first link from Find sources: Google (news) in the template, you get a new CNN article specifically about UA1175 that just briefly mentions UA328, exactly the opposite of the assertion in the nom: Andrew, Scottie (2021-02-22). "Another United Airlines flight experienced a right engine failure in 2018". CNN. Retrieved 2021-03-08. Dhaluza (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pratt & Whitney PW4000#PW4077 in United Airlines Flight 1175 per Pontificalibus, to make sure this incident stays recorded in the encyclopedia. Based on citations currently in the article, I agree with the nom that this is a case of NOTNEWS, and the arrival of an NTSB report 2 years later does not change my opinion on that. There should not be an article every time a part falls off of an airplane and (fortunately) nobody dies. StonyBrook (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sichuan Airlines Flight 8633 is notable for windshield crack while inflight despite having 0 casualties. Air Transat Flight 236 is also notable despite no casualties for suffering loss of all engine power above Atlantic Ocean. At the very least, this should be merged into Pratt & Whitney PW4000. SunDawn (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with the lack of casualties. There has been little subsequent coverage of the incident. What coverage existed has been very localised or was only in relation to another similar accident. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we have two articles stating the NTSB report is being released and an interview with the pilot from 2019, both from local Honolulu news sources; an article about a lawsuit; an article about the NTSB report which implicated a local factory; and two articles from national news sources which were only written because the same thing happened to another plane. We really don't have any substantive national coverage of the incident, and the coverage which exists is only in relation to another event. The mandate was a result of a subsequent accident. All of this can be covered over at Pratt & Whitney PW4000#PW4077 in United Airlines Flight 1175. It's not a notable enough air disaster for its own article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is basically a divide-and-conquer argument. You take each ref in a different context and dismiss it as not substantive, then conclude that the sum is no greater than any of its parts. If something keeps coming up in different contexts at different times, that's evidence of notability, not evidence of non-notability (which is something that cannot exist). Also you continue to make unsupportable assertions. The articles don't say the NTSB report is being released, they comment on the report which was already released. There's national coverage, I posted one link above that was written specifically about this incident. And the NTSB report docket was compiled by the *National* Transportation Safety Board. Also from WP:N: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So you are holding these refs to a higher standard for some reason. Dhaluza (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. The timeline on this one is easy. In 2018, the event happens. We delete on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. After it's deleted, the Honolulu news has two reports on it. This wouldn't make it notable. When the NTSB report comes out, two more articles get written on it. Still wouldn't make it notable. Suddenly the same thing happens to another United flight, and now this incident becomes notable just because there's an article written about it? That doesn't make any sense. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, but this was an incident which fails all of those concepts. We don't normally keep these sorts of articles, and as noted above, everything about this that needs to be kept can be discussed at the Pratt & Whitney article. This was routine, and there's no need for a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incorrect on the law and the facts. I've already addressed WP:N "Significant Coverage" above. You are pigeonholing the subject based on subjective judgement on the its perceived intrinsic characteristics (maybe based on past practice as you say), and just assuming the coverage of it meets your low expectations. As I said in the DR, there are 200 pages of public domain text from the NTSB (now excerpted in the article) so that more than clears the bar for WP:V which is the actual policy. But your assumption that this is a routine occurrence is not reality based. In flight engine shutdowns are down to around one per million flight hours for modern jets, which means most pilots will never experience one in their entire career. This was a fan blade out event which is even more rare. This caused a loss of the inlet duct, which is not supposed to happen. That made the aircraft unairworthy and turned the crew into test pilots--they were not simply following preplanned emergency procedures (aircraft controllability was not normal per the cites). Had the failure occurred further out, or if there was a depressurization, the flight probably would not have made HNL, and if they did not achieve a stabilized approach a go-around was not possible, per the Captain's subsequent interviews. So the aircraft was in imminent peril. There were two basic problems here, the engine failure, and the airframe failure caused by a system integration problem. Both needed significant corrective actions, so the article cannot simply be merged into the engine or airframe articles. Also the PW4000 section you propose to merge it to is flagged because it is overwhelming the article after an incomplete expansion. Dhaluza (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not wrong - the coverage is terrible, and this was not a significant incident, but let's let this AfD play out. SportingFlyer T·C 10:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested per WP:NOTNEWS. Aviation incidents are routine, and the level of detail in the article is pure aviation fancruft; it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia directed at a general audience. Sandstein 16:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the nom says the sources are still too thin to support an article, and this says the opposite, that the article is too thick. Obviously both can't be true. As for the unhelpful WP:fancruft comment, this is science fact, not science fiction, so that's a stretch. If this is applied science fancruft, is something like this mathematics fancruft that should be cut down to a stump and redirected? The lede sentence is inaccessible to a general audience, and it only gets deeper into the weeds from there. Dhaluza (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhaluza and others. This is a notable aviation event and that clearly fits Wikipedia notability and content guidelines. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As it is way too soon since the last DRV, I suppose the nom wants this solidly kept. As the DRV demonstrated, there has been significantly new coverage that has come to light since the previous AfD that further demonstrates notability. Oakshade (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: I have contested the DRV closure that undeleted this article at WP:AN#Review of DRV supervotes by King of Hearts. Depending on the outcome of that discussion this AfD may become moot. Sandstein 12:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-newsworthy. Why was there an article in the first place? The references presented above are typical of news reports that are created during a engine failure. I could find 300 engine failure reports, of a similar type, all over the world, in the last 2-4 of decades (some with deaths) and we could 300 similar articles, this time, in three months. That is how shallow and puerile these arguments are for keep. scope_creepTalk 17:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I should note that the arguments this is "too soon after DRV" are completely groundless. If something is recreated because new information has come to light, which is fine, they don't have any protection because they're newly recreated. In effect, they are in the same state as something created afresh the first time (i.e. you should give it a couple of hours to make sure they've dropped everything in, but we're well past that). I do not tender an opinion on whether the delete/keep grounds on actual policy bases are correct Nosebagbear (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's poor form to re-open AfD immediately after restoration for new info without giving editors time to make a good faith effort to add the new info. The article was not re-created, I had never seen the prior, so before I saw it restored, it already had an AfD ongoing. The result is that this discussion is defective because the earlier comments are on the old deleted article. A couple of hours is not enough notice. It's not reasonable to expect editors to keep the deleted article window open and continue to hit refresh like they at re trying to get a Covid vaccine appointment. We can wait a week to re-open an AfD just like we wait a week to close one. Dhaluza (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I explicitly said at DRV that I would send this to AfD if it were restored. The notability defects with this particular topic cannot be solved by editing, so it's really irrelevant when it gets nominated. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as is your right. But why the hurry? The basis of the DR was new info, which you dismissed out of hand. But how about WP:AGF and let the editors who found new evidence add it before starting a new AfD. What is the point of re-running the AfD without the new info? So now this AfD is defective because it started discussing the old article before the new info was added. Dhaluza (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three years after the event, it continues to be the subject of multiple news articles, rediscussing it, and discussing ongoing implications. Obviously meets WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT, WP:LASTING. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, after three years, WP:NOTNEWS should be well past it's expiration date! WP is WP:NOTANTINEWS either, as that essay explains. In fact NOTNEWS is actually short for What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper, which essentially boils down to Wikipedia should not read like a newspaper. It does not say that Wikipedia editors should not read the newspapers! Also WP:NEVENT, WP:LASTING do not say that a burst of news coverage is evidence of non-notability, because there is no such thing. A burst of news coverage is evidence of notability, but it may not be sufficient. But the goal posts are not movable, constantly staying just out of reach as more and more coverage accrues over time! I think these links are widely misapplied, and this discussion is no exception. Dhaluza (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if anyone wants to discuss the actual coverage and whether it is sufficient under WP:GNG, I've compiled a timeline. I did this to see if this was basically just a one-day story with only local interest as alleged. I found that the initial story was covered locally, nationally and internationally (including US and UK based reporters in English, plus non-English reporting) and there was continuing coverage in several local and national news markets (not to mention trade press and alternative media):
  • 2018-02-13 Day of news coverage in multiple local outlets in HNL that were picked up by national networks (CBS, ABC, NBC), plus AP, USA Today and byline stories in WP, NYT, NYP, IBD & BI which were carried worldwide, e.g. [12] also Daily Mail (UK)[13], Guardian (UK) [14] PerthNow AU [15] TheWest AU [16] AeroTelegraph (Zurich) [17]
  • 2018-02-14 Day after stories including passenger interviews and/or note that NTSB is sending two investigators, including ABC [18], CBS, UPI. Plus AD (NL)[19] Lidovky (CZ) [20] 20minutes (FR) [21]
  • 2018-02-15 Day 3 local interest story in Guam [22]
  • 2018-02-16 Day 4 story in SFGATE [23]
  • 2018-03-05 NTSB issues 7-page preliminary report, Washington DC [24]
  • 2018-03-06 & -07 NTSB preliminary report covered locally in HNL in multiple sources [25] [26]
  • 2018-10-29 NTSB issues 80-page Powerplants Group Chairman's Factual Report [27]
  • 2019-07-29 Flight crew get ALPA Superior Airmanship Award, PR pre-coverage plus KHON2 (HNL) interview.
  • 2019-08-05 After Ural Airlines Flight 178, RT did a review article on 6 incidents including UA1175 [28]
  • 2020-06-06 Coverage of lawsuit in Guam
  • 2020-06-30 NTSB releases 12-page final report Washington DC,[29] Local coverage HNL & SFO, AP, Bloomberg [30]
  • 2020-07-01 & 03 Coverage of Pratt responsibility in Hartford[31] CT and Brazil [32]
  • 2020-07-08 Aviation Week coverage of NTSB report [33]
  • 2020-08-09 National Geographic en Espanol [34]
  • 2021-02-21 Multiple source's news coverage of UA328 also includes commentary on UA1175. CNN covers UA1175 directly.
  • 2021-02-25 WSJ exclusively reports (previously undisclosed) ongoing Boeing 777-200 cowling redesign resulting from UA1175.
  • 2021-02-27 Transponder 1200 covers UA1175 (in Spanish).
  • 2021-03-24 Captain's interview on hometown KCRA Sacramento CA [35]
(additional links in the article and above)
  • So any suggestion that this was just a one-day local story is just not reality based. Even if you argue that the initial burst of international coverage in multiple languages is not enough for WP:N, the NTSB preliminary report should put this over the top because they are an independent WP:RS of national scope providing in-depth coverage. Then we have continuing coverage on different dates, in different sources, in different places, covering the subject from different angles. This is not a close call, under any reasonable interpretation of the guidelines. Dhaluza (talk) Dhaluza (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I think the most surprising one above is the RT piece. [[36]]. RT has obvious bias issues, but it's probably a good primary source for Russian propaganda. So I read this piece as trying to put the Russian pilots who brought their A321 to a forced landing in a cornfield in the company of Sully Sullenberger. But they didn't stop there, adding 5 other incidents to the list. So RT found United 1175 notable enough to use for propaganda purposes. Dhaluza (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article is deleted and incorporated into the article on United 328, it would be very complicated. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is based on WP:NOTNEWS which states that "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The topic here is nothing like that – it was a serious technical failure which has been the subject of extensive investigation, legal action and reportage over several years. There's a lot to say about it and, insofar as the result is lengthy, that's a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our policies WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't really like doing 'per' !votes, but this has been litigated quite a bit, so there's not that much room for a groundbreaking new position. In short -- I find the keep arguments persuasive and the delete ones not. I have qualms quite generally with people's interpretations of WP:NOTNEWS, which frequently range from questionable to outright unempathetic (I've had the experience of seeing people involved in recent disasters be extremely distressed by the AfD notice popping up on the article as they read it). Overall, I'm confident saying that this has sustained coverage, a meaningful impact, and fits what we'd consider a notable aviation incident to be. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Edeson[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG (which superseeds WP:NFOOTY) and being Hull City's youngest ever player does not make him notable per WP:BLP1E. Almost orphaned as the only article which links here is List of Hull City A.F.C. records and statistics. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep seems to pass WP:GNG with articles such as [37] and made multiple appearances. I also don't have a good source for mid-90s newspapers but there is a clip in that article. SportingFlyer T·C 14:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely meets NFOOTBALL, likely meets GNG. GiantSnowman 18:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A one-event journeyman. It is rampant WP:BIAS to have articles like this on such a scale. We are not supposed to be Anglospherepedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I couldn't find anything to add to the Hull Daily Mail article, which has very good coverage. Since Edeson passes WP:NFOOTBALL, I'm leaning keep here. I think we should only delete in these cases if the subject completely and utterly fails WP:GNG but that isn't the case here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTY and I assume we could find another source for GNG if we looked for contemporary coverage. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He passes WP:NFOOTBALL and the Hull Daily Mail article surely provides him enough coverage to pass WP:GNG too. Grailcombs (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resmi R Nair[edit]

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

Clickbait and incidental coverage are not a basis to maintain a BLP, and she doesn't have any achievements to be a notable, Fails WP:GNG Padavalam🌂  ►  11:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. GirthSummit (blether) 12:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DreamLab[edit]

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

Doesn't appear that there's anything about this App to meet WP:GNG - a cursory search indicates basically no coverage, much less significant coverage, from reliable sources. Taung Tan (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Nominator asked for AfD an article of mine not even 10 minutes after I asked for blocking them temporarily because of WP:NPA. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I dont think that the App is notable. If you believe the subject to be notable, participate in the deletion discussion. pls follow the rules. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fleiss[edit]

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

Non-notable hedge fund manager. Some mentions (like this one) exist, but they are trivial mentions and don't establish notability. Fails WP:BIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment his company Rebellion Research also doesn't look notable to me. This article contains almost the same information about Alexander Fleiss as his personal page. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that his inclusion on the cover of the Wall Street Journal as a profile piece should meet the grounds for notability. Rex123456058 (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While all of the information is not well supported, the company and Mr. Fleiss did receive significant coverage from major outlets including Bloomberg and Institutional Investor, seemingly reliable sources. He also appears to be early adopter of AI and machine learning in Wall Street trading. --Miaminsurance (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Somaliland passport. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Somaliland citizens[edit]

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

No sufficient context AINH (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as lacking content: at the moment it isn't even a stub, and it's not clear to me this could ever get past being essentially a how-to guide for tourists from Somaliland. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Other articles about visa requirements aren't how-to guides, and we should just add the content rather than delete an article that has potential for improvement. 4906h (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Somaliland passport. Somaliland has highly limited recognition, so this article clearly would not be of much use. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Somaliland passport, a page which actually discusses the topic. The only non-trivial content was removed as unsourced in 2019. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good discussion, with the consensus that the subject lacks sufficient notability for a stand alone article, and there is currently no place to merge or redirect to. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Galbraith[edit]

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

The subject is a WW2 soldier. There is no indication in the article of any notable achievements. The four included references do not demonstrate any "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". One is a two-man military fansite/blog, the others are tabloid sources that report the old man's return visits to his former battlefields. I bear no malice, but this article does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). WWGB (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Yes, he was not a war-hero or something like. But it looks like he meets WP:GNG (coverage in multiple and independent reliable sources). His death was in the news where I live in the Netherlands (1, 2, 3), but I see his death was also in the news in other countries, including France (5. An over an hour interview with him can be found via Youtube here 6. There is written about him here 7 that he was a private runner; he that he was interviewed by John Klein. A good biography can be found here 8; (on the website about Market Garden where he is one of the 26 persons described). There is also written about him here 9 with an interview here 10. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent His Wiki page does not demonstrate notability. However it COULD if it is built properly referring to sources like this (but if there has been no interest up until now to do this then I also have to question whether that will happen). A quick Google does reveal he is a "prominent" veteran of WWII who is often referred to in books and was interviewed a number of times in recent years etc. As we now live in a time where there are fewer and fewer WWII veterans alive (the youngest are now 94), the media is taking more of an interest in those who remain. As such, more cases like Galbraith will emerge where veterans become known as media personalities for their accounts, even if their involvement itself was nothing "extraordinarily significant" compared with many others who served. A bigger conversation needs to take place on Wiki as to where we draw the line with this. We're still years off the last few, but if cases like Galbraith arise in the meantime i.e. vets who have become "prominent" in the mainstream, then there is also an argument for their inclusion here too. This is a tricky case and I'm a little indifferent. I'll let other users decide. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. User:Jkaharper's comments are valid and noted but I don't think that Galbraith reaches that threshold. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: move and redirect? I agree with Jkaharper. Maybe at the page List of notable surviving veterans of World War II a new subsection could be created like Veterans receiving media attention after World War II; and the content of Bill Galbraith can be merged and the page be redirected. Also a solution for future veterans like Galbraith. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not the worst idea to move it, but the problem is where? List of notable surviving veterans of World War II is for exactly what it says on the tin – living people. I remember years ago there was a discussion on the List of surviving silent film actors talk page about whether we should have a recently deceased section but it was eventually decided that it was self defeating to the nature of the article (among other reasons, which I was eventually won over by). Now, such a page could be created e.g. List of notable veterans of World War II, with a general list and subsections for those who are not quite notable for their own pages but worthy of a mention (like what we do on pages such as List of American supercentenarians). The problem is someone has to flesh that out well and give it credibility first... and I'm not volunteering! I lean towards deleting this page for now, and then maybe he could be included elsewhere later IF such a collective page is created. Not much point leaving it in existence in the hope that such a list page will be created. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a soldier. No major coverage in national media. No major achievements. No more notable than any other soldier who fought in the world wars. We haven't yet got to the stage where all surviving veterans (or recently deceased veterans) of WWII are notable, although we will start to get there in a few years time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to being a notable soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding delete, merge or redirect votes. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elicia Maine[edit]

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

Non-notable Canadian academic. Probably should be moved to the draft space (the history of creation looks like WP:SPA). There are some independent reliable sources that mention her (Vancouver Sun 1, Vancouver Sun), but both are trivial mentions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion #5 by holding a named chair at SFU. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. She meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion 5. She won 2 awards, TD Canada Trust Distinguished Teaching Award and B.C.'s Most Influential Women 2018: Stem Stars. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I presume the nominator missed the named professorship (or missed that part of WP:NPROF). speedy keep isn't for wrong nominations, but WP:SNOW is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Withdrawing. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is not disputed that the subject meets inclusion criteria. It appears the subject meets the requirement because they have played five first class cricket matches, and there is a reliable source which provides this information. The argument for deletion is that the source requires payment. However, our verification policy says: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." - WP:PAYWALL. SilkTork (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Silva[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - copying from S. Devapriya, I'm sure we found there was a signifiant amount of information about cricketers who took part in the Saravanamuttu Trophy, if only I could remember where it was. I think it was information that has at least never made it to the Internet. Bobo. 20:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete functionally unsourced possible BLP (only link is to Cricket Archive.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above functionally unsourced possible BLP. Sliekid (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2003 Texas redistricting. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Ds[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. This article doesn't go into a whole lot of detail or demonstrate mostly independent notability that would require a separation from the main article, 2003 Texas redistricting. A considerable portion of the article is more dedicated to a list of state politicians who were involved in the event, which could easily be merged into the aforementioned main article without any problems. Love of Corey (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also small, useless articles revolving around 2003 Texas redistricting that do not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SPLIT:
Texas Eleven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Texas Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love of Corey (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually tried doing that first, but the lack of sourcing between all three articles in question made it impossible to create a decent, well-sourced article, hence my decision to file an AfD discussion instead. Love of Corey (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of pranks shown on Just for Laughs: Gags[edit]

List of pranks shown on Just for Laughs: Gags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we need this? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this? First of all, only the episodes of the first season are listed. And it is just that, just a bare list, and the titles are the exact ones JFL uses on their Youtube channel (wouldn't be surprised if the titles are copied either from there, or someplace else). The rest of the seasons are empty. No sources cited whatsoever. And to be frank, even if the list would be complete, I would still doubt its notability in a similar state like this (just the listing). If it would be complete, I would recommend to merge it with the article of the show, but in this state, I cannot recommend even that. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced, problems with WP:NLIST/WP:SALAT, and probably better for Fandom.com — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced fan cruft list Eopsid (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete impossible to handle such list here. Agletarang (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not the correct platform for this list. Non Notable list. TheDreamBoat (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it were actually possible to reliably source a proper episode list, featuring actual descriptions of the prank sketches, then maybe I might feel differently (but I'm still not guaranteeing that). But as a completely unsourced list of just the sketch titles, that's been completed only for the first season and has had virtually all of the followup seasons tagged as empty since 2014 without ever getting updated, sashay away. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Unsourced Alex-h (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Devokewater 10:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agitated Radio Pilot[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC; no significant coverage found. Unsourced since 2013. Lennart97 (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Win Maw Oo[edit]

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

PROD was denied, seems to me like a WP:BLP1E which shall be held online for reasons based on political activism, WP:ACTIVIST. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E explicitly says that it applies only to people who are still alive. WP:BIO1E applies to individuals who have died. Also, as the subject of this article is said to be notable because she was killed in the event that made her notable, we could look at WP:VICTIM: "The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." And it appears that there is at least one reliable independent secondary source already listed in the article with a title that says "28 years later". So this isn't just a person who was mentioned in sources at the time, but also mentioned in sources many years later. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Win Ma Oo is notable for more than one event: her death, her becoming an emblem for the opposition to Myanmar's government, and her widely publicized last rites 28 years later. Her page clearly does not violate any of the rules prescribing pages be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahire23 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Win Maw Oo has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. And it is clear that this is notable. So , it deserves to be kept.Marcus MT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A clear notable figure with significant coverage in major publications. Sliekid (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graymatics[edit]

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

The only potentialy reliable independent sources that are not straight PR publications or industry specific sources or mere notices of funding are 4/ and 7/ . But 7/ is a copy of a promotional announcement. I don't think 4/ by itself is enough for notability, especially considering this is a paid article. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sujayath Ali[edit]

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

Fails GNG. I could not find significant coverage in independent and secondary sources. Brief mentions and interviews do not count towards notability. He also does not inherit notability by being the co-founder/CEO of a company. M4DU7 (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per the findings by nom. I also could not find any significant coverage. Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's been two weeks and there have been no delete !votes. Saying this, the rationales for keep are very weak, but exist nonetheless. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Bansal[edit]

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

This article is just on the back of a WP:BLP1E. Fails Wp:GNG, WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event itself seems noteworthy, and notability has been established by RS coverage. And specifically with regards to the BLP1E argument, I don't think the conditions are met (also FWIW, I don't think it was intended for cases quite like this, although I could be wrong). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Flying around the world solo is certainly a notable historical achievement with major news coverage. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is really notable person with historical achievement. So keep. VocalIndia (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Contact me if anyone wants to develop this in draft space. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Muktar Dodo[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 04:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 04:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, reports of unexceptional career progression insufficient to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while unfortunately the single-sentence, that is the entirety of this article, doesn't offer much, there is a bit more to learn from the sources. The Col., who is the adjutant of the military academy (sounds like second in command), has been chosen to be the President's new Aide-de-camp (ADC), which apparently is also a special advisor and/or assistant to the President. It also seems that such ADC's go on to to become Brigadier General after their term. Perhap if there was more added to the page, it might be an article worth keeping, instead of an single sentence on the verge of deletion. (jmho) - wolf 02:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify If he has been chosen to be the President's new Aide-de-camp (ADC), but there is only a single sentence about him, I suggest incubating this in draftspace and finding more reliable sources first. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. There's nothing he's done that has been notable. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance 2020[edit]

Resonance 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced for over a decade; WP:BEFORE searches turn up unrelated topics. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Hao-yu[edit]

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

A slightly unusual one. The en.wiki article is a stub about a city councillor who I think would probably not pass WP:NPOL. However the zh.wiki article is massively refbombed with 106 sources. I am not sure about the reliability of some of them but in amongst all of this there may be a GNG pass. Hopefully someone familiar with the Taiwanese sources can shed some light. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning poem[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub from 2009; essentially a WP:DICDEF, searching for RS coverage yields no useful results. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expanded and cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; per Nikkimaria. Fine, useful, policy-compliant short article. Antandrus (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; As per Nikkimaria. Seems to pass GNG bar now. Hulatam (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely fits Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After Nikki's work is no longer a DICDEF, reasonable context for a reasonable article on an interesting and relevant topic. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeepani Vidya Nikethan[edit]

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

There may be sources in Malayalam to support notability, but otherwise I don’t think this school is notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for checking Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find anything about this school in a WP:BEFORE either. Although, admittingly I mainly looked for ones in English, but ones in Malayalam didn't come up either. So I agree with everyone else that the article fails WP:NORG and should therefore be deleted unless someone can come up with some good sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Holmes (cornerback)[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP (outside of organization bios); never played in the NFL so fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simar khera[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. The body of the article does not establish acting notability or general notability. Naïve Google search shows that the actor exists and uses social media. We knew that. It doesn't find any third-party coverage. Sources include social media profiles, and do not provide notability:

Note Number Independent? Significant?
1 Singing by subject No No
2 In South Asian script, but appears to be a profile No? No
3 Social media profile No No
4 Social media profile No No

Submitted and declined five times at AFC. Submitted a sixth time and rejected at AFC. Article is no better than the draft, and should not be in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nommed. Probably salt as well, if this keeps cropping up? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NACTOR minor film roles does not make someone notable, with very rare exceptions. Taung Tan (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current sources fails WP:NACTOR. Hulatam (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: a non-notable actor who fails WP:NACTOR, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Source no. 2 is in Punjabi, and is a very short news article. The title translates as "City artist launches song for Kisan Andolan". Rhythdybiau (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above and WP:TNT. What a mess. It would require many hours of work to fix the issues with this article, and I have real questions about his notability. Just because he's good looking does not mean he's notable. His film parts have been little more than Redshirts. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this guys? What rubbish is this? How massy? I mean you guys saying that Simar khera is non-notable actor and singer. Tell me one thing if Simar khera is non-notable then how he is available on google knowledge panel? You guys think that Google knowledge panel is for everyone? Is very easy task? No guys if you are notable then Google creats your name search knowledge panel ok. He played as main lead as negative lead as main villein in Nagara punjabi film The film was released in Punjabi International Film festival Toronto PIFF & International Film festival south asia IFFSA, I if you guys have knowledge about it then you know very well that this is not a small platform. he played lead guys not a small thing. Some of you says he didn't release is independent song. I mean really? Indipendent? What you mean by indipendent? Is you want that Simar khera will do all the things like (singing, writing, composition, music, editing mixing etc? Really ? Then what others can do.. oh come on Simar khera released his songs. If he don't notable then how his song article is published in The times of india , this not small news coverage. The times of india is one of the world's leading news portal. Guys if this article is in deletion section than doesn't mean that you have to find mistakes unnecessary without any reason or fullish reasons.. you can check why this article is in deletion section the reason is i was created Simar khera blanked by mistake because i was new on Wikipedia. So please guys it's my humble request please help Simar khera article for publish publicly.. I will attach links of Simar khera and his songs.. [1]
SONG LABEL
Kalla Rahenga (2019) Brand B
Itihaas Di Kitaab (2021) The Punjabi Tune

Available on

Spotity https://open.spotify.com/artist/2VodvWCBRLqSI3AoST2T52?si=uYIC5niaQTSeEEH54A9iEQ

Gaana https://gaana.com/artist/simar-khera

Apple Music https://music.apple.com/in/artist/simar-khera/1453844017?ls

Come on guys let's close the topic now. Simar khera is notable actor and singer. He worked as main lead so Please request you all that please <keep> Simar khera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Team Sukhjas (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Today's Media coverage [2] Please can we close the ADF topic now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Team Sukhjas (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ [1], [2], [3],[4]
  2. ^ https://www.naidunia.com/madhya-pradesh/indore-indore-news-to-remain-in-the-film-industry-it-is-necessary-to-keep-an-eye-on-6750572
  • He is notable actor and singer, a interview with any news channel is not easy thing.

"Simar khera interview on khabar madhya pradesh news channel" on YouTube

"Simar khera Interview with Tanishq Rajan on khabar madhya pradesh news channel" on YouTube — Mjagidar45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:57, 13 March 2021‎ (UTC).[reply]

"Simar khera's movie Nagara trailer. PIFF & IFFSA Toronto" on YouTube — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjagidar45 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern European Canadians[edit]

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

Including also:

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European people These articles are based novel synthesis and totally pointless. "Northwest european ancestry" is not specified in the official demographic surveys of these countries, and the included material is better covered in the articles of the more specific ancestries that constitute the synthesised concept of "Northwest european". Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: There's a lot more than that, see their userlinks page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This obviously isn't the first time, either on here or in the real world, that people have tried to reify whiteness into a unifying cultural identity that transcends nationality, but it's not working. As I've pointed out before, white people don't need to cling to our Europeanness as a central principle of our identities per se, because we largely get the privilege of already knowing exactly where our ancestors came from. We know if our ancestors were French or British or Irish or German or Polish or Swedish or Italian or Croatian. African-Americans, conversely, mostly don't have the luxury of knowing whether their ancestors came from Nigeria or Mali or the Congo or South Africa or Uganda, because slavery took that connection to their heritage away from them. So the generic label "African" is all that's actually available for most African-Americans to hang on to about their roots — but you don't need to cling to "European" as your central identity if you already know that your ancestors were specifically Dutch or Italian or Danish. So it's a false equivalency to insist that the existence of a thing called "African-American" mandates the parallel creation of a thing called "European-American", because "European" Americans already have easy access to much more specific and concrete details about our exact ancestral heritages than most African Americans ever will. White fragility sucks, and I'm a white guy saying that. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, this concept does not exist. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources provided by Cunard seem to have shifted consensus in favor of keeping in light of significant coverage. Go Phightins! 11:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Roboto Project[edit]

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

topic only has local notability, doesn't warrant independent article Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The venue is notable. [1][2][3]. Based on the references, this is not just some random venue, but have strong significance to punk and DIY culture in the general area. This satisfies WP:GNG in my opinion. SunDawn (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this was kept easily a few years ago and I expect it to be kept again (especially since the nomination isn't strong), but I'm not sure WP:CORPDEPTH is satisfied, even looking at the old AfD. I really don't care which way this one goes at this point but looked at this and wanted to make those points. Also agree with all of the tags currently in the article (WP:PROMO, WP:NORG) which weren't taken care of after the last AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 18:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local project with only local references. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and DGG. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm open to arguments about why the first 3 sources provided by Cunard aren't acceptable, but they seem fine--the first in particular. So meets WP:N and thus our inclusion guidelines. The first source *appears* to be stelar. It's from the UK and goes into great detail. If the author of the chapter has a significant COI, that could change things. I can't find anything about them. Note, per above, I was pinged Hobit (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, note to closer: If this gets kept, ping me and I'll try to get the better sources integrated into the article and expand it a bit. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (thanks Cunard for the ping:)), dont see anything that changes my !vote from previous afd, reading above, some editors appear to be upset/annoyed that article has not been improved/cleaned up but this is not a reason to bring it back to afd, if need be, should have been discussed on talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Cunrad's additional sources, there is even a book about this, which I added to the content just now. Lesliechin1 (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per all above and espescially additional sources provided by Cunard. Grailcombs (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States gubernatorial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

United States gubernatorial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have an article covering governors' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United states, and that's U.S. state and local government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Anything about criticism of certain governors' responses (which isn't even covered at length in this article) can be brought up there. Love of Corey (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. This article is unneeded as governor response could go to COVID-19 pandemic in the United states, which is way more developed. Not to mention that there is nothing on this article. This may even qualify for speedy delete. SunDawn (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That could work too! Love of Corey (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? Love of Corey (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Protest[edit]

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

Regurgitated sources and a normal song shouldn't have a standalone article. Rather should be either deleted or merged into MC Kash. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 03:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my AfD nomination because this article was earlier discussed at AfD And was Kept. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 03:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 03:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 03:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 03:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Ashwal[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. It could be speculated also that Mohammed Al-Ashwal seems to of created the page about himself as this is Msh022000's only contribution to wikipedia in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yinglong999 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a two time medalist at the world championships, I believe it's been shown that he has successfully competed at the highest level of his sport. I believe that meets the intent of WP:NSPORT and clearly meets the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE). Although I don't speak or read Arabic, I think it's reasonable to believe that plenty of coverage could be found on him in Yemeni media. Papaursa (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability within the sport of wushu taolu/sanda is very difficult to define. It relies on a complicated combination of prestige within the sport in terms of victories or appearances, local or national media coverage, and a loosely defined oral tradition built by the community. Due to these factors, not all winners at the World Wushu Championships should be automatically assumed as being notable. Even some of the most renowned athletes at the WWC, Lindswell Kwok for example, have achieved much more general recognition outside of the wushu community from victories at the SEA Games and the Asiad, two competitions which some wushu practitioners view as having a higher level of prestige compared to the WWC (due to various complicated reasons). For athletes outside of Asia though (for example, taolu athletes Jade Xu and Daria Tarasova, and sanda athletes Cung Le and Muslim Salikhov), they owe their success exclusively to the WWC. Now after doing some research, I have learned that Mohammed Hussein Al-Ashwal has earned 2 out of the 3 medals Yemen has earned at the WWC, thus he is Yemen's most renowned wushu athlete. I could see a case for keeping because of this. Yinglong999 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus appears to be headed towards keep per nominators reply to Papaursa. Re-listing as further discussion seems likely to lead to a more clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kstern (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purbeck Folk Festival[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Kstern (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is drowining in articles sourced only to the subject's own website, we need to find a way to fix this now. If it is still a problem when 2022 starts things will truly reach a level of unacceptability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of hits in ProQuest and Google News. It was a "Top Pick" in The Telegraph's list of Britain's 100 greatest music festivals Piecesofuk (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator doesn't state whether or where they looked for coverage. The other delete !vote (as usual) lacks any valid argument for deletion. There is quite a bit of coverage around, albeit fairly local, e.g. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. I can't see the Telegraph coverage linked above, but I think there's enough to support an article. --Michig (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded a bit using the sources above and additional research. Needs a page move to "Purbeck Valley Folk Festival", which I won't do unless it's kept. Is it notable? Borderline, I think; there's plenty of coverage, but it's almost all very local; there is more I haven't examined closely, including a paper: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-09-2015-0039. — The Earwig (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelia Mengin[edit]

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

BLP of festival director, does not meet WP:NBIO. The festival could be notable, but this is not inherited by its director. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Réunion is French, so most coverage is going to be French. She seems to get some coverage for her work as a film director:
If you add in the sources listed in the article, this amounts to decent coverage for a city-state island of under a million people, far off the east coast of Southern Africa. Her French Wikipedia article gives a larger view of her notability, including awards for the film, although the sourcing is not terrific.--- Possibly (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Kolma8 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough RS in French and is notable in Réunion. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable and the nominator has withdrawn. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significantly awarded and original nomination to delete has been withdrawn. Stuhunter83 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSK no. 1 (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YAML (framework)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic with no RSes about it. The framework is 6 years outdated and so expansion isn't possible. The article is just a basic description and license info, and is unable to be expanded further.  Nixinova   T   C   01:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to be a lot of information about this in this book and a big whole section dedicated to it in this one. Mottezen (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: YAML not being update anymore doesn't mean that it is not notable. SunDawn (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, sources found, article expanded. Nixinova   T   C 18:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jyukai (band). (non-admin closure) — MarkH21talk 19:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ai no Hoshi/Hanamuke no Melody[edit]

Ai no Hoshi/Hanamuke no Melody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. No significant coverage or any other indication of notability. I suggest redirecting to Jyukai (band). Lennart97 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It charted #115 on Oricon (source). lullabying (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jyukai (band) as suggested by the nominator. Its chart position in Japan is not particularly impressive. Via searches for its native Japanese, translated Japanese, and English titles, I can find nothing else but the typical streaming and retail listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a rough consensus that the school is notable under WP:GNG or even WP:NORG.

Two of the deleting !votes (includes nomination) are based on the promotional nature of the article, but editing is preferred over deletion if this is the reason for deletion and the article is not unambiguously promotional. As of right now, the article does not fall under G11.

There is one delete !vote that is based off of pupil capacity, but this is hardly based on policies or guidelines.

The major policy relevant and discussed here is notability. As the subject is a school, the applicable policy is WP:NSCHOOL. As no sources have indicated that it is for profit, meeting either WP:GNG or WP:NORG is enough.

There are some delete !votes discussing notability that are based on sources in the article, but notability is not based on the sources in the article only, so those !votes are given less weight.

For keep !votes, the sources in the article and discussion have been checked roughly, and there are no significant problems found that affect the weighting significantly. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 11:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oakdale Christian Academy[edit]

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

1. This article was initially created for promotional purposes. The creator of the article was David Bolthouse, the founder of The Envoy Group and Exceed Marketing which promotes, markets, and edits the online appearance of religious and therapeutic programs. This article was just created to increase the school's online appearance. You can see he created many other articles like these to increase online appearance of many other schools (many of which were deleted). 2. Provides no information about the school's programs and academics – just basic information and a bit of history. Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 00:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 00:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 00:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 00:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - regardless of who created it, that was two years ago, and the article has radically changed since then. Neither of the reasons are offered are valid reasons for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Fails WP:NCORP. This is a business operating as a school, so NCORP applies. The general taboo against deleting "school" articles does not. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean it's a "business operating as a school"? You realize the school has been around for 100 years, don't you? StAnselm (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So it can't be a business? It's a private organization "established in 1921 by Elizabeth E O’Connor." Mere existence is not sufficient. What is needed is to find sufficient coverage in RS to meet the requisite notability requirement. There is not even sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a business (operating for profit) add that to the article, with a reference. It's verifiably a school, for which WP:NCORP says WP:GNG is sufficient. Peter James (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
updating deletion rationale per Adamant1 and TimothyBlue. The most recent link I saw does not meet sourcing requirements to establish notability. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The sources in the article are extremely trivial, I can't find anything that isn't, and I don't think the school is old enough or has the importance as an educational institution to make a "keep because of history" type argument. Maybe if it was built in the early 1800s, had some extremely notable alumni, or was in the national register of historic places, but it wasn't, doesn't, and isn't. So, I'm not seeing what's worth keeping about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability for schools are WP:NHS and this article, in my opinion, passes the bar. The first source, from the NCES, clearly shows that the school indeed existed, and authorized by the government. A reference from WYMT also shows that the school indeed exist on the area, which is independent enough from the school and reliable enough. WP:NHS clearly sets that schools are rarely removed, unless they fail verifiability, and the school mentioned didn't fail verifiability. Private schools should be judged using WP:NHS not WP:CORP. SunDawn (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was an RfC recently where it was decided that the subject specific notability guidelines are the standard over WP:GNG. So, the proper notability guidelines in this case would be WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case for all SNGs, see Wikipedia talk:Notability. With some exceptions such as corporations or academics SNGs are mainly indicators as to whether GNG will be passed, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to Delete per new information. Agreed that it didn't pass WP:NORG. SunDawn (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically the section about schools, where the GNG is mentioned. Peter James (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are, in fact, loads of loads of sources. It should be noted that the school was previously called "Oakdale Christian High School", and before that "Oakdale Vocational School". StAnselm (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Parther, Paul (1995-07-29). "'They've Got That Loving Attitude' Rural Christian School Making A Difference". Lexington Herald-Leader. Archived from the original on 2021-03-08. Retrieved 2021-03-08.

      The article provides a substantial profile of Oakdale Christian High School.

      The article notes that Oakdale Christian High School is nestled between two Breathitt County hills. The school does not promote itself so people in Kentucky largely do not know about it. Founded in 1921, "Oakdale has been quietly changing the lives of rural, poor and at-risk boys and girls from the Eastern Kentucky mountains -- and from as far away as Zimbabwe, India or the ghettos of New York City." The school is non-denominational. It has a tiny budget. "Its classrooms and dormitories are furnished with desks and beds that look as if they were picked up at flea markets." The school's academic dean receives a monthly salary of $800, which is more than most employees. Each school year, the school enrolls 40 students. Although the tuition ranges from $3,000 to $3,500, numerous students are unable to pay such an amount. Oakdale allows them not to pay the full amount if they have good grades. The school receives 70% of its revenue through donations. "The school was founded by the Free Methodist denomination as a vocational school for mountain children, said David Tullar, a former Oakdale president. Its role changed as the Free Methodist Church's priorities shifted from domestic to foreign missions. The church turned the school over to an independent board, and improvements in county roads made it possible for local children to attend public schools."

    2. Crawford, Byron (2001-02-04). "Students find hope at small Kentucky school". The Courier-Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-03-08. Retrieved 2021-03-08 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article provides a substantial profile of Oakdale Christian High School.

      The article notes that Oakdale Christian High School is "in the rugged Eastern Kentucky mountains". The school has 40 students in seventh grade through twelfth grade. It has 17 employees of whom four are full-time teachers, two are administrators, and two are part-time teachers. The principal is Tim Huff, 34, who is married to Lois. The husband and wife are Oakdale alumni who returned to the school as teachers. The school changed to have a "rigorous curriculum" roughly six years prior, leading to around 66% of its students in the last five years attending college. Some of its students have entered pre-med and engineering programs. The school was run by the Free Methodist Church between the early 1920s and 1960s. It gave up both ownership and control a board of trustees. Oakdale continues to have a relationship with the Free Methodist through hosting a chapel from the denomination. The school charges $8,100 for room and board and tuition which a number of the families can afford. The school relies on funding from 750 donors, several foundations, and roughly 50 churches to pay the rest of the tuition. Its operating costs, which is inclusive of salary costs, is roughly $340,000. The principal said in 2001 that only four students could pay the full tuition that year.

    3. "Ex-military school may get second life". The Courier-Journal. Associated Press. 2008-01-30. Archived from the original on 2021-03-08. Retrieved 2021-03-08 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article provides a passing mention about Oakdale Christian Academy.

      The article discusses Millersburg Military Institute "limp[ing] on as" Forest Hill Prep Academy which was shut down. The article notes, "Kentucky's only other boarding schools are Oakdale Christian Academy in Jackson and Oneida Baptist Institute in Oneida."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Oakdale Christian Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia has rules against promotionalism for a reason, and if we do not enforce them to remove unaccepable promotional content they will have no meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This school was founded in 1921 and certainly is notable in the Jackson, Kentucky area. It certainly meets WP:NSCHOOL and is now in a stub-like state. Even if initially promotional, such content can be removed or rewritten. Enough RS to back it up. Clearly historical and has substantial document as Cunard mentions. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources in the article do not meet SIGCOV from IS (eg database listings). There is routine run of the mill local news coverage, I think any community school receives this type of coverage and its nothing that makes this an encyclopedic topic. Looks like a nice school, but I do not think the article and above meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  04:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oakdale Christian Academy has not received "routine run of the mill local coverage". It was profiled in detailed articles in the Lexington Herald-Leader in 1995 and The Courier-Journal in 2001:
    1. The Courier-Journal is the highest circulation newspaper in Kentucky and is based in Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky (the largest city in Kentucky).
    2. The Lexington Herald-Leader's paid circulation is the second largest in Kentucky and is based in Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky (the second-largest city in Kentucky).
    Oakdale Christian Academy is based in Jackson, Breathitt County, Kentucky. That the two largest newspapers in Kentucky (which are both based in different counties than Oakdale Christian Academy) published profiles of Oakdale Christian Academy strongly establishes that the school is notable and passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools.

    Cunard (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Re: "routine run of the mill local coverage." I think the "local coverage" thing comes from the fact that the sources you mention are from local areas and mostly cover local news. Therefore they are not regional or national sources in the way something like USA Today for example would be. While I've never been 100% sure about how the notability guidelines define terms like "regional" or "national" I would assume it means in what type of news source it is. Not where it is geographically local. Otherwise, a "local" newspaper covering something that happens in the next town over would be considered "regional" coverage. Which I don't think is in the spirit of the notability guidelines. I could be wrong about that though. But I don't think anyone would argue a subject is more notable if it is covered in the New Times versus "pick any local newspaper that happens to be a few towns away from where the subject is located." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the two largest newspapers in Kentucky profiled Oakdale Christian Academy is enough to meet the "statewide" or "regional" source requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says, "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary."

    The guideline does not require national sources like USA Today or The New York Times. Coverage in two statewide or regional sources is sufficient.

    Cunard (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I brought up USA Today is because The Courier-Journal is part of the USA Today Network. Not because I think notability requires coverage like it. That aside though, there is no citation for the fact that it is the highest circulation newspaper in Kentucky. At least not in the lead of the article where that statement is made. More importantly though IMO, according to the article it's daily circulation is 131,208 people. When Kentucky has a population of 4.468 million. So, I would hardly call it that large as far as readership goes. Louisville alone has a population of 615,924 people. I'm sure they are getting their news from somewhere. So, even if it can be substantiated that the Courier-Journal is the highest read Kentucky, that's rather meaningless IMO. You could do the same thing with any kind of publication to make something notable. For instance something like "Philadelphia Basket Weaving Monthly" being the largest circulated basket weaving population in the Philadelphia tri-state area doesn't necessarily make something they discuss in their publication if they are only basket weaving publications in Philadelphia and their readership is 10. While the other one has 5 readers. At that point, really so what if they are the most read basket weaving publication in Philadelphia? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one that brought up the amount of readership. I could really care less about it. Otherwise, your just arguing for this being notable through inheritance. Plus, NORG doesn't say anything about the size of a paper or it's size compared to other outlets matter anyway. So, It's not something I put weight into myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that there's a widespread consensus that the largest daily newspaper (as measured by circulation) in any US state is sufficient for NORG. NORG only requires one (1) non-local source. Local sources still "count" towards notability according to NORG. AUD's purpose is to say that if you only get coverage in a local/neighborhood newspaper (the sort that runs "news" about whose grandkids are visiting this week), then that's not sufficient. You need coverage in a source that doesn't run anything and everything just because they need to fill both sides of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NORG doesn't say that the existence of 1 non-local source automatically makes something notable though. It just says it's a "strong indication of notability", not that it is. So I'm not really sure what your point is. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian is a national newspaper in the UK and its circulation is now less than that; even in 2013 (the year used for The Courier-Journal) it was only 189,000. Circulation is less relevant now most people use the websites instead of the printed newspapers. Peter James (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. The reason I brought it up though was in response to Cunard saying that this school is notable because it was covered in the popular newspaper in Kentucky. Surely if circulation numbers are less relevant now, then by implication it would also be less relevant now if something is covered in a newspaper that has the most circulation in a particular region. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG (and WP:ORG, although that is not necessary). Peter James (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete -- While I have no concern over the reliability and sourcing of the content, I have grave doubts as to whether any school with a mere 60 pupils is notable. this shows an average of 10 pupils per grade, with slightly more in higher grades than lower ones, perhaps reflecting transfers from other schools for the High School progam. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article clearly meets GNG and NORG both. A detailed article in the state's official paper of record, and another in the paper in the biggest city in the state, the Courier-Journal, a paper long considered (with the Cleveland Plain Dealer) to be some of the best journalism outside big cities in the country. The fact that such a small school has attracted such note makes it more notable, not less. 174.254.194.134 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:NORG with substantial coverage in multiple regional reliable sources as identified by Cunard so deletion is unnecessary and not validated in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_March_7&oldid=1012799015"