Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 07	March 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mottezen (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. It's notability cannot be inherited from working with some notable artists and having a notable parent company. Only mentioned in passing in local newspaper. Last AfD had no participants, but the soft delete ruling was immediately challenged. Mottezen (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this was the source linked in the undelete request. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a local source, so it fails WP:AUD. Mottezen (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as challenger of the soft delete. The roster list has enough noteworthy names, in my estimation, to meet WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels. The Minnesota Daily article is substantial, though the publication is from a university; there's also a Billboard piece from 2009 ([1]) and MPR ([2]). Since this is a Warner subsidiary, even in the worst case, we would not want a redlink here, but rather a merge to a better parent article. Chubbles (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, none of these sources establish the company's notability. The MPR source fails WP:AUD, just like the Minnesota Daily. The billboard article was written by the President of the company, and is therefore a WP:PRIMARY source.

The noteworthiness of names on its roster list is irrelevant because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. And if it can't even meet WP:NORG, it certainly doesn't "meet WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels".

As for a merger with Warner, I don't think it would be useful. None of this text is noteworthy enough to make it to that page, and an unexplained redirect to a company mostly know for its film studio will lead to confusion. Mottezen (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, at all, see the link between NORG and NMUSIC. What are you judging NMUSIC#5 by? In fact, it demonstrates that a record label is indeed known for its artistic output. What makes a record label notable? A record label becomes notable when its output influences art and culture, by genre or geography, per COMMONSENSE. Therefore a record label does not inherit notability because of it's notable artists, but because a roster of notable artists are a strong indication of its influence on culture and art. On the other hand, I'm not sure this is a Warner subsidiary. They have a distribution deal, but so do a lot of other labels. To me, this is a case where notability is not inherited by its association with a notable distribution channel.

Analyzing the sources put forth by Chubbles, MPR passes AUD with flying colors, I rather flummoxed anyone would think statewise public radio is only local coverage. I agree that the Billboard piece (usually an excellent source) is not independent coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:53, 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete votes. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Henretta[edit]

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

Delete There is no significant coverage of the author outside of his own writings. Therefore, the general notability guideline is not met. Glenn984 (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator The author does meet the notability guidelines. Glenn984 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Glenn984 (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Glenn984 (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks to me like he meets WP:PROF and it's vaguely expressed 'average professor test'. His textbook, America's History, has run through at least 9 editions, and I am finding several book reviews that are focusing not just on his books but on his career, including one entitled, "Will the Real James Henretta Please Stand Up?" which in and of itself suggests he is better known than the 'average professor' and another that calls him, "one of the leading colonial historians of the current generation". Agricolae (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just having a textbook doesn't clearly provide a standard of notability. Many professors have written textbooks, but there's no clear evidence he's above the average professor, especially since his textbooks are his most prominent work. There are numerous textbook authors without Wikipedia pages.
With regards to the article "Will the Real James Henretta Please Stand Up?", the quote you cite does not appear to be in the document even with a text search. Also, this article is just an isolated commentary on a book, which is also quite common and average for a professor. Besides this article and mentions online, there is very little information about him that would make him notable. If he truly made a "significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline" as set forth in WP:PROF, there would be much more coverage.

Glenn984 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You are aware that book reviews contribute to author notability, right, Glenn984? You've also included a general WP:WAX argument and that guys your rebuttal. He doesn't need to be above the "average professor" as that individual is in your mind. He simply needs to meet any notability criteria. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When a JSTOR search for book reviews for "James Henretta" turns up almost 200 results, with the first one being "Will the Real James Henretta Please Stand Up?" and with the third one being "Forty Years of Salutary Neglect: A Retrospective" concerning one of his books, I think we can say that WP:AUTHOR is clearly met without even going into detail on the many reviews of his books, and that the nominator's claim that "There is no significant coverage of the author outside of his own writings" is so blatantly false as to call into question whether the nominator made any attempt at WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, 6 contributions with over 100 citations in a low citation field make this clearly a very well known professor that passes NPROF without question. --hroest 02:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve: the article was created by a sockpuppet of User:Novonium, but escaped deletion because there had been some work done on it by other editors, but it still bears the Novonium hallmarks of not saying much of interest. That "Will the real JH stand up" could be a useful addition, as a book review which discusses JH, and the "Forty years.." mentioned above shows that scholars were talking about him 40 years later and would be useful for expanding the article (Perkins, Edwin J. “FORTY YEARS OF ‘SALUTARY NEGLECT’: A RETROSPECTIVE.” Reviews in American History, vol. 40, no. 3, 2012, pp. 370–375., www.jstor.org/stable/41678577. Accessed 9 Mar. 2021.). (Too much to do today in RL to be able to SOFIXIT). PamD 09:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have added Perkins ref. Now need to talk to estate agent and lawyer about house sale completion date etc. Over to you. PamD 09:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the reviews exist for author notability and there is enough coverage and a fellowship to argue for academic notability as well. Article needs improvement, but that's not AfD's purpose. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My apologies. It seems I've been mistaken on the rules for article deletion. Glenn984 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You need to strike your nomination with a note that you withdraw it, I believe. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep definitely meets WP:PROF. Notable.--Kemalcan (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per all above. Over 100 citations for multiple publications. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Article reads like a bloated PR exercise or LinkedIn profile. A review of the sources reveals that the subject clearly does not meet WP:GNG, which requires "Significant coverage" [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail. If there is no consensus to delete, I suggest WP:TNT and a rename. It is very likely that this page was created in exchange for undisclosed funds. KidAd • SPEAK 21:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The subject is a unique example of a journalist and author -- a founding MSNBC president -- AND a tech entrepreneur. I worked for years as an engineer in the telecoms industry, and Kinsella was very well known for building the largest fiber-optic company in Europe. As for "Significant coverage" [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail, please click on the links from articles in the entry from the New York Times, The Guardian as well as publications from MIT and the European Commission, among others. For most of my time in telecoms, there was no openly gay CEO of a major telco -- in the US or Europe. And, yes, I'm gay, too, so the entry is of particular interest to me and, I suspect, to others who might be interested in the visibility of LGBTQ professionals. The subject and what he's done IS noteworthy; not just to me, but to people in general. You can see that from the number of people viewing him in any week or month. Brandon Lapin (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Brandon Lapin.[reply]

I suggest you review WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:STRIKE your inappropriate and bad faith accusations of homophobia. Your accusations are not appropriate for a deletion discussion, or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. KidAd • SPEAK 04:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KidAd, with all due respect, you should not have cast aspersions of paid edits against other editors without any evidence, either. While it does appear that Mr. Lapin's original wording was unnecessary, and he has changed it, you may wish to consider that you failed to assume good faith in your description of this AfD. Good faith is a two-way street, and while it does not justify an uncivil response, you did kinda start things off on a really sour note. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started cleaning up the article. It wasn't especially peacocky; there is good substance and plenty of sources I haven't reviewed yet. Hoping someone else will add more sources so I can vote informed. Brandon Lapin, where you wrote "in defense of entry": change that to "keep". We vote "keep" or "delete" here. Cheers. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep Seems notable in the past based on the early sources used. Being gay is neither here nor there, although we do try to include such individuals in the Wiki to reduce bias towards them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If the article itself is factually correct, then the subject must be notable. Former Vice President at Microsoft, President of MSNBC.com, Chairman and CEO of World Online, Chairman and CEO of Interoute Communications, etc. Look, even if he was a figurehead (and I see no reason to assume this), simply holding those roles should have generated significant reliable sources about the subject. And I see that at least one of those companies, World Online, appears to have been involved in some sort of controversy around the time of the dot-com bust, which ought to have generated even more coverage and thus more RS. In addition to the sources already cited, it may be worth looking through the relevant articles on those other companies to see if they contain further good sources that mention Mr. Kinsella. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I made some early contributions to this entry. He is well known in tech in Europe, for two companies he ran. In the US, probably the MSNBC connection is best known. Some comments above were very helpful, and I made some changes, too. I hope the entry stays. I want to do a translation in French (I contribute both in French and English). Bicjic (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)bicjic[reply]
Keep: Appears to be notable, particularly for earlier part of career but one does not lose notability, right? Definitely needs to be cleaned up as it does read like a resume or bioMiaminsurance (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable based on the sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced article on executive/entrepreneur. Meets notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as President of MSNBC Digital (not the whole NBC), he should be notable. I am not !voting because after a search online, I discovered that we have at least one close friend in common and possibly more (we might even have attended the mutual friend's wedding). Bearian (talk) 23:42, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polis (app)[edit]

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

Brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. Dead company. scope_creep^Talk 21:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The website redirects to Ad Practitioners that purchased them. Even then, I don't see them as being notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP --Devoke water 10:50, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sawtell[edit]

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

I'm not seeing a passing of WP:GNG or WP:BIO here. My searches are only coming back with profile pages and incidental match report coverage, nothing significant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails in passing GNG. Sliekid (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reliable sources not found. Non notable football referee. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. fails GNG and BIO. Not notable. --Kemalcan (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not sure that refereeing two games counts as notable. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sur (artist)[edit]

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

fail to see how this meets WP:NMUSIC perhaps its too soon but he's never charted and aside from a one off in a tv show here and there, i don't see anything that would make him notable and certainly don't see any meaningful coverage CUPIDICAE💕 20:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His music may be in video games and tv shows, but he doesn't seem to have much media coverage about it other than just a listing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Nothing significant to include here. Sliekid (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 19:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you kidding he is clearly notable with a big fan following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.46.195.121 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For having a big fan following and for being featured in big platforms. He is a young superstar and will achieve soon more. Stopslabs (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could not be more obvious if you tried. His big fan following of 3k people? That's totally massive. CUPIDICAE💕 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks RS coverage to back up claims. Sources that are provided are user submitted/or amateur. In fairness, "Sur" is a word/term that has multiple uses so it's not an easy word to google to attach to this subject. An additional search under his given name turns up RS coverage for an athlete who shares same name, but nothing for this subject. Fairly blatant use of wikipedia for promotional purposes. Having a couple of "keep" arguments from SPA edits--including one who attempted to remove the AfD tag--doesn't help. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians. If kept we should rename it to Sur (musician).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 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 speedy delete. Deleted as a CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Kumar Pandey[edit]

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

Ref 1 is a Press Release for his book launch, Ref 2,3,4,5,6 are either profiles and his personal website, Ref 7(Firstpost hindi) has covered his book. Putting it up for discussion just because i'm confused that would Ref 7 be sufficient to demonstrate the notability as per WP:RS. and even if it does it doesn't cover the subject significantly. So a article can be created for the book and this be merged into that then. The awards recieved aren't notable as well. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 20:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 20:23, 8 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} 20:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but as a G7 request. I've had forgotten to declare the COI earlier, which is declared here User:TheAafi/COI. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been G7ed by Liz upon my request, please feel free to speedy close this nomination. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 16:20, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

René Rogalla[edit]

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

Passing mentions in match reports do not add up to passing WP:GNG. I can find no evidence that this referee gets more than that. This article is more than a passing mention but it's published by the bank that he worked for for several years, so does not count towards GNG, which requires the significant coverage to come from reliable sources independent of the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a lot of profiles, found this article [3], a bit of a mention here, there was a funny small note image on reuters, but there is no in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty sure refereeing a single major match does not make one notable. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Bade[edit]

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

No evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG; I have also checked the German Wikipedia article but there is only routine transfer coverage on there. Doing my own WP:BEFORE search in German yielded nothing better than another transfer announcement and an injury announcement which are both well short of the mark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did an additional search for the individual and found no sources passing WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Sliekid (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are weak and notability not found. Non notable football player. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renova Energy Corporation[edit]

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

Brochure article, advertisement. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGCRIT. scope_creep^Talk 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn Obit + 8 papers with more 100 citations each, proves notability. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 21:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dolbeer[edit]

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

Potentially notable, [4] Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 19:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep an independent obituary as well as 8+ articles with > 100 citations each in a field that presumably has low citation rates? Seems like a clear pass of WP:NPROF for an ornithologist. --hroest 21:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hannes Röst: Is that RA Dolbeer, on GScholar. Is that him? I wasn't sure. scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

given the obituary "Most notably, he is one of a few individuals who recognized, early on, the cost in lives and property due to wildlife collisions with aircraft" and the papers he wrote "Ranking the hazard level of wildlife species to aviation -- RA Dolbeer, SE Wright, EC Cleary - Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2000 - JSTOR" as well as the address on these papers (US Department of Agriculture) it is very clearly the same person. --hroest 21:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well if your sure, I'm to close this. Thanks. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 21:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Go Phightins! 11:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Shanmugha Educational Institutions[edit]

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

No single source cited before now. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 18:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 18:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources to establish notability and written like advertisement. The article is ceeated from a single purpose account. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sources provided by from same party. Notability not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Degree-awarding institution or not, prior consensus and the notability guidelines are clear that private schools should be treated no differently then any other private organizations when it comes to them following the notability guidelines. Which this school doesn't due to the lacking state of the sourcing. So, there's zero guideline or consensus based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination's unsupported claim has been refuted and so it already seems apparent that there is no consensus to delete. See WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 14:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wadhurst Park[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 18:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The house (called "The New House") and its environs were Grade I-listed last year (almost unheard of for a building under 30 years old). This status is given as "buildings of exceptional interest", sometimes considered to be of greater than national importance. (Also note the extensive source list at the bottom of the listing entry.) The estate as a whole is also covered in an unusually lengthy entry in the latest edition of the Buildings of England series (The Buildings of England – Sussex: East with Brighton and Hove (ISBN 978-0-300-18473-0)). If I can't get a chance to expand the article within a week, put it to Draftspace or my userspace to give me a chance to work on it later. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant landed estate with a long history. The article can be expanded and more sources added. (Disclaimer: I created the article.) cagliost (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the house itself passes the GNG given the Grade 1 Listed Building entry and the "Buildings of England" entry. It seems sensible to me to keep the article about the wider estate given the reference in the Jane Brown book on Lutyens.

Keep has sourced and as noted the house is Grade 1 listed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NGEO; national heritage site designations almost always mean that good sources are available, since such listings require demonstrable historical significance. Per the source list in the historicengland listing alone, those do indeed exist. --Blablubbs|talk 13:26, 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 and redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum ontology[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic article presenting pseudoscientific nonsense as fact. The redirect to interpretations of quantum mechanics mentions Ontology, that is sufficient for now as this is pretty unfixable without substantial sourcing and re-writing to satisfy WP:FRINGE, specifically Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. Polyamorph (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator, so much wrong with this article, so little understanding of quantum mechanics, and no place on Wikipedia for statements like "Quantum ontologists explore the Field internally and communicate with it using ... their consciousness (honed by the Essentiality technology)." Polyamorph (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination implies intention to delete. Holding off on tagging as duplicate !vote as you may just want to turn this into a comment instead. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing that out, I've changed to comment. Polyamorph (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FRINGE woo supported only by what looks to be self-published work by a single author. I don't think we need to get into the weeds of exactly why this is all nonsense in order to decide whether to delete it as non-notable nonsense. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a possible delete, but at minimum Draftify based on the concerns above. Also let's ping the article creator (who wasn't the page creator, so didn't get an automated notification): BlacklilyofKoN — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got the material for this page from a client who wanted me to create it for him, and he wanted me to point out the Quantum Psychology and Quantum Mysticism pages as a reason why this page should be allowed to go up as well. I haven't written any of this material, all I am doing is creating the page for him, so I let him know about all this, so that way I can figure out what he wants from here. —blacklilyofkon (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlacklilyofKoN What your client wants is totally irrelevant - we simply are not interested in their wishes. You have an undeclared conflict of interest. If your client is paying you then you are editing in violation WP:PAID. Polyamorph (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant WP:FRINGE. This sort of mumbo-jumbo really is exactly what the encyclopedia does not need. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics, which was the stable version of this page for a decade. If someone came to Wikipedia looking for, say, more information about this not at all WP:FRINGE use of the term "Quantum ontology", Interpretations of quantum mechanics would be the right place to direct them. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Astrophobe. --hroest 21:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure it's fringe theory, it has several/many peer-reviewed articles that come up in Google Scholar. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of Quantum Ontology in metaphysics is still pretty dubious, but sure could probably have a well balanced Wikipedia article on that subject. But this article as it stands is utter nonsense and not representative of those studies of which you speak. Polyamorph (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of this is both unsourced and FRINGE. Not thrilled with Interpretations of quantum mechanics as a redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a complete trash of an article. Completely non-encyclopedic. scope_creep^Talk 10:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics. The article as written is absolute pseudoscientific woo, but 'quantum ontology' can refer to a genuine scientific or metaphysical concept. I'd recommend deleting the article as-is to prevent it being restored easily... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as pointed out above, so many issues with this, WP:ORIGINAL, WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE. I don't think there is enough worth saving to even draftify. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note the content creator was offered financial compensation to create this article on behalf of Tom Powell, the author of some of the works cited in this version. See the declaration here. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1984–85 Mersin İdmanyurdu season[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There is no evidence that this particular season requires a stand-alone article. No significant coverage (i.e. more than just bare minimum squad listings and match results and stats) presented in any of the sources, so WP:GNG is not met, nor is there any real assertion of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above and in addition per WP:INDISCRIMINATE — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:37, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Orbison Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are mostly parent. Not standalone notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walkers Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

Missed this one in the other nominations of non-notable corners in Northumberland County, Virginia. Disclaimer as with the others: PROD ineligible due to being included in a procedurally closed bundled nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia, which was closed in April 2020 with no individual discussion of this article. Topos show a road junction with a single building, and a WP:BEFORE brings up nothing significant about this location, and nothing that suggests it may have been a community. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 17:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling in the below article as well, because the same situation applies, and I don't want to completely clog up AFD with a million nominations for non-PRODable locations. Some of these "corners" appear to possibly be notable, but a good chunk are just named road junctions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all Mass-produced junk without evidence of being notable communities; the prior closure was a mistake that kept unverified content on the project. Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: per nom. The nom does a good job of researching these articles. Fails GNG and GEOLAND. // Timothy :: talk 16:49, 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) 00:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Island: The Making of A Master Race in America (2018)[edit]

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

Zero in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources. Currently only promotional or primary sourcing is contained in the article. Does not meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough sourcing to show that this is a notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with JPL above.Kolma8 (talk) 11:20, 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. Daniel (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lipton Invitational Cup[edit]

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

Tagged as not referenced since December 2009, Previous AfD from 2006 here which expected this article to be improved. A WP:BEFORE turns up only this article and Wikipedia mirrors JW 1961 Talk 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and no results from searches. Nigej (talk) 15:04, 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 keep. Overwhelming consensus to keep. Even the nominator has now switched their vote to !Keep. Consensus shows that recent improvements to the article are enough to evade deletion. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 19:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Adams (educator)[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable person. Only reference is to an obituary, and overall doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines TimeEngineer (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Head of a notable teaching organization, and pivotal as a leader of that organization, would appear to pass WP:PROF#c6. More, the reason for that criterion is that coverage of her role as head of organization is likely to exist, as indeed it does: [5] [6]. The nominator's claim of "only reference" seems to indicate a failure of the nominator to perform WP:BEFORE: That is indeed currently the only reference already in the article, but the nominator should be looking for references that exist outside the article, not judging articles solely by the references that have already been added. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sad to see this on International Women's Day. Long article about her in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is easy to find and should suffice. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with David Eppstein & StarryGrandma, WP:Before would show Notability.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*DeleteMy own search turned up very few sources, in fact, only two. It's also worth mentioning that the article quality is absolutely subpar. Full of nonsensical trivia and unencyclopedic language. Fails majority of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, which I suppose doesn't matter because she fails WP:GNG anyways.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been improved, I change my vote to Keep.---Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 13:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep including per WP:ANYBIO, "has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication," and the essay WP:DINC. Beccaynr (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added more refs. Tons more if people want to show her work with GTC, contrary to nominator or Kieran207. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have added citations to article assist the case for improvement rather than deletion. Apologies if not followed protocols as a new user.

Kaybeesquared (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Carol Adams has a lengthy ODNB article - a reliable source with strong notability and sourcing requirements of its own.Stinglehammer (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I nominated the article, I saw an article about a teacher, with what I considered to be very little notable information. I did do a WP:BEFORE check, searching for news articles and webpages, and came up empty. That, combined with the flags that the article has had for 5 years and the only reference being an obit, merited a AfD discussion in my mind. The article is vastly improved now. I see this as being the benefit of the AfD process. TimeEngineer (talk) 18:17, 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 redirect to University of Ibadan. Reasonable consensus not to have a standalone. History remains active if anyone wants to pick through it to merge, although there's not much there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFRA-Nigeria[edit]

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

Non-notable non-governmental organization (NGO). Article has no references and so no means of verification, and does not make any statements that would claim any sort of third-party coverage. Naïve Google search finds the web site, Facebook page, Twitter page, and other social media presences of organization, which means that the organization exists and uses social media. We knew that. No third-party coverage found. (There probably is third-party coverage. It may not be significant. It should not be up to the reader to search for it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of Ibadan and summarize the contents of the article in a few sentences, but not notable enough for its own article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop having articles sourced exclusively to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per Robert McClenon's rationale. Furthermore, I also noticed the article creator is a major sleeper account, they have been here for 10 years with less than 150 edits. Invariably, an undisclosed COI is definitely at play here. Celestina007 (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Ibadan for now. Oppose deletion. it's a legit academic organisation, cited by reuters, libération, etc. the seemingly lack of coverage might result from the fact that it's located in a underdeveloped region.--RZuo (talk) 17:07, 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 delete. Article was A7'd by admin after this AfD was posted. (non-admin closure) ser! (chat to me). 21:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Dalrymple[edit]

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

Biography of a creator and promoter of a fringe theory known as Quantum Field Psychology which posits that (and I quote) "the mind is an energy field that transcends the brain and projects waves of energy, extending through space and touching the universe". There's no indication that this is a notable theory. The current sourcing in the article is dreadful. It consists of five links to his books, one to IMDb, one to healthgrades.com, one to a "suspended account" (not archived, probably a blog of sorts), two to books on quantum mechanics that in all likelihood don't mention Dalrymple and one to the autobiography of Tesla which certainly doesn't mention Dalrymple since Tesla died in 1943. Furthermore, the article is almost a candidate for speedy deletion as it is essentially promotional. Pichpich (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources appear to be self-published, not a single source meets MEDRS (subject is a psychologist). Additionally, per the lede: "His theory is the result of an epiphany he experienced at age 19 while attending the University of Maryland and working in NASA’s gifted student program". This is certainly the first time that I have seen an article acknoweldge that it violates WP:MADEUP but there's gotta be a first for everything. Possibly also falls under a standard I will now make up called YGBSM. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stately Oak, Virginia[edit]

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

Most of these Virginia ones are noncontroversial enough to be PRODded (with the exception of the leftovers from the procedurally closed corners nomination which aren't PROD eligible), but the topos actually show stuff at this point, so taking to AFD. WP:BEFORE brings up a a handful of references to teachers being appointed to the Stately Oak School in the Lottsburg district in the 1904-1909 time frame. Beyond that, I found a single reference to a Stately Oak Church contributing $3 to a missions fund, although the reference was too vague to determine if the church is in the same area as this location. While there appears to have possibly been an informal neighborhood here, I was unable to find evidence in RS that this was ever a legally recognized populated place, so this looks to fail WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Talk 16:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. The nom does a good job of researching these articles. Fails GNG and GEOLAND. No objection to a redirect if the closer thinks a suitable target has been proposed. // Timothy :: talk 16:48, 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. Consensus that notability is not met, even if no longer failing on promotional grounds Nosebagbear (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio REDBOX[edit]

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

This article was created by a user with a COI in a highly spammy form and was subsequently tagged with G11. Since then, the creator has removed most of the spam, and the article no longer strictly meets CSD G11. This, however, has done little to allay the obvious notability problems: GNG, NRADIO and NCORP are pretty obviously failed (indeed, there is no coverage whatsoever that I could find). Java Hurricane 13:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 13:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 13:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 13:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and paid editor also bypassed the WP:AFC process. Theroadislong (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from Promo DJ, none of the sources even mention this radio station. Promo DJ is clearly neither a reliable source nor an independent one and, in any case, the coverage is not significant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable radio station failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources. Disregarding directory/radio listings, there are no sources that are in-depth and all of them only mention the radio station in passing. allufa.ru is an okay brief article on history (although I am hard-pressed to establish the connection between school radio and that this is the same radio now). tomsguide.com, миамир.рф, fontanka.ru doesn't say pretty much anything. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability and sources primary from one site called promodj.com. Lesliechin1 (talk) 04:21, 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. Consensus that the article is notable without independent/secondary sources Nosebagbear (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Oyunda[edit]

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

Non-notable. My search didn't find anything to show that WP:GNG. Taung Tan (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are two interview on that article. Baran Ahmet (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it is an interview piece see WP:Interviews, which makes the source as primary and not secondary. In additional, no other independent, reliable WP:SIGCOV source found. Taung Tan (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been nominated for deletion on the Turkish Wikipedia 4 times:

1st: February 2017, No consensus

2nd: September 2017, No consensus

3rd: August 2018, Delete

4th: December 2020, Delete. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable YouTuber. I cannot find coverage by secondary sources, and apparently neither can Turkish users. Keivan.f^Talk 05:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in independent sources pretty much means no claim to notability. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 08:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable youtuber. Totally fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 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. Consensus fails musical notability Nosebagbear (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roark (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The single source the article cites is a local news piece and I can't find any significant coverage of the musician or the band he was in. Two songs appearing in TV episodes does not establish notability either. Lennart97 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rather week claim of notability as a musician, and after more than a dozen years there's nothing in the article to support a claim of notability and nothing more found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is clearly an autobiography, but there are two brief reviews of his debut album in Exclaim! from 2007 [7], [8]. Not sure if two short reviews from the same publication is enough to establish notability or not. This appears to be the only album he ever released, so if kept this is likely to remain a permastub, as almost none of the biographical details in the current version of the article can be confirmed. Richard3120 (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, thanks! I'd say that as these are indeed (very) brief and from just one publication, they're not quite enough. Lennart97 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't see any sign of notability. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C9B5:26EE:1835:4594 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to meeting our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 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 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. Go Phightins! 11:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ektor Pan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. There's some routine coverage of his Eurovision involvement (note that he did not participate in the actual contest, just in the Spanish preliminary program), but if there's any significant coverage, I can't find it. The article does not otherwise indicate his importance. Lennart97 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2017-05 ✗ G12, 2017-04 ✗ G7

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mya Thwe Thwe Khine[edit]

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

Obvious case of WP:BLP1E, had been DEPRODed w/o explanation. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

≥ Addition: Overseen Case of CSD G4 - subject of this article existed before and was merged after huge consensus into 2021 Myanmar Protests - see [9]. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the nomination is nonsensical. BLP1E is obviously about biographies of living people but the subject in this case is dead. And their martyrdom has proved to be quite a big deal. Her funeral was a major occasion attended by about 100,000 people and given worldwide coverage such as Huge crowds mourn woman killed in protests. Her image is now widely used in protests and posters – see Woman left brain-dead after Burmese police shooting is now a protest symbol. So, the subject is quite notable and detailed coverage is appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, please take kindly notice of WP:BLP1E: "biographies of living people, or those who have recently died" CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford May I direct your attention to the remainder of that sentence that you just quoted? "and to biographies of low-profile individuals." The point of BLP1E is for living individuals who are famous or infamous for one thing they did in their lives, who otherwise wish to fade into obscurity, it is a part of the broader BLP guidelines. The subject of this article does not strike me as being "low profile", and it is borderline-obscene to claim that the subject had no further significant actions when the subject was killed as a part of the significant act. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion35, as I said before - BLP1E is for people who have recently died which is the case here. BLP1E is exactly for cases like this where Burmese editors want to raise artificially attention for some kind of political activism. It is no surprise that Wikipedia gets more than often cited as biased (even from Co-founders) if we artificially generate attention for those kind of - as sadly as it is - 1E victims. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford No. BLP1E is for individuals who were otherwise unknown for a period after the event. I think that you are misreading or misunderstanding this. Consider WP:NOTBLP1E, while this is an unofficial essay,I believe that the author does a better job of describing the point that I am trying to make better than I can. And as I said, it is borderline-obscene to apply the "recently died" criteria when the even itself is the reason why the individual recently died. I would also advise you that speculation as to the motives or political views of other editors is not appropriate or constructive. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford Andrew is an experienced editor, It's like you teaching Abcd to Professor ! 🤔 Taung Tan (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this, both in style and in content, have no place at this venue, or really anywhere on the project. All you're accomplishing here is making yourself open to attack. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AngryHarpy, thanks for the comment, it has been already reported. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AngryHarpy, fyi: The Editor Taung Tan had been blocked for repeated violations of WP:NPA. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about a fact with great worldwide repercussion. It's not notability for a single event, as the article refers to the event and not to the person. Meets WP:GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sources are easily there for me, even excluding the ones I can't read. Seems like a somewhat ill-fated nomination, seeing how the article was drastically expanded just an hour later, but oh well, mistakes happen. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- AngryHarpy, may you please be so kind to explain me what do you mean by "il-fated nomination" ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ill-fated as in unfortunately timed. Had the article already been in its current state when you first clicked on it, you may have had less of a reason to doubt the notability of the event. To be clear, I'm absolutely not accusing you of anything, gauging articles about (from a Western POV) fairly inaccessible topics like this can be challenging to say the least. AngryHarpy‍^talk 18:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - AngryHarpy, please ping me in the future if you want me to read your comment - the article was and is a BLP1E case and no matter how much Burmese editors do try to emotionalise this victim of a demonstration it will remain a 1E victim of a demonstration (as sadly at it is). The way like several editors here are trying to push this article is hardly compatible with our NPOV policies and as said elsewhere I am now not surprised at all that Wikipedia is getting strong accusations in the press and even from their co-founders of pushing biased political articles (like this one). CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, How is this incompatible with NPOV? The fact that an individual was killed during a prominent protest that has gathered worldwide attention seems to be a neutral fact. I am American, I vaguely remember some facts about the Burmese government from poli sci classes from 20 years ago (so irrelevant now), and I am only vaguely aware of the protests over there at the moment, and I have no connection to any of it. It certainly seems possble to write an article about this imdividual and her death in a NPOV manner. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see WP:BIO1E for clarification on the proper guidelines for individuals who are deceased, BLP1E is inappropriate here. Further, there appears to be significant coverage of the subject and the subject's death. Depending on the circumstances, it may make sense in the future to rename the article to "Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine" depending on future events and coverage. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup but plenty of significant coverage both included in the article and per search. Best Taung Tan (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very clearly notable as the first protestor to die in a major world event. In fact, speedy keep. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambrosiawater, she has not been the first but anyway. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G4. This issue has already been decided a week ago! This is a recreation of a previously merged page. See Talk:Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. We can't dicuss this every week. Halskw (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halskw Perhaps. I would note, however, that the reasons given for the merge, such as BLP1E, were in error. The larger article about the protests is also rather long, and involves coverage of an ongoing event. My personal preference would be to have a short summary about Mya Thwe Thwe Khine in the protest article and a link to the standalone article. I recognize that there was a previous consensus towards merge, but it appears that this article may be long enough for its own space and has been expanded. Also, there is a strange situation where the consensus now appears to be different from that consensus. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just 1E. We need to stick to something, like G4. How about someone comes over a week later and we start this mess all over again. Let's wait a few months. Halskw (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That merge discussion was invalid because it was closed by CommanderWaterford who had cast a !vote and is clearly not neutral on such topics. In any case, the outcome was not deletion and so G4 does not apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that G4 would also be inapplicable because this article appears to have been substantially improved and lengthened. G4 applies only to a direct recreation where there have been no changes or improvements. G4 also only appears to apply to articles that have been deleted. Any speedy deletion would be inappropriate given the discussion ongoing here. Even a decision to re-merge would imply changes since this article is now substantially different from the section in the larger article, which again precludes any sort of speedy action. Hyperion35 (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who closed the dicussion. There was an overwhemling consensus to merge. If consensus doesn't hold for a week, then how can we stop people from having a deletion dicussion next week? There is no reason to recreate the article again just after a clear consensus to merge. Let's wait a few months to see how that played out. WP:NOTNEWS. Halskw (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant sock accusation.

Halskw May i ask you? are you User:SSH remoteserver?, I think you are a SOCK because your account created recently and have full knowledge of Wikipedia more than me. I know you are a Burmese and understand Burmese language. The military junta banned Wikipedia in Myanmar. So internal Bumese editor cant edit Wikipedia without the IP block exempt. So Only Burmese from other countries can edit. SSH is one of them. PS, SSH also participated in the merge discussion of Talk:Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. Taung Tan (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ဘယ်သူမှန်းတော့ သေချာမသိပေမဲ့, လူမျိုးရေးခွဲခြားတတ်တဲ့ သူလို့ထင်ပါတယ်, Wikiမှာ ဘာမှ မဖန်တီးတဲ့အပြင် သူများဖန်တီးပီးသားဟာတွေကို ဆားဝင်ဖြူးတယ်, ဖျက်ဖို့လုပ်တယ် မြန်မာလူမျိူးဆို အားနာစိတ်ရှိသင့်တယ်, တခြား နိုင်ငံက editorတွေအကုန် မဖျက်သင့်ကြောင်း 'ကိ' တွေကြည့် ပေးထားတာတောင် မြန်မာဖြစ်တဲ့ မင်းက SDဆိုတော့ ငါအံ့ဩလွန်းလို့ပါ, အခုမှ အကောင့်သစ်လေးဖောက်ပြီး ပြသနာရှာနေတာတော့မဟုတ်သေးဘူး, အခုခြေနေ Wikiမှာ မြန်မာ editor 3-4ယောက်ပဲရှိတာ ယူမသိဘူးလား? ငါတို့မြန်မာဆောင်းပါးတွေ လိုက်ပြသနာရှာခံရနေချိန်မှာ ငါတို့ကမရှိတဲ့ အင်အားနဲ့ မနည်းကြိုးစားကာကွယ်နေရတာ, မင်းကတော့ မကူညီတဲ့ အပြင် လိုက်ပြသနာ ရှာနေတော့ တော်တော်လေး စိတ်ညစ်ရပါတယ်, တကယ် နားမလည်နိုင်တော့ဘူး မင်းကို Taung Tan (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sock discussion. You can open a case if you suspect me of being a sock. I edited Wikipedia long ago for years. I lost my account. That's how I know all rules. I am not going to point out my old account due to privacy. I reached this discussion via looking at your contributions, through which I saw another discussion with the same name. That explains my vote. Your personal attacks in Burmese are very much unwelcome. Halskw (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zin Win Hlaing, Hi bro pls check my Burmese contents and Are my Burmese words rude? tell them ! Halskw Pls dont over shame on you. Taung Tan (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop detracting from the discussion. Your first sentence is, "I don't know who you are, but I think you are a racist. Here to destory other people's articles... etc." I think further comments should be hidden. Halskw (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halskw Broအနေနဲ့ မကူချင်နေပါ မနှောင့်ယှက်ပါနဲ့ တောင်းပန်ပါတယ်, တကယ်ပါ, အခု မြန်မာဆောင်းပါးတွေက CommanderWaterford ရဲ့ အနိုင်ကျင့်ခြင်းကိုခံနေရပါတယ်, ဘယ်လောက်တောင်ဆိုးလဲဆို အာဇာနည် Ko Htwe ကိုတောင်ဖျက်ဖို့လုပ်နေပါတယ်, ဒီလောက်ကြီးကြ မဟုတ်တော့ဘူး နားလည်းမလည်နိုင်တော့ဘူး, bro အနေနဲ့ ကူညီသင့်တယ်Taung Tan (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taung Tan, you already have been blocked but for any case in the future please use English, if you have reason to suspect SPI you could raise an investigation anything else is - like always in your case - distracting from the topic. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halskw, Taung Tan had been blocked for violations ��WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Thanks for noticing what I have overseen - it is a recreation of a previous merger. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, someone accusing of a violation of WP:AGF just because he takes an Article to AfD is a serious accusation, I suggest reverting it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, the merge discussion was closed cause of a CLEAR and OBVIOUS consensus to merge and I honestly have overseen that it is the same subject. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halskw: If you reached here via looking at Taung Tan's contributions, you might also notice the problems happening to the Burmese-related articles. This is very helpless condition for us. It's okay you don't need to help us, but I apologize not to make the case worse. Thanks. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ခုရက်ပိုင်းမှာ "မစွမ်းရင်းကလဲရှိ ကန်စွန်းခင်းကလဲငြိ" ဆိုသလို Myanmar Project မှာ ရေးတဲ့သူမှ မရှိပါဘူးဆို ပြဿနာတွေက ဆူနာမီလို ဒလဟောဝင်နေပါတယ်။ စနေသက်ရောက်ဖြစ်နေသလားမသိ၊ ယတြာခြေဦးမှပါ။ Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor interactions/back history between User:Taung Tan and User:CommanderWaterford, irrelevant to current AfD.

Hello all, I and nominator CommanderWaterford have a long story. See my talk page. I copied some comments from my talk page.

"Taung Tan, I do check each and every contribution of yours like I do of many, many others editors, too. And I do it because several of the Burmese editors did add poorly or unsourced statements to their articles in order to raise some medial attention which could violate one of our five pillars - WP:NPOV, we had this discussion before. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)".

"CommanderWaterford, I'm afraid this comment doesn't make sense to me. You said you do it because several of the Burmese editors did add poorly or unsourced statements to their articles... - that does not sound like you are talking only about tags they add to articles you write. I think at this point I'm going to ask you both to walk away from each other before things descend any further. GirthSummit (blether) 17:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)".

"CommanderWaterford, as I said, your statement about watching each and every one of their edits is not appropriate. By all means, maintain your watchlist and continue to check that things are properly sourced, but you should not give a user the impression that you are constantly watching them - that goes against our harassment policy. GirthSummit (blether) 17:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)".

Taung Tan (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, he admitted to personally forcing on Burmese articles. He taken all of the newly created Burmese articles to AfD recently see Death of Kyal Sin, Win Maw Oo. Very strange, he also tried to delete Ko Htwe, Myanmar's independent leader and one of the greatest 19 July Martyrs of Burmese Martyrs' Day, with "uncontroversial deletion". En-Wiki has very few Myanmar editors (3 or 4 editors), I'm one of them. Taung Tan (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell, I just found CommanderWaterford tagged {{Notability}} on another independent leader and Union Minister Mahn Ba Khaing. What are you doing CommanderWaterford? He is clearly passes WP:NPOL. CommanderWaterford you are not normal on Burmese articles. I have nothing more to say! Pls save Burmese editors from CommanderWaterford's personal actions. See also about his negative tag-bombing at Talk:Khin Thiri Thet Mon#sources and many other articles. Taung Tan (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious CommanderWaterford has personal and intentional over-actions on the Burmese-related articles. I was really shocked when I found his Notability tag on Burmese martyr Mahn Ba Khaing, by the way. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zin Win Hlaing, please take notice of our core policies WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The other editor already had been blocked. I do not care who created an article and what they are about. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!!!! Our respected editor and main editor of Myanmar Project User:Hintha retired because of CommanderWaterford's negative tag-bombing at every Burmese articles and injustice case. Taung Tan (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This editor had been blocked by a sysop for repeated violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taung Tan's being blocked will have no effect on the AfD discussion and cannot hide your intentional case. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zin Win Hlaing, nobody said that. Are you assuming me not WP:AGF ?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Same problem here! I'm article creator. He taken "all" my articles to AfD even they are clearly notable, and also WP:PROD for Member of Parliament Aye Myat Mon. Hay guy...What do you want ? Please be smart ! Marcus MT (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford has also tagged Win Ma Oo for deletion. This looks a lot like some sort of crusade. And his comments about Burmese editors is rather disturbing. These are articles about people in that country, I would expect that people from there would be of extremely valuable assistance translating documents and evaluating sources. Hyperion35 (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus MT, please take notice of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The other editor already had been blocked. I do not care who created an article and you should notice that they are not "your" articles all all since this is a collaborative encyclopaedia. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The other editor already had been blocked. I do not care who created an article and what they are about." OMG! We have been threatened! To repeat your words, take notice of WP:AGF. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hyperion35. I also checked their editing overlap and CommanderWaterford's comments about Burmese editors is rather disturbing. CommanderWaterford should stop watching and harassing Myanmar editors, imv. VocalIndia (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, If he continues to do so, please complain to WP: ANI. VocalIndia (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VocalIndia, please keep in mind that seeking especially in User Contributions, not assuming WP:AGF and racism could be treated like a violation of WP:HA and be seen like WP:NGA. Of course do I have lots of interactions with Burmese Editors, I do more than 1000 Edits usually every day, so of course also regarding Burmese-related articles (and Ghanaian, and American...and Ukrainian and German and many many more). CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, with all due respect, several editors have expressed concerns over specific comments that you have made. AGF does not mean that we are required to turn a blind eye if we see your own comments as possibly implying that you may have some sort of prejudice against Burmese editors, and you have said yourself that you believe that Burmese editors are making edits for political purposes. Given that you have filed multiple AfDs within a few days on articles about Burmese civilians who were killed during protests, these questions are going to be asked. I might politely suggest that you may not have any prejudice or animus, but perhaps you are experiencing pushback from multiple Burmese editors, not because they have a political agenda, but because they may possess a greater familiarity with the region, culture, and social context. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion35, please stay focused to the AfD itself and do not take it personal, please follow the WP:GD. As said before accusing someone of being acting on the grounds of racist motives is a very serious accusation that normally lead to the accusing user being blocked. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford I have not accused you or anyone else of acting on the grounds of racist motives. I have only suggested, politely, that comments focused on the nationality of other users is not helpful. Part of AGF is consideration of the content of editors' comments, not the editors themselves, their nationalities, or your perceptions of their political views. I would also politely suggest that you consider how you felt when you believed that others were accusing you of racism, and consider that many other editors may have had similar unwelcome feelings in response to some of your own comments. Hopefully that might result in more constructive and cooperating conversations for all of us. Thanks. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very notable topic. This article is about the event and not the person. The article has significant coverage and reliable source by Worldwide media to justify keeping. VocalIndia (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the subject is actually quite notable, being the subject of worldwide coverage. The result of the merge discussion in which no Burmese editors except Taung Tan and Hintha could vote due to the nationwide internet shutdown was one sided because it was closed by CommanderWaterford who had cast a !vote. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Zin Win Hlaing, the merge discussion took long enough for everyone to vote and there was a more than broad consensus to merge it. Please stay at the facts. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Myanmar protests#Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. Coming in here as courtesy-pinged by CommanderWaterford due to my comments in the previous merge discussion. On Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine: a comparison between Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine (version as of this comment's timestamp) and last version of Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing before CommanderWaterford closed the merge discussion and merged the content into 2021 Myanmar protests#Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing shows that there have been no substantial, substantiated changes or addition made to the recreated article. The only changes I can visually tell are the addition of the subject's (non-free) portrait image, the removal of the infobox, and unverified turnout number of her funeral. The non-free image contains caption implying her significance, but it is not referenced nor discussed in the content of the recreated article. Thus the result from the merge discussion remains valid and applicable on the recreated article. As such, I view that Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine, in its current form, should be similarly redirected to 2021 Myanmar protests#Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. – robertsky (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky One concern that I have is that there exist substantial differences between this article and the much smaller merged summary in the article on the protests. If we are to merge these articles, does that mean that we go with what we currently have in the protest article, or do we expand the information in the protest article to include this full article? If we are going to have a smaller summary of this in the protest article, that would strike me as a reason for having this article as a standalone, especially given the length of the protest article. At the same time, I do understand that this could create greater difficulties keeping the two articles consistent, especially as this references an ongoing event. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion35, the sections (her death and reactions were separate) on 2021 Myanmar protests was added in by CommanderWaterford, as per outcome of the merge discussion. Their additions to the protest article were largely faithful to the content on the original page. Over time, the sections were decoupled and edited, but largely intact. The decoupling may have contributed to the impression that there are substantial differences between the two articles. On this basis, one evaluation which I would take is that, if new facts (not those that were trimmed during the merge) to the protest article would lead to the article being WP:UNDUE and majorly focused on her, then a split may be warranted. A split may also be warranted if existing facts about her on the protest article are significantly reduced. However in my view, the two additions to the new article doesn't really warrant a content split. As mentioned in my comments in the merge discussion, I feel that a split would be warranted like in the case of Death of Chow Tsz-lok article, where the content in that article is significantly more than that in the parent 2019–20 Hong Kong protests article. Chow's article did go through a similarly merge discussion when it was first split out from the parent article, but was it stopped early as other editors had expanded the article significantly almost immediately. Thus, I would suggest that if interested editors want to keep this article, they should similar expand the article as much as possible. There is still time before this AfD is closed. Keeping the articles consistent shouldn't be an issue for editors who have been actively the relevant pages, as evidently from ongoing events such as COVID-19, Hong Kong protests (when it was still ongoing), etc. – robertsky (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was one of the many who supported the merger of the Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing article. I have some concerns about the article being merged at that time, however, because her death may be the only one on the protests at that time. I am now, however, want to say that this article should be kept, because of WP:BIO1E. Her death has been used by the protesters to protest the Tatmadaw regime, so I can say it deserves an article now. If this article ends up being kept, then I am ready to trim the main article to remove information that isn't really relevant to the protests. That's what I can say about this article, ~~I don't want to participate further in this AfD because of stress~~. Mario Jump 83! 23:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and oppose redirect 2021 Myanmar protests article is now too large and death section has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article. So we need to split the article. Marcus MT (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. Mario Jump 83! 02:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine (or death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing), the person might not be notable but the death is clearly notable enough to meet WP:GNG. Sun8908 _Talk 04:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to move this into Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. Mario Jump 83! 02:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coming in here as courtesy-pinged by CommanderWaterford due to my comments in the previous merge discussion. I supported to merge back then, but after seeing the developments this article should be kept. Her funeral is attended by thousands despite crackdowns by military[1][2]. Her family is getting interviews by media [3][4]. The matter of her death is also notable as Myanmar military claims that they didn't have lethal weaponry but Mya is killed by lethal weapons.[5]. She may not be notable, but her death is notable now. SunDawn (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I cannot find any reason to delete it. It meets with criteria for article, and she now is known worldwide. -- Wendylove (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (per WP:SNOW, by now, although explicitly not per WP:SK); there has been an increasing amount written on the subject since the article was (perhaps prematurely) nominated. This trend is only likely to continue. Passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG easily. ——Serial 12:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument above is premature to delete the article with reference to the 'death of'Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find the keep arguments best. The delete arguments are just vague. The article subject has received wide coverage, and thus a definite GNG pass. I had to revert the "undiscussed move" affecting this article. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:02, 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 delete. Consensus that the subject is not (currently) notable Nosebagbear (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antoratta[edit]

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

Non-notable film that is still in production and does not satisfy future film guidelines. Future film guidelines are worded in a non-straightforward way, but there are basically three classes of films as to production:

1. Films that have been produced and have been viewed, which are notable based on reviews and other reception information.
2. Films that have not begun principal photography, which are not notable and are redirected, sometimes to the director or the studio.
3. Films that have begun principal photography but have not been shown (and may not be finished). The best reading is that these are notable if production itself is notable or the film satisfies general notability.

This film is in the third class. Nothing in the body of the article indicates that there is anything notable about the film. It will likely be notable after it is displayed. Naïve Google search shows that the film is in production and that it advertises. We knew that.

One copy of this article was already in article space and was moved to draft space by a reviewer. So this copy cannot be draftified. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girija Peter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG . I analysed the presented sources with help of Google Translate and it appears that they are nothing more than the passing mentions or routine coverage. Nothing found on Google searches either. Hitro talk 07:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON and not enough references.≥ Nothing noteworthy or major about her now. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: HitroMilanese is very well right. Im from Kerala and the sources is about an inaugral ceremony and some other news about our chief minister Pinarai Vijayan. Nothing notable is there regarding the person. Fails [WP:GNG]] Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON case! Fails WP:NPOL and see WP:ACTIVIST. VocalIndia (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AddedAdded two more sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riyas Tp (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the redirection of the newly added sources. Hitro talk 06:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Kichu. Running the sources through a translator does not show any in-depth coverage of Peter. The two recently added inaccessible ones (one of them without a publisher) don't show any matches in an online search so can't be verified but neither of them mention Peter nor is there any clear indication that they would contain the level of coverage needed Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morrisons Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

Again, PROD ineligible due to being listed (and not individually discussed) at the procedurally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia from last April. I excluded this one from the two batch noms, as there's a bunch of hits for this one, but nothing that indicates a WP:GEOLAND pass. In this case, there are quite a few passing mentions of this place as a road junction, mainly in lists of directions. It also appeared in the boundaries of a probably gerrymandered congressional district in Virginia a few years back, but given that those boundaries also include a ferry and two random city streets, that's no sign of a community here. In fact, in all the many references to this place, none of them ever mention anything actually being here besides a road junction, none of them claim that somebody is from this place, and none ever actually describe this location. This name doesn't even appear on topographic maps, which just show an unnamed road junction with three or four buildings at this site. Clearly not viewed as a community by anyone besides GNIS, fails WP:GEOLAND as just a named road junction. Hog Farm _Talk 06:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-produced junk without evidence of being a notable community; the prior closure was a mistake that kept unverified content on the project. Reywas92^Talk 07:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jagex. While it may not numerically be clear, the weight of the policy-based arguments is towards redirection, which raise concerns the keep !voters did not particularly address (mainly over the depth of coverage actually about the article's subject). Content can be merged from history. The idea that AFDs from twelve years ago can just be assumed to reflect the opinion of the community today is fundamentally incorrect, as is the idea that simply being associated with something that's rather notable lends notability without coverage to back it up. As a relatively controversial AFD that I do not see my close changing on, if users should wish to contest it, they can go straight to DRV without approaching me first-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gower[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson .The references are routine coverage, or placement on a list. It is possible to be notable by being extremely wealthy, but not if it's just 566th in Britain. The previous discussions were over 12 years ago, when standards were much lower and much more erratic. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The last three discussions all resulted in Keep and so it is vexatious to try this again. The nomination indicates a lack of understanding of the subject who is not notable just for being especially rich but for being the principal architect and creator of an outstandingly successful MMORPG which was recognised by Guinness as being the world's largest – comparable in size with Wikipedia, with over 200 million accounts. When the nomination talks of low and erratic standards, it should start with itself per WP:SAUCE as it is a blatant failure of WP:BEFORE and contains absurd errors like "112 years". It is clear that the policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." and the nomination makes no effort to address this. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The last AFD was twelve years ago. I don't think it's "vexatious" forum shopping to renominate again after this long. Also, it's not a delete reason, but when DGG of all people nominates something for deletion, you pay attention. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, asserting that this nomination qualifies for WP:SPEEDYKEEP on the grounds that it is disruptive is such a patently bad-faith reading of the nomination that I think you owe DGG an apology. TompaDompa (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The page in question has existed since 2004 and has had over 1200 editors! And then there's all the editors who participated in all those previous discussions. This constitutes a substantial status quo. And it still doesn't appear that there's a consensus to delete this page; maybe just to merge to another. So, why are we having a deletion discussion? The nomination does not provide any new fact or reasoning – it just wants to try again in the hope of getting a different result. In doing so, the nomination explicitly criticises all those many editors for their low and erratic standards. So, per WP:SAUCE, just as the article and its editors may be criticised, then so too may the nomination be criticised. TompaDompa then criticises my !vote and so it goes. See also WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andrew Davidson: Of course you're allowed to criticize the nomination, nobody's disputing that. What I take issue with is that you accused it of being disruptive, which is a point you did not address. And now, you say that the nomination explicitly criticises all those many editors for their low and erratic standards, which means one of three things: (1) you didn't read the nomination properly, (2) you don't know what the word "explicitly" means, or (3) you are deliberately misrepresenting DGG. I'm not criticizing your stance on what should be done with the article under discussion here, I'm criticizing your WP:CONDUCT. It's not like I'm the only one to do so, either—I'm the fifth person (after Johnpacklambert, Namcokid47, Reywas92, and Axem Titanium) to specifically criticize your conduct at this discussion. I don't think an WP:APOLOGY is too much to ask for here. TompaDompa (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the indepth coverage of him in articles to show an actual passing of GNG. The last deletion discussion was 12 years ago, our inclusion criteria have changed an awful lot since then, so default endorsing the decision of 12 years ago is not advised. The attacks on the editor who nominated this article for deletion are the type of par for the course no holds bar character assinations that are regularly carried on by those who want to keep Wikipedia covering as many marginal people as possible. They need to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking in depth coverage. non notable business person. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Jagex for lacking notability. The latest deletion discussion prior to this was from 2009, and as Johnpacklambert as stated above, our site policies have changed considerably since then regarding the notability guidelines. This person simply lacks enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article. I am also rather disgruntled with how Andrew Davidson chose to use words like "blatant failure" in reference to the nominator, which goes against WP:CIVIL and is inappropriate for this discussion (or any discussion, really). Namcokid 47 21:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The most recent AFD was 11 years ago and it's bad faith to accuse the nominator of disruption and even worse faith to attack the nominator for an obvious typo. Sources provide more coverage of Jagex and so a merge/redirect is appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 00:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The creator of an extremely recognised MMORPG game with a lasting legacy and still relevant today. Definite keeper. Stuhunter83 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional A brief search found this reference which supports his notability. [10] Stuhunter83 (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize for my typo, of 112 when I meant 12. And of course I would not have renominated if the previous AfDs had been recent--from 14 years ago when I started here I've tried to discourage rapid renominations-- they were quite common at the time, and they fortunately are no longer DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagex: Per reasons above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per Andrew Davidson. Taung Tan (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he created a video game that has generated more than $1 billion in revenue and has been played by more than 100 million people?Miaminsurance (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 09:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect relevant info into Jagex; the subject clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG or merit a standalone article when there are better targets. Another AfD the better part of a decade after is not inappropriate, and helping to make a hit video game does not make oneself independently notable. If you're using archived links for job descriptions to try and source someone's bio, it's a pretty good indication that they don't merit their own page. Of the eleven current sources, at least six are primary or not independent—documentaries by the game's developers, the aforementioned job posting, minutes from board events, etc. We've got a plainly unreliable source (Retireat21). We've got a listicle from the Telegraph where Gower (along with his brother) are merely one of dozens of individuals, and a Guardian story about Runescape (not focused on Gower)—these are not WP:SIGCOV. That leaves the only source that specifically focuses on the brothers as the Develop source. What you end up with is three sentences you could cite in Jagex or Runescape about how it made the brothers rich. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per David Fuchs' arguments, couldn't say it better. There's a lot of INHERIT arguments in the Keeps. -- ferret (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. There is no reason to delete this article. This person's coverage being "marginal" does not mean that it does not mean that it doesn't pass GNG or that this person's achivements are not notable. There have been several article on Gower on the first few pages of Google News, so procuring information on him is not that difficult either. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per D Fuchs. Notability is not inherited from a notable thing you made. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagex. As others have pointed out, notability is not inherited, so the fact that he made a famous game says nothing about his own notability. None of the sources discuss *him* in meaningful detail separate from his game/company. Also, I'd remind folks in this thread to keep it civil as some of these comments against other users are quite silly and inappropriate. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagex. // Timothy :: talk 15:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jagex, his company, per Fuchs's source analysis. No notability independent from the company. czar 19:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. 5th discussion for such a low quality WP:VANITY/spammy WP:NBIO failure? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VANITY states "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Please avoid using this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to the subjects of articles." That's what's happening here – a respectable high-achiever is being insulted. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is a siginifcant game developer and high net worth as stated in article with proper credible sources. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Guardian (London, Greater London, England) 11 Dec 2003, Thu Page 76 reads RuneScape is the creation of Andrew Gower, who developed the game while a Cambridge undergraduate. Creating a game that made over a billion dollars makes him a notable entertainer. People are notable for their accomplishments, not just the coverage they get for them. WP:ENTERTAINER Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Dream Focus 12:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (2nd nomination). And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (3rd nomination). And finally, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (4th nomination). Notability is established beyond peradventure and does not fade away. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

WP:NTEMP WP:NOTTEMPORARY 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody should feel a need to apologize for disagreeing, however strongly, with me at an AfD (or anywhere else). In fact , my deletion% at AfD is not all that high, about 70%, because I mostly nominate the edge cases and the ones most likely to be disputed, or , (as here) the ones where a former decision might warrant re-discussing. My purpose is often as much to get a decision as to get a deletion. My idea of the ideal result of an AfD is when the sources for an article get improved, and the article kept. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you waste everyone's time. Just use the talk page to discuss sources. Or sign up for Wikipedia's library card program and get access to newspapers.com and other places to search around yourself. Dream Focus 22:12, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations demonstration bus fleet[edit]

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

Limited reliable sources on page. Mtattrain (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For similar reasons explained in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet. Ajf773 (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.----Pontificalibus 11:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfDs Nightfury 08:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. As much as I like the concept, it's merely a list of cruft (similar to as outlined as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet) and it's unlikely this is actually going to be notable. Epicgenius (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devoke water 16:26, 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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I Die Young (organization)[edit]

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

Does seem to pass WP:NORG. All of the current sourcing is primary, and a WP:BEFORE turns up only further material associated with the organization, which fails WP:ORGCRIT. Doesn't seem to be a notable organization. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Social Ecology[edit]

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

Longstanding lack of secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Likely fails WP:GNG. An attempt has been made to redirect but this has been disputed. Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murray Bookchin, with which it is best associated. Lacks secondary source coverage. czar 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a quick search and found additional sources [11], [12], [13], in addition a news story already on the page provides some good history: [14]

Blair Taylor, the ISE program director, has been recently quoted in an article by Vice: [15] and in a New York Times opinion piece: [16]

The ISE is a living institution that exists beyond Bookchin- he died in 2006, nearly 15 years ago. There is plenty of sourcing now available that demonstrates it meets WP:GNG. There is likely plenty more out there, especially in older newspapers that might not be easily accessed in a simple internet search. Thriley (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG secondary source coverage:

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/09/us/neighbors-say-ecology-school-wouldn-t-fit.html
https://www.vpr.org/post/incubator-social-change-institute-social-ecology-celebrates-40-years
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v39/n09/wes-enzinna/bizarre-and-wonderful
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/institute-for-social-ecology-marks-40-years-of-anarchy/Content?oid=2420020

According to the Guardian, the ISE "won an international reputation for its courses in social theory, eco-philosophy and alternative technologies". According to Jacobin Magazine, the ISE was "a central hub for all manner of charismatic teachers and utopian dreamers", and "ISE offered some of the first courses in the country on urbanism and ecology, radical technology, ecology and feminism, activist art and community. There really was nothing like it." Notability does not expire even if the ISE is much smaller and less known today then the 70s during its peak of influence. -- GreenC 04:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article reads: While the three-month summer programs had hosted an estimated 300 participants, the Institute has since become smaller, but continues to offer smaller programs. But the New York Times article is significant coverage in a reliable source. I agree that the Guardian quote confirms notability of this institute as well. Dream Focus 04:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion as requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons listed above. This was already closed as a Keep. And there was a clear consensus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on. The "keeps" all came within the last 24 hours of the listing shortly after it was listed at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list. Same for these below post-relist responses after it was again pinged on that page. It's egregious canvassing. czar 05:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editing history of the article should make clear that 7&6=thirteen and I had been working on the article, including [17] minutes [18] before [19] this discussion first closed [20], and we have both [21], as well as GreenC [22], continued to work on it since then [23]. I also kept it on my watchlist and didn't need additional notification when it was re-listed. Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editing history makes clear that this "interest" in the article only came after it was posted to the Article Rescue Squadron, which was my point. Several people were canvassed to this discussion in the last 24 hours of its listing and the comment above calls that a "clear consensus". It is more accurately a manufactured consensus. czar 08:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVASS, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Per the ARS Code of Conduct, "Please note that WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron is a Wikiproject intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking." Beccaynr (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This discussion had closed just as I had been about to comment on how changes made to the article seem to make it more clear as to why a redirect to Bookchin's article is not feasible or appropriate, including the removal of what had appeared to be unsourced WP:OR describing the Institute and the addition of sourced information for the Institute's self-description, as well the addition of secondary sources that include a focus on co-founder Dan Chodorkoff. As noted above, and with this VT Digger article added to the article, secondary source coverage has been found and most of it has been incorporated into the article. Coverage of the Institute has been WP:SUSTAINED over time, providing WP:ORGDEPTH from WP:MULTSOURCES, so WP:ORGCRIT appears to be satisfied. Beccaynr (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a sizeable institute with notable alumni like Matt Hern and notable faculty like Cindy Milstein. Too much useful detail to make a merge practical. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the actual sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
NYT				✔ Yes
Vermont Public Radio	entirely consists of quotes from those affiliated with the Institute; fails WP:ORGIND		~	✘ No
London Review of Books			only mentions the Institute in passing, where it is covered in the context of Bookchin's life	✘ No
Seven Days		? alt weekly		? Unknown
NYT opinion piece			passing mention of the Institute's director	✘ No
Vice		~ no consensus on reliability	passing mention of the Institute's director	✘ No
Guardian quote			Bookchin's obituary, where the Institute is mentioned in passing for its relation to Bookchin in a single sentence	✘ No
Jacobin		? partisan mag	same—passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

czar 05:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this assessment of 'passing mention'. Notability is what is said, not how much is said. To say "ISE offered some of the first courses in the country on urbanism and ecology, radical technology, ecology and feminism, activist art and community. There really was nothing like it." is a direct assertion of notability not a mere "passing mention". And this quote is by an academic professor - Damian F. White is Head of the Department of History, Philosophy and the Social Sciences, Associate Professor of Sociology and Coordinator of Nature-Culture-Sustainability Studies at the Rhode Island School of Design which is affiliated with Brown University. -- GreenC 14:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG does not say that every subject of bombastic claims needs its own article. "How much is said" in sources is the basis for whether the topic needs its own article. Even in the sources provided, the vast majority of what we can paraphrase based on this sources is the Institute's relation to Bookchin. czar 08:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the conclusions of the source table, which is also incomplete because it does not review all of the sources that were in the article and have since been added. As to the VPR article, it does not "entirely [consist] of quotes from those affiliated with the Institute;" the beginning of the article states, "Social ecology is an academic discipline that favors a democratic and communal approach to social, political and environmental problems. Vermont has played a seminal role in the development of this somewhat obscure social science, thanks to the Institute for Social Ecology founded in Plainfield in 1974," and then continues with reporting and commentary throughout the article about the Institute and its history. Per WP:ORGIND, the author is independent and the content is independent, and it is significant coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Also, VTDigger appears to be a reliable source, and the 2020 article that is missing from the source assessment table is independent per WP:ORGIND and provides significant coverage. Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Beccaynr (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC) As to the London Review of Books source, the discussion of the ISE is so much more than a trivial mention, I am using a comment collapse template to quote it:[reply]

Enzinna, London Review of Books, 2017

Accompanied by a group of social ecologists he left the Bronx in 1973 and moved part-time to Vermont, where he’d been invited to lecture at Goddard College. The university soon asked him to head a full-time undergraduate programme, the Institute for Social Ecology (ISE). Bookchin was wary of the academy, and dismissed other radical professors for their ‘refrigeration’ in the universities, but Goddard enticed him with a riverside plot called Cate Farm: a nine-room brick farmhouse, barn and forty fertile acres. It was an ideal place to experiment with transforming technological ‘instruments of domination and social antagonism’ into ‘instruments of liberation and social harmonisation’. Students built thousand-gallon fish tanks, composting toilets, geodesic domes, wind turbines and Vermont’s first solar-powered building. They read Marx, Kropotkin, Adorno, Mumford, Buber and Bookchin’s own writings. Staff and students skinny-dipped, hiked and partied together. In summer, the community swelled to nearly 200 students, drawn by Bookchin’s growing notoriety and guest lectures by Grace Paley, Margaret Mead and Anna Gyorgy. [...] Small cadres at places like the ISE would need to cultivate social-ecological attitudes that would enable the democratic organisation of society, and acquire the practical and political acumen to create a world in which technology served the needs of local ecosystems and their human and non-human inhabitants. It was, in other words, a proposal for an economy that Bookchin hoped would be neither communist nor capitalist but what he called ‘Communalist’. [...] Bernie Sanders, a 39-year-old socialist filmmaker and political neophyte, challenged Paquette in the 1981 mayoral race, lending his support to the assemblies. [...] Seven months later, Goddard College went bankrupt, and the ISE lost its home at Cate Farm. When a wealthy supporter offered to buy the property and donate it to the institute, all seemed saved – but after purchasing the land, this supposed friend of the movement got rid of the geodesic domes, composting toilets and fish tanks, and turned the property into a private farm. Bookchin and his followers soon found another home in the village of Plainfield, on a much smaller plot of land and without any institutional support. It was here that Janet Biehl, a 33-year-old copyeditor from New York who had been captivated by Ecology of Freedom, arrived in 1986. From the first day of class held in a flower-filled meadow, she was both perplexed and mesmerised by Bookchin, a gnomish 65-year-old with catfish whiskers, whose bottom lip seemed to cover his moustache when he grinned. He dressed ‘like a janitor, with a tyre air-pressure gauge in his front pocket’ and infuriated some of his colleagues and students by driving around campus in his car, ‘even for short distances’. His first date with Biehl was at Dunkin’ Donuts. Bookchin defended his diet as an expression of his proletarian roots, and dismissed criticism of it as the bourgeois scapegoating of individuals for the crimes of corporations and governments. But his taste for Big Macs and gas-guzzling cars struck many as ludicrous. ‘The thing that got people was the Twinkies,’ another student told Biehl. [...] In 2004, as an undergraduate, I drove with a friend from upstate New York to Plainfield, Vermont, hoping to hear Bookchin speak. I didn’t know that he was no longer much involved in the Institute for Social Ecology. Then 83 years old, he spent his days at home or scooting in a motorised wheelchair around downtown Burlington. One of the senior faculty at the ISE snorted when we asked about the institute’s founder. The small white farmhouse used as classroom and lecture hall was dilapidated. ‘Are you here for the ideas?’ he asked my companion. ‘Or just to, like, hang out with your boyfriend?’

Beccaynr (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC) As to the 2014 Seven Days article, it also appears to contribute to significant coverage as a reliable source, including because it was featured in a 2013 Editor & Publisher article 10 Newspapers That Do It Right 2013 and has won many awards from the Vermont Press Association, including in 2013. Beccaynr (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC) So as an update so far, based on my assessment above:[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1986 NYT				✔ Yes
2014 Vermont Public Radio				✔ Yes
2014 Seven Days				✔ Yes
2017 London Review of Books				✔ Yes
2020 VTDigger				✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Beccaynr (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject (ISE) is an organization. Organizations tend to receive hagiographic coverage in secondary sources and are subject to more stringent notability criteria, WP:ORGCRIT. Sources that predominantly quote from people affiliated with the organization, i.e., are not the original analysis of the source, do not meet WP:ORGIND. The Vermont Public Radio article is the epitome of this. That the source has topic sentences before paragraphs of direct participant quotations does not constitute analysis or distance from the subject.

You say I missed a source—which? The Institute is incontrovertibly mentioned in passing in the VTDigger's profile of Guzman. The Capitalism Nature Socialism article's author is self-declared as an active member of the Institute since the 80s and a "core faculty member since the early nineties". Moreover, it underscores my point that the Institute is primarily covered in context of its relation to Bookchin, hence why I recommend covering the Institute within his article (as it was) and only splitting out when warranted by an overabundance of secondary source coverage, which we have seen so far that there is not. czar 08:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the VTDigger article (the source not included in your table) is trivial coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH, because there is detail about the history of the ISE, and Guzman's commentary on the organization:

Luis Guzman: Vermont one of safest places in world right now, VTDigger, 2020

The actor Luis Guzman has made Vermont his home since 1995. But his deep connection to the state was cemented more than 20 years earlier when he joined other Puerto Rican teenagers from New York for a visit to Goddard College.

“It gave me a different perspective on life and humanity,” Guzman recalls of his first visit in 1974. “I discovered a new sense of freedom when I came up here. The fresh air, the vibe, growing your own food, solar energy. These guys were doing all that type of stuff. I was going to the quarry and swimming and everybody was butt naked. Oh, hell, yeah!”

These guys were the students and teachers at the Institute for Social Ecology, a hotbed of alternative energy and agriculture technology housed at Goddard’s Cate Farm, which abutted the Winooski River in Plainfield. Goddard sold the farm in 1981.

The institute was co-founded by Murray Bookchin, an anarchist/theorist, and Dan Chodorkoff, an urban anthropologist who was responsible for bringing Guzman and other members of a Lower East Side activist group called Charas to Vermont. The 18-year-old Guzman and his Nuyorican compatriots were doing work similar to the institute’s back in their neighborhood, or Loisaida, as the Puerto Ricans referred to it. Charas created a community garden, built a geodesic dome with Buckminster Fuller, rehabilitated abandoned housing with sweat equity and transformed a vacant public school into an arts center.

Chodorkoff, who now lives in Marshfield, remembers young Guzman as having “tremendous energy and smarts. He was just a really magnetic person.”

“I remember coming up here in the fall when the foliage was in full explosion,” Chodorkoff recalled. “It was really something to see it through Louie’s eyes, this kid from the Lower East Side who had never experienced fall foliage in all its grandeur. I think he was very taken with that.”

The focus on co-founder Dan Chodorkoff by VTDigger as well as other independent and reliable sources, and the LRB source above that confirms the ISE is more than Bookchin, add support for why after the removal of the unsourced WP:OR description of the ISE from the article, it does not appear to be feasible to only cover the Institute as if it is primarily related to Bookchin. As to the VPR article, there appears to be substantial reporting and some commentary on the organization, even with all of the quotes removed:

The Incubator For Social Change; Institute For Social Ecology Celebrates 40 Years, VPR, 2014

Social ecology is an academic discipline that favors a democratic and communal approach to social, political and environmental problems. Vermont has played a seminal role in the development of this somewhat obscure social science, thanks to the Institute for Social Ecology founded in Plainfield in 1974. The institute started at Goddard College and operated out of Goddard's 90-acre Cate Farm, which had a brick farmhouse and a huge dairy barn that served as the institute’s lecture hall and fabrication workshop.

The institute’s far flung alumnae recently gathered in Marshfield for a reunion. Co-founder Dan Chodorkoff served as its director when it began in 1974. [...] Alternative energy was also an early focus of the institute. [...] Many of the institute’s students went on to teach there. Joseph Kiefer earned a masters in social ecology in 1980 and later founded a Vermont non-profit called Foodworks active in gardening and nutrition. When he started his masters in the summer of 1977, there were 120 student in the social ecology program. [...] That new way of thinking was very much influenced by the institute’s social ecology guru Murray Bookchin, a charismatic political theorist and by all accounts, a brilliant intellectual.

Bookchin passed away in 2006. In an documentary in progress by his son Joseph, Bookchin recalled his early influence on the environmental movement. [...] Bookchin was so far ahead of his time that in 1964 he warned of global warming. In 1962, his book “Our Synthetic Environment” was published six months before Rachel Carson’s landmark environmental classic “Silent Spring.”

Grace Gershuny worked for the Northeast Organic Farming Association and helped the U.S. Department of Agriculture establish standards for organic food. In the mid-1980s she taught bio-regional agriculture at the Institute for Social Ecology. Gershuny now teaches in the sustainable food systems program for Green Mountain College. [...] And just as Murray Bookchin was ahead of his time on an array of environmental and political issues, so, too, has the institute been prescient in some areas of public policy.

Nine years before Vermont passed legislation requiring labeling of genetically modified foods, students and faculty at the Institute for Social Ecology were agitating against GMO foods.

Among the 50 people who gathered in Marshfield for the reunion was Chaia Heller, who joined the institute’s faculty in 1985 and taught a course on feminism and ecology. Heller has also taught anthropology at Mt. Holyoke College.

Her doctoral dissertation focused on a French union that created a moratorium on genetically modified foods in France. [...] No one will accuse the Institute for Social Ecology of being apolitical. From its involvement in the anti-nuclear movement in the mid-1970s to more recent affiliations with the anti-globalization, Occupy Wall Street and climate justice movements of the 21st Century, the institute has embraced activism as part of its mission.

Beccaynr (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also add GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. It doesn't matter what the "main topic" or "focus" of the source is. What matters is our topic has more than trivial coverage in the source. -- GreenC 02:14, 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 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)} 18:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

René Sotelo[edit]

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

Uninmportant. Clearly self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.6.56 (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 05:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 05:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 05:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here demonstrates meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the references, if not all, appear not to be independent, meaning that his article would fail WP:GNG. I'm inclined to vote for deletion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:47, 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 merge to Enterprise resource planning. The part to be merged is the lead along with the one reference only. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 04:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ERP system selection methodology[edit]

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

Essay about a topic with dubious notability as a standalone topic. MarioGom (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be promoting an ERP software vendor's view on how to buy ERP software. Fails Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO and WP:PROMO. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's false. The whole point of this topic is to choose between vendors. The page does not focus on or even mention particular high-profile vendors such as Microsoft, Oracle or SAP. It mostly talks in very general terms and the sources are likewise independent. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! If it was written by a high-profile vendor it would say to select an 'experienced vendor', with a 'strong track record'. If you wanted to find out which company commissioned the article look for a smaller player (in 2009) i.e. "Selection Bias", probably from a developed country "Over-Emphasis on System Cost", that also does consultancy work "Failure to use Objective Professional Services", and that offers "Focused Demonstrations", etc. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page cites sources by respectable publishers such as the Cambridge University Press and Harvard Business School. And it is easy to find more books about the topic such as The Enterprise Resource Planning Decade which states that "There are a number of ERP software selection methodologies documented in the literature...". The topic is therefore notable and the rest is a matter of development rather than deletion per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page..." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Management-speak HOWTO that's been tagged as needing drastic improvement for over a decade. Improvement is not going to happen. Nor is there any clear reason why this deserves an article separate from Enterprise resource planning. (It reads like a copyvio, but it's so old that trying to find the original is probably not worth the trouble.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a smidgen to Enterprise resource planning - basically, the first reference, stating that there are a variety of selection systems. The rest is lots of overly specific How-To and badly- to un-sourced synthesis. This belongs in a management seminar three ring binder, not on Wikipedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Enterprise resource planning, as stated above, the first reference is worth porting over to the other article, but everything else is basically just WP:SYNTH and is not worth saving. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (very selectively) to Enterprise resource planning, per reasons above. I think the lead is about all that could be merged based on the sources. Almost all of this article is OR/SYNTH, that is more of a technical guide than an encyclopedic article. This is not an independently notable topic apart from the merge target. Even if sources did exist, this alone is not a reason to have a stand alone article; in this case the content would be better included in the target. This is an unneeded CFORK. @MarioGom, SailingInABathTub, and XOR'easter:, would you be amenable to a selective merge of the lead? // Timothy :: talk 16:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A merge of the lead only is fine by me. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definitely. I should be very clear for the closer, I'm talking about a merge for the lead with an appropriate ref(s), nothing else. Otherwise I'd be a Delete. // Timothy :: talk 22:40, 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 no consensus. I'm afraid we just don't have much agreement around the extent to which these sources should help it clear the GNG hurdle. Go Phightins! 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onward (housing association)[edit]

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

Unsourced; I can find nothing except announcements and placements of lists and PR DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps you should read Inside Housing more often. Rathfelder (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the first ref from that source is a mere notice; the 2nd is trivial. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is limited to mentions in passing, press releases and their rewrites. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major regional social housing provider. Its activities are regularly reported in the regional media. I've found more than 20 in the last year. Rathfelder (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: And can you provide any example of that? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added them to the article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly relisting a third time to establish consensus regarding the recently-added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is borderline as many of the sources are local news items on incidents in which Onward is mentioned, but is not the topic, and some are press releases. However, the articles in Place North West are detailed. But Place North West is a specialist regional publication which doesn't provide much in the way of notability. All those things combined, plus that the article gets few readers, point to deletion. SilkTork (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Place North West is a very respectable independent source. We do not have a policy of denigrating regional publications. Our coverage of housing is pretty weak. Taking this out will not improve it. They provide housing for disadvantaged people. Its not surprising that the article doesnt get a lot of readers, but we dont have a policy of deletion on the basis of lack of readers. Rathfelder (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points Rathfelder. However, while we don't have a policy of denigrating regional publications, we do consider the independence, reliability, relevance, age, importance, etc of a source. This is not Animal Farm, and all sources are not equal. The more that other reliable sources use a particular source, the more we ourselves rely on it. That a source is written by a respected author, gives it, for our purpose, more reliability than a source written by an unknown author. The more recent, the more widely read, the more respected the source, the more we trust it. And the converse is true. So sources that are written by unknown authors in little known publications with limited readership tend not to inspire the confidence of sources written by widely known and respected experts in widely read and often cited publications with a global audience. It's just a matter of scale. Place North West would be an acceptable source for providing facts about housing in the Liverpool area. But as regards the establishing the notability of a housing business in the Liverpool area it is fairly limited because of its narrow interest and narrow audience. We would expect such a publication to cover information about a housing business in the Liverpool area because that is what it does all the time. And it is hard for us in such journals to separate an article prompted by a press release from an article prompted by the author's or the editor's genuine interest in the story. I am not running Place North West down in this, just putting it into context, and explaining why I felt that it being a specialist regional publication doesn't provide much in the way of evidence of notability for our purpose. Does that seem fair? Also, of course: WP:AUD.

And while the amount of pageviews isn't in itself a rationale for either keeping or deleting an article, it is a factor to be taken into consideration. I would not suggest an article is deleted purely on few pageviews; but, few pageviews, coupled with a subject which appears to have a limited local interest, leans me toward delete on what is - as I say - a fairly borderline case. I hope that helps flesh out my rationale. SilkTork (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onward is not confined to Liverpool. It's probably the biggest social housing provider in the North West of England. And as i pointed out above it gets a lot of coverage in Inside Housing. I have never seen it suggested before that lack of page views should be taken into consideration. Rathfelder (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a good deal bigger than most of the rest of Category:Housing associations based in England and gets plenty of independent coverage. It's not surprising that regional housing providers get most of their coverage in the regional press. Bigwig7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a business listing not an encyclopaedic article. Sources all are mentions of the association, not about the association. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burtons Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

Technically PROD ineligible, due to being part of a procedurally-kept bundled nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia. These are road junctions with no evidence of a community being here, and no substantive coverage: only passing mentions, or references to the place as a road junction or landmark. No evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met for any of these.

Also included in this nomination are the following articles for which the same thing applies (these are all in the same county; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blundon Corner, Virginia)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all Mass-produced junk without evidence of being notable communities. Reywas92^Talk 06:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It is time we rid Wikipedia of these articles on super non-notable places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: per nom. The nom does a good job of researching these articles. Fails GNG and GEOLAND. // Timothy :: talk 16:46, 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) 23:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Blast[edit]

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

Film does not appear to meet either the general notability guidelines or the film notability guidelines. Lack of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Reviews that exist for this film are only of the blog variety and do not contribute to notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several reliable sources exist: National Film and Sound Archive of Australia, Screen Australia, Wide Angle Tasmania. Also, the film's director Brian Trenchard-Smith appears quite impactful. Brandmeister^talk 15:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These do not have significant coverage. They're essentially database listings, which do not count toward notability. The director's notability does not mean all their films are notable, either. With barely any coverage, Arctic Blast could be covered in their article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NFILM#1, there are no independent reviews I could find. --hroest 22:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. A thorough search of the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspaper articles (wider and deeper than Google) revealed several articles reporting on the film's production, and these articles are probably sufficient to be IRS, so I have added them to the page, to give it the best chance of surviving. But I couldn't find and critical reviews, so it feels to me like it fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 01:06, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spring-powered aircraft[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, quick google search came up with no sources that met WP:RS and WP:RSP LOMRJYO_{(About × contribs)} 03:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it is already covered in Model aircraft. No idea what the Besslers' steam-powered airplane has to do with this subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are very few sources that actually use this term, and none of them are actually sufficient coverage to pass the WP:GNG. The only source being used is actually a mirror of this very Wikipedia article. It could potentially be used as a redirect to Model aircraft#Rubber propulsion, where the concept is already covered, but as the term seems to be so seldom used, I don't recommend it. That bizarre second paragraph about a steam powered aircraft was just recently added by a now-blocked user, so I'm not sure if its addition was some bizarre attempt at vandalism, or the user just badly misread the title of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons given above. In addition, we should remove the "clockwork drives" section of the sidebar, and bump "Human powered" up a level to be its own category, rather than a subcategory. PianoDan (talk) 20:20, 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview, Fresno County, California[edit]

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

What "still shows up" on the 1923 topo is a single building, apparently at the end of a long driveway; some of this still shows up in the 1960s aerials, when the country club was be built, but there's nothing on any map that suggests this was a settlement beyond a single farm or the like. Searching turns up nothing; the name is too generic and most hits are for developments which apparently were elsewhere. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Citation is this map (top left), which is no basis for a notable place. Reywas92^Talk 19:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Reywas92 that the Bullard 1:31680, 1921 Quadrangle is not evidence of a notable place for this item. I searched JSTOR, Goggle Scholar, and Internet Archive and found nothing of any significance like Mangoe. I did find a reference to a "Riverview, California" in a journal article. However, it is in reference to a "Riverview Highschool." Even that name is an alias used by a researcher to hide the school's real name and protect the student's privacy. Paul H. (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. This refers to a town founded in the 1887 boom, it was fully staked out with over 1,000 lots sold but never actually got built. Discussed in detail in [24], (contemporary source here). If a merge target is desired I'd suggest Herndon, California as sources have the actual location of Riverview as being on the north bank by the railroad bridge opposite Herndon, which is just under three miles west of the co-ords given in the article.----Pontificalibus 17:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails GEOLAND and GNG. The nom does a good job of researching these articles. No objection to a redirect if the closer thinks a suitable target has been proposed, but there is nothing here to merge. // Timothy :: talk 16:42, 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. The outcome also suggests a rename to Liberty Victoria. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Council for Civil Liberties[edit]

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

WP:V, The organisation referred to here appears not to exist. There was an Australian Council for Civil Liberties from 1936 to 1966 after which it changed its name to the VCCL. Now, a single person, Terry O'Gorman, describes himself as the President of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties in certain interviews and press releases, but other than that there is no reality to the organisation. There's no building, no website, no address, no contact, and no staff or membership other than Mr O'Gorman. Mr O'Gorman remains the vice-president of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties and uses the ACCL label when he wishes to express views that are his own and would not be compatible with his QCCL role. Ordinary Person (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No WP:RS found. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - the nomination is entirely incorrect, the ACCL is now known as "Liberty Victoria" (see here) which is an organisation that is regularly involved and contributing to debate on civil liberty issues in Victoria and Australia and there are plenty of sources. Happy to rename the article to its current article but deletion is entirely inappropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 21:10, 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) 03:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deus et lex's suggestion and rename. I have significantly re-written the page and added several IRS. There is ample IRS material for 'Liberty Victoria' such as this and this that I've added to page. Cabrils (talk) 22:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Goff[edit]

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

This is my first time suggesting an WP:AfD and am up for a discussion. Reading this articles edit history leads me to believe this was created for self promotion. I read the qualifications for deletion and articles on a living person. I don't think I am stepping on any toes. Please let me know if I am doing something incorrectly. Augu❤Maugu 💕 02:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Augu❤Maugu 💕 02:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I see five books with over 100 citations, that is a lot especially in a low-citation field. That should pass WP:NPROF. While maybe self promotion was initially involved, that does not make the subject less notable. It needs to be cleaned up per WP:RESUME, deletion is not the right course of action but improvement is. --hroest 04:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The subject is clearly notable, and AfD is not cleanup. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding a bit on my initial comment, I would be very cautious about suggesting self-promotion. There is a significant difference between a perceived promotional tone, and self-promotional editing. With the latter I would be concerned about outing an editor's identity.
  As to the content of the article itself, there was some wording which could have been more neutrally phrased and I have made some small copyedits to that end. More detail could certainly be added to flesh the article out some more, as at the moment it primarily details various positions without explaining their impact. To be fair, that extra step is often the trickiest part of writing biographies about academics. In cases where an article's tone does need work then clean-up is needed; deletion should only be explored as an option if there are notability concerns.
  Goff is demonstrably a notable subject, and her work has been reviewed by various independent reliable sources (eg 1, 2, 3, and 4 from a very quick search of Google Scholar). So with reliable sources discussing her work, we have a clear case for Goff's notability. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per the above two comments, the article could do with some improvement but that is not grounds for deletion, the subject has several notable publications (extremely high citation rate for Classics; reviewed in key journals (e.g. [Philology], The Classical Review - these and others could be useful for improving the article. Eritha (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as based on her publications she seems quite notable in her field. SunDawn (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the subject is clearly notable and the article is well supported. The deletion tag should be removed asap Srsval (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough reviews of books to make WP:NAUTHOR convincing, and plenty of citations (in a lower citation field) for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current listed sources passes WP:NAUTHOR. Sliekid (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for all mentioned above. Jooojay (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the valid reasons and analysis above. Luciapop (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NAUTHOR, her works have been reviewed in multiple journals. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:11, 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. No prejudice against moving any GNG-compliant content to an article on the house or whatever, but clear consensus that the locality isn't notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blundon Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

Technically ineligible for PROD, because it was part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia, which was procedurally closed with no individual discussion of this particular article. Topos only show a single building and a survey benchmark at a crossroads, which both disappear by the 1960s. Newspapers.com brings up a single reference to "Henry Blundon's corner" and a house being built there, and the rest of the stuff my WP:BEFORE brought up are just bare references to this as a road landmark or junction. Nothing I've seen describes this is a community except for the ever-present GNIS "populated place" label. No evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met. Hog Farm _Talk 02:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also bundling in the following three articles. They are all similar cases - named road junctions with no signs of a community there and no significant coverage.

All four of these are in the same county, and none seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 02:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy delete all Mass-produced junk without evidence of being notable communities. Reywas92^Talk 07:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all we have let these low sourced articles on virtually non-existent places stand unchallenged for too long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a crime to have articles on non-notable locales that exist. It takes time to build the greatest encyclopedia ever known to mankind. Maybe this should be deleted but there is no need for speedy deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 Nightwolf1223 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol, let's speedy delete the lot of y'all. The article is eleven years old, it can last a 7 day AFD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A7 does not apply to places, and the "claim of significance" in A7 is low enough that even claiming something is a populated place would probably meet it. I'm pretty confident these aren't notable, but the standard 7-day deletion process is proper the way to go. Hog Farm _Talk 19:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog. I'm at least having fun learning about this "Arcadia" house at the location, even if it ends up in the dustbin.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Arcadia (house), Virginia. The Arcadia house seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:BUILD, so we can make this article about the house in order to preserve the edit history.----Pontificalibus 10:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: per nom. The nom does a good job of researching these articles. // Timothy :: talk 16:40, 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) 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gravesboro, California[edit]

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

The abandoned rail R-o-W this used to be on is actually a bit to the west of the coords, which for whatever reason mark a spot at the far eastern end of the label as it appears on the oldest topos. The name disappears before the rails do, and then reappears after they were taken up; topos show some buildings but aerials make it clear that these represent a couple of farms with their outbuildings. In the end a subdivision was put in south of the road (and SE of the old rail point) but it appears to have no connection with the former "settlement" that was never there. Searching produces nothing but location name drops. Mangoe (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. The nom does a good job of researching these articles. No objection to a redirect if the closer thinks a suitable target has been proposed. // Timothy :: talk 16:39, 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.