Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 12 May 14 >

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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gren (band)[edit]

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

Easily fails WP:GNG and with only one low-charting song on a secondary chart, likely fails WP:MUSICBIO, but without RSes, there's nothing to keep here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the nominator notes, the band had a charting single, which meets WP:MUSIC. We do not completely lack for RSes; there's a smattering of bio info for every artist in Joel Whitburn's books, and AMG's got coverage (bio, review); since this is a 1990s band, I imagine much of the bulk of RS coverage will be in offline sources. Chubbles (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BAND criteria #2 based on a Billboard charting single as shown on their website. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not see any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I do not see anything notable about this band. I do not consider charting on the Mainstream Rock radio chart to establish notability ('national chart', to me, would indicate charting on the primary chart, I do not think this is addressed in the guidelines). Did not release two or more records on a major label (had one album and an EP 12 years after disbanding?). Fails GNG and NMBIO in my view. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's long been established that genre- and market-specific charts in large and diverse countries (such as the US) count fully as much as the Hot 100 for determining notability. Releasing two albums on a major label helps with WP:MUSIC, but the lack of it does not preclude meeting the guideline; there's no reason why two albums on a major label should be a prerequisite. Chubbles (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case. They are never automatically notable just because they charted. They may be notable if they chart. That's all. They never released two albums, only one. The second work was an EP. Also, nothing they have done has attracted press. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "automatically" means in this context, but charting on Billboard has been the closest thing we have to a gold standard for WP:MUSIC for as long as I have been editing. I don't see why we would want to not have an article on a group that meets WP:MUSIC; as noted, there are available sources, so we don't have a WP:V issue here, and there are plenty of acts that are notable who released only one full-length album. Chubbles (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has not. There has been a lot of debate about this, and editor like you continue to forget that WP:MUSICBIO has the term "may" in the criteria. It simply means that just because they have charted does not automatically mean that they are notable. There are plenty of acts who are notable for one work, but this is not one of them. if they are notable, provide reliable sources (more than one) that discuss the band at length. If not, stop stating that we should keep articles about bands that no one else cares to write about. If outside sources do not write about them neither should we. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't know what "automatically" means in this context. But it sounds like you are claiming that, in addition to meeting the SNG of WP:MUSIC, the article also needs to meet the GNG, and it most certainly does not; there would be no need for the SNG if that were true. As I noted, we do not completely lack for outside sources, and both WP:MUSIC and WP:V are met. I'm happy to see it included if and when more are found (and I am confident there are more beyond our lazy Google searches), but that coverage is not necessary based on what we already have. Chubbles (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This SNG in particular does not make the claim that if criteria is met that the subject are notable. You do read that, right? Bcause it sounds like you are claiming that any band or musician that meets one criteria is immediately notable and you are ignore the qualifier of may. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "immediately", same as "automatically". These are straw-man words. The question becomes, if the subject meets the guideline, why would we want to exclude it from inclusion - why would we choose to say it's not notable anyway? The answer I hear is "because it doesn't meet the GNG", or "because it doesn't meet bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC", which is the GNG. But again, if that were the criterion, then the SNG would not be needed, and if this is a special case meriting deletion in unusual circumstances, I don't think there's a compelling IAR rationale for deletion here (certainly, none has been provided). Chubbles (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, they are not straw man words. You are wikilawyering Chubbles. MUSIBIO confers no notability on bands. It simply lists criteria by which a band or musician may be notable. In short, this band meets aone criterion, and yet they are clearly not in any way notable. Get the word may removed from the criteria and this conversation ends. While it remains in-place, you can state they meet an item on the list, but that does make them notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't know how anyone who edits regularly in music can come to the conclusion that "MUSIBIO confers no notability on bands". That is precisely its purpose. In any case, I doubt dragging this out any further will dislodge either of us from our perches. Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly do not know how anyone who speaks English cannot understand that the word may means. You can keep trying to confuse the issue, but that word is still there. I doubt that dragging this out any further will get you to acknowledge your error. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's not much to work with, but the "keep" voters above are more convincing on how there is enough for a short stub article on this band. They meet #2 and #4 at WP:NBAND due to the charting single and the ensuing media coverage that is already cited in the article. The argument above on "may" and "automatically" etc. achieves nothing and is a bad reason to keep this AfD going for weeks and weeks. Those accusing others of wikilawyering could stand to look in the mirror. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect that the people who !voted for keep will actually add content then, otherwise it remains a perma-stub, which is useless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service / Wikipedia:There is no deadline / Wikipedia:Permastub. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are correct, but we don't keep Wikipedia:Permastubs and editors like the two of you prefer that we do, so perhaps spend less time on commenting on hopeless articles and spend time working on it. Your choices speak volumes as to your commitment to Wikipedia. I have been involved in at least three other AfDs over the past year or two where the only keep comments have come from you and Chubbles and those articles are still in a sad state, and readers still have no clue why the articles exist, but we have had an AfD that said they charted, and so we must keep them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know less than jack, but why let that stop you? Disagreeing with other people's votes in AfDs gives you zero evidence for conclusions about their motivations. You have no idea how many Wikipedia articles I have improved over the years, nor do you know this about anyone else. The last several pages of my contribution history "speak volumes" about how much you don't know about my commitment to improving articles. That same contribution history also shows that I am more likely to vote to delete articles that come to the Bands/Musicians AfD page, including many that were nominated by you. Looking forward to your next gripe about how you're the only smart person around here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Doomsdayer520, please don't comment on what I do and do not know. Also, we do not vote. In short, glad you're such a committed editor, this band is not worth incusion on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please note: WG says above, "we don't keep Wikipedia:Permastubs". Per the linked essay: "Paper encyclopedias are full of informative, concise stubs. Finished permastubs likewise don't need expansion.". Chubbles (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Philadelphia[edit]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article puts its best foot forward, starting with statues, paintings, and literature. But they aren't really "cultural depictions of Philadelphia", but depictions of events that happened in Philadelphia, several of which have articles. Things go downhill rapidly once one reaches music, where "depiction of" becomes "contains the line", usually actually "contains the word 'Philly'". That's not a depiction. The films give no indication why they are there, whether it is because they were filmed on location there or are set there. Television at least tries, but again the "cultural depictions" turn out to be merely non-depicting things like 215 area code telephone numbers being used in a show. If the article were limited to things that depict Philadelphia per its stated scope, it would look somewhat different. This article is things that can be related to Philadelphia anyhow with even the most desperate of reaches, however. Uncle G (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G: Are you voting Keep or Delete? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NOTAVOTE Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a reasonable demonstration of the topic's notability and viability, see the Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia which has equivalent entries on:
  1. Art
  2. Literature
  3. Media
  4. Movies
  5. Music
  6. Performing Arts
  7. Popular Culture
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pop culture trivia, the majority of this list uses IMDB as a source, which isn't reliable. Categories for 'X set in Philadelphia' seems sufficient to cover this topic, and this article seems excessive, listing many trivial appearances of the city with no source. Waxworker (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Essentially a list of poorly sourced trivia, most of which is extremely trivial (like the multitude of song lines that said the name of the city). A decent prose article could possibly be written on the actual topic, but this mass of trivia does not need to be kept in the main space in the meantime. Particularly since, as mentioned by Waxworker, the categories of movies/TV shows/etc set in Philadelphia already exist for navigation. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment newspaper.com gives 40 Matches for "Cultural depictions" of "Philadelphia" and 68 Matches for "depictions of Philadelphia". Sorting through them now, I see Philadelphia Daily News (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) 28 Aug 2017, Mon Page 18 has a full article about how the television show Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia so well portrayed the city, and suggesting the creator of the show be given a statue. "Rob McElhenney is the man behind the most famous depiction of Philly in the 21st century". Would searching for things on this list and the phrase "depiction of Philadelphia" show any results? The Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania) 11 Jul 2010, Sun Page 59 Crime novel tells a dismal, gritty tale of Philly is the headline and the article talks about the "bleak depiction of the Philadelphia". So places that review things do mention their depiction of this city. Lot of search results to sort through. Dream Focus 20:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just TV Tropes trivia in its current form. If there is any potential for a prose version of this article, it can be redone at a later date. TTN (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be contrary to explicit policy which clearly states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would require the page to be in a suitable state from which it could be improved, and my statement is a conditional if requiring actual potential to first be demonstrated. Neither condition has been fulfilled, so this hypothetical prose article will require someone making a draft or expanding the topic in the parent article to a suitable point that splitting is necessary. TTN (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Don't see how it is different than other recently deleted pages. Shankargb (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I have to say deleting such lists seems pretty random. Random list of mentions of journalists was recently kept, this random list of mentions of a city won't be? Eh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom's rationale. Does not meet wp:listn. Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of primary and unreliable sources. It seems exorbitant with listing many insignificant appearances with no source, Myconcern (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rugby league#Other competitions. Going with merge and redirect as WP:Alternative to deletion. Missvain (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Kangaroo tour of England[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG, by virtue of it being cancelled. Yes there was coverage that the series would return, but in the end, it was cancelled. Any relevant info can be captured in the parent article The Ashes (rugby league)#History, no need for a separate article outlining fixtures that didn't happen. Redirect to The Ashes article would be fine in my opinion Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Dinowitz[edit]

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

City-level politicians aren't inherently notable, and I can't find any solid secondary sources (beyond a few mentions in local press of his candidacy and election results, plus the usual social media of course) to satisfy sigcov, hence fails WP:GNG / WP:POLITICIAN. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's rationale. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eric Dinowitz is a sitting member of the New York City Council whose council members have long had Wikipedia articles without issue. I think throwing in an NYC Councilman as "local politician," is not a correct interpretation of the rules.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and flag for improvement. This is definitely in dire need of improvement — namely, it has to be referenced to media coverage, not just to Ballotpedia and his own self-published website about himself — but New York City is very much one of the internationally prominent global cities where we absolutely do accept the city council as a notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat where in WP:NPOL does it say that there is an exception for local politicians in NYC or other global cities? --hroest 14:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POLOUTCOMES specifies that we keep city councillors in internationally prominent global cities. Category:New York City Council members has over 300 articles on past or present New York City councillors, and even just the membership list in New York City Council reveals that every single other incumbent NYC councillor has an article with the isolated exceptions of a couple who were also just newly elected in March (which means their articles just haven't been started yet, not that they're barred from ever having articles on notability grounds). Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Toronto, same story: every single incumbent city councillor has an article without exception (although obviously some historical councillors from 50 or 100 years ago have been overlooked). NPOL doesn't have to explicitly reconfirm what POLOUTCOMES already says, especially when what POLOUTCOMES already says is easily backed up by evidence. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see anything in WP:NPOL that says an exception to the rule is to be made for prominent cities, let alone just for NYC. The guideline says "Just being an elected local official [...] does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." City politicians are by definition local. I don't see GNG being satisfied. And to say that other NYC politicians may have articles is merely the WP:OSE argument. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL doesn't have to say it if WP:POLOUTCOMES does. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he got 5000 votes, so he is representing about as many people as a small town mayor. Also, no SIGCOV here, so I agree with DoubleGrazing. It clearly specifies Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. both of which he fails. --hroest 14:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is not a question of how many individual votes the person did or didn't get in the process of being elected to a political office — it's a question of whether the body that the person was elected to is a notable one or not, and has nothing to do with how many votes it did or didn't take to get elected to it. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that is why it states Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, I hope you are not claiming that the NYC city council is a national or international office he got elected to? --hroest 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's NPOL #1, not NPOL #2. NPOL #2 pertains to municipal politicians not covered by NPOL #1, and NPOL #2 is expanded upon in more depth at WP:POLOUTCOMES due to its vagueness and tendency to be interpreted differently by different readers — and POLOUTCOMES explicitly says that while city councillors are not automatically deemed notable in all cities, city councillors are deemed notable in internationally prominent global cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto and London. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I see, thanks for bringing this up. I also see the point of having an article on each member of the council and not having some missing. I need to think about this some more. However, the outcome guidelines are just guidelines and also state precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London., where tended to favor is not the same as saying it makes them automatically notable. Also I think we would still need coverage from WP:RS and not his campaign webpage. --hroest 16:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not voting either way - I'm not sure GNG is satisfied, but it could be, and I'm not going to do the work to check on this one, at least not right now. I just don't completely agree with the "major city exception" to WP:NPOL - I'd like to make sure WP:GNG is met here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have gone ahead and cited more references, from both national and regional news sources, to satisfy WP:RS, as well as added a section about Dinowitz's presence within music to potentially satisfy WP:GNG. I do agree with Bearcat's statement on notability, as there are hundreds of articles on past and present New York City Councilors which have been fine, including predecessors within the 11th Council District, so I wouldn't see any exception to be made to this one. -BriLila (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POLITICIAN as a city-level politician he is not inherently notable. New York City, while a very famous city, remains a "city" and should not have more inherent notability than other cities, except for some circumstances. SunDawn (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe that "local politician" is a correct interpretation of the guidelines of Wikipedia:POLITICIAN in these circumstances. New York City council members represent 150,000 people, while it could be in a "local" area, it is still a very large amount of people where I feel the office should not be excluded from being notable. Also, I feel that OSE is a valid argument in the case of inherent notability. There are New York City Council members, past and present, who have articles without any issue. I don't believe this page should be excluded from other New York City council members for this reason. -BriLila (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a member of the New York City Council the subject passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Member of the city council of the country's largest city. KidAd • SPEAK 20:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Nweil (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards keep or no consensus. Any other thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Bowyer[edit]

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

Pure vanity/promo piece on a non-notable local politician and businessperson, effectively just says they had a career. Sources are few and poor, esp. once you discount the Wiki ones, and a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. (Regarding the latter point, for those not familiar with UK's local gov't structures, a District Council comes nowhere near the sub-national elected body mentioned in NPOL.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get articles just for serving as chairpersons of local councils, the only other notability claim here is that she existed as a businessperson, and the article is not sourced even remotely close to well enough to make her encyclopedically notable for either of those things. I've already stripped the numerous references where the creator scanned a newspaper clipping and uploaded it to Commons — the problem being that scanning a newspaper clipping does not result in your own new "original" work that you're free to upload to a Wikimedia project under Creative Commons, because the newspaper still has a copyright on the content of those files, but (a) Commons cannot host non-free content, and (b) Wikipedia articles cannot be sourced to copyright-violating copies of content — but even if we set those problems aside and just assess them on their merits as sourcing, they still aren't GNG-building coverage anyway: one is just the caption to a photograph, one is her own self-created campaign ad, and one is just a very short article minimally verifying her election to the role, so they wouldn't have been enough even if they weren't unusable copyright violations.
    Politicians at the local level of office (city, town, county or district councils) are not entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they existed as local officeholders — at that level of office, the notability test requires analysis of the significance of their work, not just proof that they existed. And after the removal of the copyright rips, there's nothing else left: five of the six remaining footnotes are primary sources (raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of organizations or companies she's been directly affiliated with, etc.) that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that's actually a real media outlet just glancingly namechecks her existence a single time in the process of being about her son.
    Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced a lot better than anything the creator has shown. Bearcat (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avalude Prathikaram[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hridayathil Nee Mathram[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karate Girls[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage fails WP:NFILM. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this is all the coverage to be found for an '88 film, it fails NFF. If there are newspaper reviews in print to be found, ping me for an update. -2pou (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashokante Aswathikuttikku[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:1S. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kallanum Polisum[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:1S. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFILM no reliable coverage. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any arguments that can be made rebutting those above. There isn't even much to WP:PRESEVE in case I am wrong, so starting over from scratch would not be bad. -2pou (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevitham Oru Raagam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:1S. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pavam I. A. Ivachan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:1S. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manikya Chempazhukka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:1S. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theere Pratheekshikkathe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-It[edit]

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

App that no longer exists; only independent RS cited (or from a quick google) is a single review. Gaelan 💬✏️ 04:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gaelan 💬✏️ 04:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only decent reference found is one (1) Forbes review. Fails to pass WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There 's a link to Kirkus review, but not linking to any review. Also a link to Wired magazine, not working. Lacks notability. Cinadon36 18:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — The Earwig (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sol América[edit]

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

Does not meet notability. I don’t see a lot of reliable source + reference of course about this old Venezuela airline. Kaseng55 (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion Cannot see how an airline which was in operation for over 30 years and operated a wide variety of aircraft types can be regarded as non-notable. The article may need updating and improvement but not deletion.Ardfern (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nomination is not convincing. Geschichte (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could not find reliable sources that prove notability. Alan Islas (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's hard to find sources given there are several soccer teams with the same name, most notably the Paraguayan one, which flood results. However, there are still two results for the airline on the front page of (UK) Google search (that aren't Wikipedia), so it's clearly the secondary use (of the term, to the club) and has enough notability to stay. Still runs many internal Venezuelan flights. Kingsif (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If re-nominated for deletion, a deeper analysis of the sources in article (or otherwise available) by those who feel significant coverage exists, or doesn't exist, would be helpful to the closer. Right now all I have to work with is "no it doesn't/yes it does". Therefore, and with minimal participation in mind, I can find no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Starks[edit]

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

fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 17:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd disagree that the subject fails to meet SIGCOV guidelines. I think the articles cited on the page itself and other sources from a quick Google News search show that the coverage exists and is, in my opinion, non-trivial. Perhaps the page could use some copyediting. Gargleafg (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Road, Hong Kong[edit]

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

Not every road in Hong Kong is notable and there is no indication that this one is either. It must pass WP:GEOROAD Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. With no sources provided, there is no evidence of notability. Furthermore, the road appears to be only a few blocks long; the streets mentioned in this article that Middle Road adjoins (has an intersection with) appear to be all the streets that it adjoins. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong#Kowloon and New Kowloon (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. It is useful to preserve the history under the redirect to allow for editors to undo the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found. It is also useful to preserve the history to allow for a merge of the content to either List of streets and roads in Hong Kong or to another article such as "List of street and roads in Kowloon and New Kowloon", which currently does not exist but could be created in the future as a spinoff from the main list article.

    Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for a redirect. What your proposing is a redirect to a list of streets that itself violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The reader will find no additional information at this list articles, making the redirect pointless.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reader will find that the street is located in Kowloon. The list does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The list definitely violates WP:DIRECTORY. It says that it is a list of notable roads, but indiscriminately lists many others that are not.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Tsim Sha Tsui#Middle Road, where I added information about the road. The street is also discussed in East Tsim Sha Tsui station so that is an alternative merge/redirect target. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have beefed up the article with references to coverage about this road in several reliable sources. Middle Road holds historic significance in several respects: it marks the original coastline of Tsim Sha Tsui, it is one of Kowloon's oldest streets, it is home to one of Kowloon's oldest public parks, and it once had Hong Kong's largest multi-storey car park. A pedestrian tunnel beneath Middle Road is one of the most important transportation arteries within Tsim Sha Tsui. I will continue to work on the article. Citobun (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the substantial improvements you have made to the article! Excellent work! Cunard (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cunard for all your hard work here as well! Citobun (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your kind words, thank you! Cunard (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Citobun and Cunard. Deryck C. 16:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An interesting and well referenced article, thanks to Citobun's work. Quite a bit more can certainly be added to this article about an important part of Kowloon. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Newfoundland Hockey League[edit]

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

Unfortunately fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sources, no coverage, no nothing; this seems like nothing more than a glorified beer league. (With no little irony, going back on the Wayback Machine on the dead league page to one of the few hits crawled shows just a list of scores ... and ads for three beer companies.) Ravenswing 02:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no RS, no evidence of notability. --hroest 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie Bodden[edit]

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

Surprised this survived an AfD already, because he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY in spite of playing in the CONCACAF Champions League in 2013 per Soccerway - I cannot find anything additional in Honduran media to help save the article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete playing in any continent's Champions' League doesn't mean you pass WP:NFOOTY (unless both sides are fully professional, which isn't the case here). Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Did you before in Spanish User:SportingFlyer? Years later, there's still stuff online like this. A Honduran newspaper archive from that period would be useful. Typically there's good coverage of the top Honduran teams in the Honduran media, even if not all teams in the league are fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nfitz: I specifically searched La Prensa and Diez, he's mentioned a bit, but didn't find anything I thought was significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mint 400 Records discography[edit]

Mint 400 Records discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mint 400 Records discography: The problems with this article include notability, NPOV|neutraility, and verifiability. First, this is a discography for a record label. As such, it only passes notability if the record label passes musical notability or general notability. There is nothing in this article to that effect. The article does not speak for itself. The record label does not have a company article. Draft:Mint 400 Records has been submitted and declined and then rejected. Creation of this discography for a non-notable label is gaming the system.

Second, the article has had a long history of paid editing, being created by NorthPark1417, who is blocked for conflict of interest. The article has not yet been cleaned of promotional material. It also contains language intended to praise the subject rather than describe them neutrally.

Third, as to verifiability, the first seven references are unresolvable. References 8 through 10 are passing mentions, and reference 11 appears to be a passing mention, but is paywalled. However, the sources would only matter if they supported a claim of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the carefully reasoned nomination above. I was one of several editors to review the Draf tarticle for the company and decline it for many of the same reasons as outlined above. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   07:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- In addition to the great reasons given by the nominator, WP:NOTCATALOG also applies.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I forgot to include this analysis of the sources.
Comments Independent Significant
1 Unresolvable
2 Unresolvable
3 Unresolvable
4 Unresolvable
5 Unresolvable
6 Unresolvable
7 Unresolvable
8 The Aquarian. An online newsletter About a band rather than the label. Probably. No. Passing mention.
9 The Aquarian. An online newsletter. About a band rather than the label. Probably. No. Passing mention.
10 Nerdsandbeyond. An online newsletter. Didn’t find mention of the label. Probably. Obviously not.
11 NJ.com. Paywalled. Yes. Doesn’t seem to be.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you are writing about user:NorthPark1417 is untrue, he clearly said in one of the past talk pages that got deleted who he was and he was not related to the source or the material. And user:Robert McClenon who is clearly not knowledgable on the subject just rejected it yesterday and has not read the wiki guidelines for record label notability of which this is by all standards a notable label. They have bands on the Billboard charts, bands on the NACC charts, bands with members who are in major label bands, past mentions of their artists in notable press outlets like Alternative Press, Brooklyn Vegan, Paste, etc. and they have close to 400 records available through Sony Distribution of which I added the correct link to Label.FM's up to date discography. Secondly The Aquarian and NJ.com (Part of the Star Ledger and Jersey Journal) are major New Jersey musical press outlets, in fact there aren't bigger outlets in NJ that cover music. (User talk:Yourepartofit)

I'm not super knowledgeable on what admins are allowed to do but how can you decide to not let them edit the company article anymore? It was live at some point along with the discography, and it was marked by the WikiProjects for Record Labels as at the "Start" and needed to be worked on. Is there some reason you are not allowing the main company article to not be worked on anymore? It would seem this is a catch 22 if you don't allow the main company article to be submitted anymore. 12:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)168.229.254.25

  • Delete - The nominator has this right, I concur on every point. Note that discography is very important to me, but in this case, if the label is not notable, the discography of Mint 400 must be covered by in-depth by multiple independent, reliable sources. Othersiwe all you have is advertising for a company's product. Which seems to be an issue with Mint 400.... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Owch Darreh (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tup Aqaj[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shur Barik[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qowmabad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omm Arqal[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lay Gerdu[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khvajeh Ali[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kahn Bid[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarbah[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdraw. It exists under a different name than what was on the article which I was not aware of. (non-admin closure) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coptosia gianassoi[edit]

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

Relies entirely on 1 source, has no categories, and a google search on brings up about 100 results, most of which appear to be based off of Wikipedia or are UGC Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a)
    A SCIENTIST HAS LEFT
    A DESCRIPTION MOST QUOTABLE
    OH FORTUNATE BUG
    WE DEEM THY NAME NOTABLE
    Burma-shave

(always happy to be able to use this :)

b) present in multiple databases as a synonym of Phytoecia gianassoi [1][2] (+ BioLib), to which name it should be moved (and lack of cats has never had any impact on AfD). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Original description: Sama, G. (2007). "Description of a new Coptosia fairmaire, 1864 from Iran (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae, Phytoeciini)". Atti della Società italiana di scienze naturali e del museo civico di storia naturale di Milano. 148 (1): 97–100.
Reclassification: Danilevsky, M. L. (2017). "A new subgenus of the longicorn genus Phytoecia Dejean, 1835 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from the Palaearctic region". Entomological Review. 97 (8): 1137–1139.
So what I'm saying is - withdraw? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. I was not aware of the synonym as I only did a google search on the article name, not aware there was another name. I will actually move the article to the appropriate name after withdrawing. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fazileh[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah Musa[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolbolak (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the dab page is now redundant to the hatnote. – Uanfala (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Haven't moved as suggested below only due to not being aware of naming conventions etc around this, any other editor is free to do so (ping @Alexis Jazz:). Daniel (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjilan[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G5 speedy delete Creating user is pretty clearly a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Takshshila Institute Of Engineering And Technology[edit]

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

PROD rationale by User:Mikehawk10 was This page is written like an advertisement, there appears to be very little news coverage of the page, and it might be better to blow up the page and restart. I also can't find real in-depth coverage of the source when considering broader sources easily accessible to me, so I am putting this up, as the article topic may very well fail WP:GNG..

I can't find any coverage that shows a passing of WP:NORG myself so I'm taking this to AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience (physics)[edit]

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

This article was restored per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_29#Pseudoscience_(physics) and I bring it to AfD for a full discussion. The article was originally at Pseudophysics but boldly moved to the current title, then a requested move discussion had weak consensus against moving it back and the closer felt a separate discussion was in order. The article was then boldly blanked and redirected to pseudoscience, then nominated for AfD, then sent to RfD because it was already a redirect. It is now properly back at AfD to consider keeping the original article, deletion, or redirecting. There was some concern about the pseudoscience article being a good redirect target; one possibility mentioned at the RfD was List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. There is nothing in this article which goes beyond what is covered in the Pseudoscience article. There is no need to create a different article for each field of science. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the one who brought up List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics at RfD. I think this is unsuitable for redirection to Pseudoscience right now since there's no explicit coverage of pseudoscience in physics specifically, and only a few scattered mentions of physics at all. However, with only three topics given at the list section, there perhaps isn't a great deal of utility to readers to my suggestion either. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are other items on that page which would qualify as physics, even though they're not in the "physics" subsection (the subsection above that includes some perpetual-motion claims, for example). XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chahe[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: has four appropriate entries (the three ones without an article of their own meet WP:DABMENTION). – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala. Three out of four disambiguation targets are redlinks at present. This title will need to be a disambiguation page as soon as one of the three turns blue; let's just maintain it as is. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala. Useful disambiguation. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:ORG; the refs stating that it has been referred to by other news websites are fake - those are just index pages for Hanswar-related news. That is, no credible indication of importance. utcursch | talk 15:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hanswar News[edit]

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

non-notable "news" outlet, which is a generious term for "blog", no coverage, fails WP:NWEB/NCORP YODADICAE👽 16:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. (1) This is not a newspaper despite what the article would have you believe, it's a Weebly.com page and (2) It claims three newspapers have mentioned their work, which I doubt that's true if the pages the three refs direct me to are any indication. Ref 2 only links me to that source's main page, while refs 1 and 3 direct me to pages of websites for newspapers that list articles tagged only "Hanswar", which may be about the place but not the specific Hanswar News source. These could just be unintentional mistakes, however; I've seen the creator of this article work on articles of other Indian topics in an encyclopedic way, so I doubt the article is intentional WP:PROMOTION. However, what is true is that this topic is nowhere near notable. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) Delete I don't know if this comes under A7, given that it may not be just a blog, there could well be an actual paper version also (it does say 'broadsheet' in the infobox, which a mere blog probably wouldn't claim, unless purely to deceive). But either way, it should be deleted as non-notable village rag. The alleged sources seem to be news (?) about the locality where this illustrious publication is based, not about the publication itself, and are thus irrelevant. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Santa Paula, California. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limoneira, California[edit]

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

Prompted by comments at the discussion of Kevet, I've skipped ahead to this location, which technically was a rail spot (there was a long spur leading here) but which acquires its name from the Limoneira Ranch, the home base of a huge citrus/avocado growing operation. Their website lists all their properties, totalling some 14,500 acres, and of this property they say,

"The Limoneira/Olivelands Ranch is the original site of the company and consists of approximately 1,744 contiguous acres located just west of Santa Paula, California. There are approximately 1,189 acres of agricultural plantings on this property which consist of approximately 544 acres of lemons, 643 acres of avocados and 2 acres of specialty citrus and other crops."

So I think it is very safe to say this was never a settlement. Limoneira, the company, already has its own article, and there's nothing here salvageable, so I think we can do without this article. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Santa Paula, California. Limoneira built housing on their land in the late 1990s according to this article, but it seems like it was never considered separate from Santa Paula (and I'm not sure that any of the housing developments were called Limoneira either). In either case, this is another article where I trusted a highway map when I shouldn't have. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can highly recommend the history books that I mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevet, California. They're available for many places around the U.S., usually authored by local historians rather than just any old people who happen to rock up, and whilst not the be-all-and-end-all in themselves, they are good guides to what subjects one will find other historic and geographic sources to support. Also note the Teague-McKevett Ranch mentioned there, not actually a part of Santa Paula until recently and also known as East Area 1, which is not only documented in that planning application, but in many things like the 1968 California Historical Society Quarterly, and owned by Charles Collins Teague's and his wife's McKevett Corporation from 1905 until it merged with Limoneira in 1994. There is an East Area 2 as well. Until the recent annexations over the last decade, a lot of this was outwith the borders of Santa Paula. Olivelands Ranch, which originally grew walnuts and not lemons, was in fact owned by C.C. Teague as well, and not actually Limoneira originally, despite the misleading corporate history quoted above. Teague was president of both companies from 1917 onwards. The second Arcadia Press book has a little family picture with C.C. and Harriet McKevett Teague, and that's a fair hint that Charles Collins Teague is notable.

      History is so much better than interpreting dots and fonts on maps.

      Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • Belknap, Michael R. (June 1968). "The Era of the Lemon: A History of Santa Paula, California". California Historical Society Quarterly. 47 (2). University of California Press: 113–140. doi:10.2307/25154283. JSTOR 25154283.
      • Sackman, Douglas Cazaux (2007). "By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them". Orange Empire: California and the Fruits of Eden. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520251670.
  • I agree. Trying to write about any of this as a railway station is a mistake, and there's really nothing of substance to say about the railway. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was speedy deleted. Missvain (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In The End: There's Always A Disney God (TV Series)[edit]

In The End: There's Always A Disney God (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely non-notable show, no coverage or meaningful reviews, isn't on a major network and doesn't otherwise satisfy WP:GNG and borders on a hoax considering the lead calls it a television show but it appears to be nothing more than a podcast. YODADICAE👽 15:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Appears to be blatant vandalism/ a hoax. Even if this "show" exists, it is certainly not notable, but the fact that most of the article is just copied/pasted from the article on Superman & Lois with the title changed makes me think this is pure vandalism. Either way, this should be speedied. Rorshacma (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add on to my previous comment on most of the page being copied/pasted from the Superman & Lois article, it looks like the entire cast list is copied/pasted from Raven's Home, with just the first couple of entries changed, as well. So, again, regardless of if this actually exists or not, this article should be deleted ASAP. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to the Internet Movie Database, this IS a TV miniseries. Rollo August (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is user generated and I'm not inclined to think something with this description: In this episode we will discuss one of an oldest gay will not a old game not a really old game anyway but a PlayStation 4 game called Beyond two Souls is anything but a hoax. YODADICAE👽 15:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete – Good catch by Rorshacma; the production details are especially revealin, being almost identical. The Draft:Kenneth Mank article by the same editor (supposedly the producer of this series) is a copy of Jesse Williams (actor). The IMDb page(s) had me going, too, but the texts there are as poorly written as the text in this article (and I removed the synopsis here which was a verbatim copy of IMDb's). Also, the IMDb series page has status "Approved", which I think means only that the submission has been accepted, though not verified. IAC, that's an odd status for something that's allegedly an IMDb production, running for the last month. Kill it, and possibly also the Draft:In The End: There's Always A Disney God (TV-Mini Series) version which was created two weeks after this mainspace version. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This is so overwhelming with WP:SALT I think I might get sick. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Superfluous – There's no need for an additional comment (and certainly not three edits) when the article was deleted almost 6 hours previously, which explains the red coloring of the link. @Praxidicae: do you want to close or withdraw or retract this AfD now? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had to change my comment cause I didn't know WP:SNOW was only for keeps, that's all hehehee. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jashodaben Modi[edit]

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

Blatant violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. All sources talk significantly about Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister. I don't see any sources that discuss her without significantly talking about Narendra Modi. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator's statement is blatantly false, for one NOTINHERITED is not a guideline that can be "violated", and significant ongoing coverage of her in many international sources includes [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. I have voted delete on many people whose sole claim to fame was a relation, but she has received much legitimate coverage about her relationship clearly passing GNG. Reywas92Talk 18:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of these sources do not confirm that the subject is notable at all outside the relationship with Narendra Modi. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly misunderstand NotInherited. It does not mean that sources are forbidden from mentioning the related person to count. Most sources about every first lady for every country will be premised on the relationship and would not get coverage at all were they not married to a leader. Reywas92Talk 18:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jashodaben Modi is not a "first lady" of India. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the folks at Spouse of the prime minister of India then. Reywas92Talk 17:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The sources listed by Reywas92 are very convincing and more than enough for WP:GNG-based notability. They are all primarily about the subject, in-depth, appear reliable, and span a wide range of years. Nomination is based on a blatant misunderstanding of NOTINHERITED: it does not prevent someone related to more-famous topics from having articles, if they themselves are also notable. For instance, most sources about Narendra Modi are going to mention the country of India, a more notable topic than Narendra Modi; nevertheless, Narendra Modi is also notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a clear cut misrepresentation of NOTINHERITED. The coverage of this subject is clearly depending on the popularity of Narendra Modi. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? NOTINHERITED clearly states "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship ... if they pass WP:GNG". The coverage of Narendra Modi is clearly depending on the significance of the country of India; does that make Narendra Modi non-notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As per sources listed by Reywas92 and David Eppstein. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Eppstein never listed a single source. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's intended to cast my opinion into disrepute, it fails badly. I looked carefully at all six of the sources listed by Reywas92, analyzed them myself rather than relying on Reywas92's opinion of them, and concurred that they more than met the requirements of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant case of WP:NOTINHERITED as per my assessment of sources above. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTINHERITED is not actually a valid deletion rationale. It states only that if someone does not pass GNG, then inherited notability will not save them. But that would be equally true ignoring the question of inheritance. So without an evaluation of whether she passes GNG (that is, whether there are multiple in-depth reliable sources about her, regardless of who else those sources might also mention), your opinion is valueless. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. clearly has enough SIGCOV (see Reywas92) and pass GNG. --hroest 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above + UCS. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has substantial coverage from reliable and independent sources (Ashique2020 (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Adequate evidence has been provided above that the subject meets GNG. As David Eppstein explained, close relations of famous people can have an independent article when GNG is satisfied. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It happened actually. Several members of the Trump's family do have their own articles because they meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Srijanx22 it would have been appropriate to do a courtesy ping of all those who !voted in the first two AFDs considering that the consensus was delete in both of them and the sources considered were almost the same. VV 09:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Pinging @RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, LibStar, Redtigerxyz, Johnpacklambert, Sitush, Bejnar, and EricSerge:. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the last AfD was in 2014 and that most of the sources from Reywas92 (considered also in my comment) have a later date than that. Therefore, I believe your claim that "the sources considered were almost the same" is false. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein to clarify, while the sources by Reywas92 are newer, the issues have persisted from time much before which is why I !voted keep due to WP:SUSTAINED. Certain aspects are unique to post-ascendance to the PM post. Best! VV 06:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the coverage of the subject has been WP:SUSTAINED and satisfies WP:GNG even if in relationship to Modi. VV 09:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep WTH? She is a public figure and controversial figure of our nation. This article has significant coverage and reliable source for her controversial case to justify keeping. WP:GNG is met. VocalIndia (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol it is you! So pity🥺. You also need to read WP:IDONTLIKE. VocalIndia (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep My knee jerk reaction was not notable but, looking at the article, I do see that she has been busy since the last time I !voted on this. While still marginal, we should probably keep this article. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked too and I don't see the subject rising above being wife of Narendra Modi. Shankargb (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What specific wording of what notability requirement do you see that requires anyone to "rise above" anyone else to be notable? Where is that even a thing? How does this relate to the actual criteria of WP:GNG? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read earlier AfDs and I see that nothing seems to have changed when it comes to failure of notability. Most of the names listed on Spouse of the prime minister of India don't have an article. I see no special reason for this subject. Shankargb (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most humans do not have articles. I see no special reason why we should have articles for humans. I have given the matter all due consideration. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 7 years of Modi Raj have made her a mini-celebrity. Media covers her temple visits [9][10][11], her car accident [12], her visit to an iftar party [13], even when she votes [14]. Things have changed from 2014 (see the last Afd, which I had initiated).--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Absurd to claim that this doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Furius (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I voted in this article's 2nd AFD. In 2014, there was not the significant coverage to merit retaining it. However, several years later, the situation has changed and there is a ton of sustained coverage. Like Modi or not, his wife is notable on her own now. EricSerge (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nitesh003 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NewsFlash[edit]

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

relatively new website/app, doesn't appear to be notable despite the 8 million hits for the name, which is a common term. YODADICAE👽 14:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm sure the creator made this article with good encyclopedic intentions, but the only refs and sources are posts from the blog of the app's creator and three other blogs that only summarize the app and we don't know their reliability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 12:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Britney's Dance Beat[edit]

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

The "reviews" are in most instances, one-liners, while others are incredibly short blurbs. There is only a single in-depth review. For over a decade was part of Britney Spears products, until it was split without attribution. Does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 12:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are many in-depth reviews already on the article, definitely not just 'short blurbs' and I believe it by far passes notability guidelines. Some of the reviews are brief, but the majority of them are in-depth reviews. See Eurogamer, GameSpot, GameSpy, and IGN for instance. Waxworker (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The references clearly satisfy WP:GNG, as demonstrated from the article and as others have pointed out. DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes notability guidelines. Majority contains in-depth reviews, Myconcern (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 California International Marathon. Missvain (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 California International Marathon[edit]

2017 California International Marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough as a stand-alone event: no sources are independent, and a source search only brought up the Sacramento newspaper (local) and a mere mention in Connecticut because a Connecticut runner won the men's race. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early due to ongoing consensus. I'll be surprised if any new evidence appears to support keep. Missvain (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Patrick Bateman-Champain[edit]

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

I can't access the Crickinfo link, but since the article doesn't mention his cricketing career, I'm assuming it doesn't satisfy WP:NCRICKET. He certainly isn't notable as a soldier. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never played first-class cricket and fails the military inclusion criteria. StickyWicket (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable cricketer, and his military career doesn't look to pass WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other commentators, non-notable cricketer and military inclusion is done on GNG now, which I can't find anything to pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as a soldier or a cricketer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt Creating user is a sock, on top of the points made here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dino James[edit]

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

Another article where speedy tags have been added and remove. AfD is he way to settle it. (I have no personal opinion in this subject area) DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doing a WP:BEFORE search turns up no SIGCOV in any reliable secondary sources other than lists of the songs, social media sites and mirror sites for this Wikipedia article. Very little encyclopedic information which is why the article has very little information. What distinguishes this artist from any other beyond the uniqueness we all own as ours specifically? In the end the subject doesn't pass the encyclopedia's notability guideline (WP:GNG). --ARoseWolf 12:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy g4 repeatedly recreated. Dudhhr (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. WP:SALT due to author behavior, recreating and hijacking articles. --Muhandes (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MyOpusRadio.com[edit]

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

Tagged with notability issues since 2009. Of the article's 11 sources, three of them duplicate this and another two duplicate this. Fails GNG, despite being India's first internet radio station. Besides the two mentioned sources, I found this and this, both of which are just passing mentions and fail WP:SIGCOV. Their Twitter account hasn't tweeted since 2015 and the website doesn't load. Very likely the site is defunct, which means we're not going to get any new sources any time soon. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Sahu[edit]

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

I have no personal opinion, but people have been adding & removing CSD tags, so a definitive decision here would be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - nowhere in the article does it actually make any claims of notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC by a long shot.-KH-1 (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and block the creator as a spam only account. He's hijacked 3 pages and recreated this 3 times. It's nothing but non-notable vanity spam. YODADICAE👽 12:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - The article doesn't pass GNG, the foundation of this encyclopedia. The fact it keeps getting recreated without the addition of reliable sources is the reason for my speedy !vote. The creator of the article clearly does not care about following any guidelines as evidenced by the history of this AfD. --ARoseWolf 13:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that the IP address above and the creator (JaggaBadaJasoos) appear to be either the same person or closely related. --ARoseWolf 13:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G4 repeatedly recreated Dudhhr (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - badly fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. WP:SALT due to author behavior.--Muhandes (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

István Kriston[edit]

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

Pretty sure 'Chief Flagbearer' is not a position of inherent notability (nor is it a 'command' or part of the General Staff, as the creator had tried to suggest, so there's clearly some sort of coordinated publicity campaign going on here). Earlier A7 speedy request was removed by a mystery IP editor (their only edit to date...) without explanation, so here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Megaprime. Daniel (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic prime[edit]

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

There was a general sentiment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigantic prime that if the outcome was that we no longer have the page, then we should look at this page. That AfD was closed as Redirect to Megaprime. My preference is not to keep, but for an alternative to deletion.— Charles Stewart (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Megaprime in a first step, then, in a second step, merge these two articles with Largest prime number for forming an article Large prime numbers. Redirects must be kept, as all these names are plausible search terms. But there is no encyclopedic interest for having articles for specific ranges of primes. Names such as "titanic prime" were coined for emphasizing the range in which the large primes were searched at the time of coining the the term. So these terms have now lost their mathematical interest. On the other hand, the search of large primes keeps its interest, even if, with algorithmic and hardware progresses, the size of what is called a "large prime" increases significantly. D.Lazard (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per D.Lazard. --JBL (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per D.Lazard and JayBeeEll.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per D.Lazard and JayBeeEll and above. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think D.Lazard's proposal might work out well, I agree with the point about ranges of primes with mathematically arbitrary cutoffs, and if the energy is there to realise it, I support something along the lines of step two. I note that the proposal is so far fairly vague, and it might be beneficial to talk about what to do with all this material at Talk:Largest known prime number#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic prime and the large prime number article proposal. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Megaprime as per D.Lazard's first step. I further interpret the specific agreement above with D.Lazard's !vote as support for getting things moving on the proposed second step. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Heyck[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a former smalltown mayor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for existing as mayors -- the notability test is the abiliity to write and source a substantive article about his political significance. But this just documents his pre-mayoral career background, says essentially nothing about anything he actually did as mayor, and is not well-referenced: of the five footnotes here, two are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, a third is a Q&A interview in which he's answering questions in the first person on a non-notable tourist information blog, one just briefly namechecks his existence in a news article about his successor, and the only one that's both reliable and substantively about him is just a run of the mill piece of campaign coverage in the local media, which isn't enough to get him over the bar all by itself if it's the only viable source in play. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no notability evident from the article. --hroest 14:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

28 Plays Later[edit]

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

Non-notable video game podcast that seems to clearly fail WP:GNG. The references cited in the article are either (1) dead links, (2) links to their iTunes or Twitch pages, or (3) references that mention in passing that they did a live show at a convention in 2015. BEFORE searches did not turn up any additional sources that could be used to demonstrate notability. And given that they seem to have stopped recording new episodes back in 2018, it seems highly unlikely that any further coverage will be forthcoming. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no evidence of notability from the sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lots of primary and unreliable sources (e.g. Twitch & 'itunesChart'), and the reliable sources on the article mention the podcast only in passing through coverage of a single live session they held at a con. No indication of notability. Waxworker (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet general notability guidelines,Myconcern (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Van Tighem[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a former smalltown mayor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for existing as mayors -- the notability test is the abiliity to write and source a substantive article about his political significance. But this just documents his elections and reelections, and sources his existence solely to the city's own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of notability-building media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no notability evident from the article. --hroest 14:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Talk Show- FBC Production[edit]

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

Article about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. This just states that the show exists and then fails to actually cite any sources at all, which is not how you make a show notable -- and even if the article can actually somehow be salvaged with better sources, the title is still garbage and needs moving. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a one-sentence stub which lacks any sourcing that establishes why this program is notable.TH1980 (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fathima Thahiliya[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Being the office bearer of the student wing of a political party does not cover WP:NPOL Ashique2020 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashique2020

  • Note Delete she is notable WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. she is an Indian Lawyer [1] and She is currently the National Vice Presidentof Muslim Students Federation-MSF [2] and she is member of Gender Justice Committee at The Kerala State Higher Education Council [3]Map7com 06:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Existing as a lawyer is not an automatic notability freebie if you fail to document the significance of her work as a lawyer, being vice-president of a student organization is not an WP:NPOL-passing office, and WP:GNG is not a measure of the things the article says, but of the quality and depth and geographic range of the sources that the article does or doesn't use to support the things it says. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per the above. No office held by this subject is sufficient to confer notability, and neither is their coverage. BD2412 T 18:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Calicut Bar Association". calicutbarassociation.com.
  2. ^ https://malayalam.samayam.com/local-news/malappuram/msf-national-vice-president-adv-fathima-thahiliya-on-her-candidature-in-upcoming-kerala-assembly-election/articleshow/80253257.cms. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ http://www.kshec.kerala.gov.in/images/docs/samagati.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

and Ref-2 >> PDF(Page 7- ROLL NO:K/443/2015) [3] [4] and WP:NPOL-passing office Thahiliya was appointed as the first girl Vice president of MSF National Committee which was constituted in January of 2017.She started her journey in active student politics,when she was appointed as General Secretary of Haritha State Committee which is the girls wing of MSF in 2011 and then she became the president of the committee from 2015. Map7com 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

& [advocate]] i think this quality for satisfy our guidelines for notable biographies, and she also Student activist in India reference also available there, i just request for keep this article. Msp7com 10:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per the above. Subject does not satisfy our guidelines, Myconcern (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevet, California[edit]

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

Aaaaaand another rail spot, apparently for a siding into what apparently was a packing plant. You can even see the sign next to the track in StreetView. What you can't see is any settlement, because there is not and never was one. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulling out the history books again, there's no Kevet at all in the Arcadia books ISBN 9780738531243 and ISBN 9781439638347, which isn't too surprising as this is not in Santa Paula, being just outside. Nor is there anything in the 1883 History of Ventura county California at the Internet Archive. A 1920 USDA Bulletin reveals that lemons were shipped from this station, reinforcing the packing plant hypothesis. Further reinforcement comes from a Limoneira Field across the road and a Packing House Road. Which brings us back to ISBN 9781439638347, which has the Limoneira Packinghouse and the Limoneira Ranch. It turns out that Limoneira is notable and we already have it. Why its local railway station on East Telegraph Road was named Kevet is lost to history. I can only guess that it might be related to the McKevett family and the fairly notable Teague-McKevett Ranch, which the mass GNIS importers didn't even know was there, which was settled (as it had worker housing), and which will be settled too.

    However, that does mean that Limoneira, California over near West Telegraph Road should be next on your list. ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP with no objection in 7 days. Daniel (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Phelan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC. This article was created by a WP:COI account that used his own book as the only source. Rusf10 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's TV[edit]

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

Article about a community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) series, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. The only sources here are from the student media of the same university that produces the show, which means they aren't fully independent of the show -- and student media can't singlehandedly get a topic over WP:GNG all by itself anyway, in the absence of any attention from general-market commercial media. There just isn't anything here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No independent sources to establish notability. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Week Thus Far[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) television show, not reliably sourced well enough to pass WP:TVSHOW. As always, every television show is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it's technically possible to verify that it existed -- but the only sources here are three short blurbs from a commuter daily and alt-weeklies in the same city as the show was produced and aired, none of which are substantive enough or widely distributed enough to get the show over WP:GNG as a topic of enduring national or international significance all by themselves if no wider attention can be shown. It needs, but doesn't have, quite a bit more sourcing than this to be notable enough — there just isn't anything here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more sourcing than just a few short blurbs in its own hometown media. (Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of the show's host.) Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First Talk with Tamara Bull[edit]

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

Article about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because their own self-published website technically verified that they exist -- the notability test requires the reception of some independent coverage about the show in sources it didn't create itself. But even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that might not have Googled, I can only find one glancing namecheck of the fact that this show ever existed, which is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nite Lite Live[edit]

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

Article about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows are not automatically entitled to keep Wikipedia articles just because their own self-published websites about themselves formerly offered technical verification that they existed -- the notability test is the reception of independent coverage in reliable sources other than itself. But this has been tagged as unreferenced since 2009, and even on a search for sources I can't find anything useful. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haines, California[edit]

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

Well, the California Railroad Commission was no help this time, but the topos clearly show another isolated station with a short passing siding, now long gone. A couple of mammoth ag businesses have sprung up around the spot, but there's no era which shows any settlement here at all. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Multiple sources describe Haines as a Southern Pacific Railroad platform; none describe it as a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is where history books beat map reading yet again. Arcadia Publishing's ISBN 9780738531243 page 86 tells us that this is the Abner Haines Farmstead in Briggs subdivision. The Arcadia books are good guides in this, and what's in the book is mostly about Abner Haines and not about the place where xe lived on West Telegraph Road. This looks to be another rubbish two-sentence GNIS article that is actually a biography in heavy disguise, because in addition to the Arcadia book Abner Haines is in oral histories such as Robert E Clarke's 1936 Narrative of a Native ("Abner Haines was born in Maine. He came to California in 1853 and engaged in mining at Indian Creek on the Middle Yuba. […]"), in the 1883 History of Ventura county California at the Internet Archive, and in a 1938 oral history elsewhere by Maude Haines Henderson, his daughter. The Ventura history is too old to cover much beyond Haines' arrival, however. Oral histories I mistrust, moreover. If there were another 20th/21st century non-oral history, in addition to the Arcadia book, I'd rename and refactor to Abner Haines. But I haven't found one. This person is not nearly as well documented as Edward Field Goltra (AfD discussion), another biography hiding behind a rubbish GNIS article, is. Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rogers TV. Daniel (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime (Canadian talk show)[edit]

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

Article about a community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) talk show, not citing any reliable sources to pass WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows are not handed a free notability pass just because they exist -- the notability test requires them to be the subject of coverage in media sources independent of their own self-published websites in order to establish their significance. But other than its own self-published (and dead) website about itself, the only other source present here is a blog entry, which isn't enough, and I can't find any other sources of value. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rogers or something such. Not terribly notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Avignon shooting[edit]

2021 Avignon shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Sakiv (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Mangoe (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing is really notable from this event. Police raids and shootouts are tragically common, and should not be on Wikipedia. SunDawn (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In France, shootouts may be common with police raids against narcotics, but the outcome of such operations is almost never deadly. All media outlets are almost exclusively talking about that since yesterday, quite odd for a common story.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Murders of police officers are not that common and usually receive far more attention than other murders. More information will doubtless emerge and the article can be expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reason given. In addition, the article is too "stubby" to be useful to anyone. I might add that I live 90 minutes' drive from Avignon and have been hearing endlessly on television about this event since it happened. Incidentally, Avignon is one of the most crime-ridden cities in France, though mostly (not this time) the violence happens outside the bit that tourists visit. Athel cb (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb: I must confess that i don't get well your rationale, on one hand you say that you have been hearing endlessly on television about this event since it happened and on the other hand you support delete. The fact that you hear a lot about that event is rather an argument for keep rather than delete. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I mentioned the endless repetition as an example of the way journalists get hold of a story and do it to death until something else comes along, without significantly extending it. In this case the something else is the murderer in the Cévennes, and before the Avignon story it was the woman burned to death by her ex-husband in Mérignac. This last is vastly more notable than the event in Avignon, but if there is an article about it I haven't seen it (and searching Wikipedia for "Mérignac" doesn't find it). Athel cb (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of counterintuitive truths[edit]

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

The inclusion criterion is inherently subjective, which the lead itself says: "However, the subjective nature of intuition limits the objectivity of what to call counterintuitive because what is counterintuitive for one may be intuitive for another." It ends with "The following is a list of counterintuitive propositions that are actually true, despite being counterintuitive to the average, reasonable person." Average, reasonable person according to whom? Check the talk page and the history. I deleted a number of items in the list in March for a variety of reasons: no evidence to support the claim that a particular assertion is popularly believed; disagreement as to an assertion's counterintuitiveness; etc. WP:OR, and I don't find WP:NLIST satisfied. Largoplazo (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another problem with the article, in addition to the problems noted in the nomination, were that most of the items on the list were uncited and/or only linked to another WP article, which violates policy regarding using Wikipedia articles as sources for other Wikipedia articles. The owner of all ✌️ 03:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is poor practice and contrary to our style guidelines, but if the wikilinks provide RSes for the claims, it is not a problem of verifiability. I don't regard this as a problem that justifies deletion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Tessaracter (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I got a good chuckle out of one of the removed examples: "Almost all continuous functions are Weierstrass functions." The "average, reasonable person" is not going to have a clue what's going on, much less what's counterintuitive. And no Monty Hall problem? Fie! Fie! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything here is based on the personal opinion of creator Seckends (talk · contribs), and nothing is based on a reliable source asserting that a proposition is counterintuitive to most people. And most of the examples were removed for being too obscure to possibly encounter most people's intuitions, or seeming as if the creator finds it hard to grasp many ideas. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I could go on and on about everything wrong here, but the others have already summed it up. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons given above (and similarly on the article talk page). W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while the unclear inclusion criterion renders the current article an unacceptable WP:COATRACK that is an invitation to tendentious edits and OR, the concept of unintuitive truth is a respectable and notable one and it might not be difficult to change the article so that it is useful, informative and neutral. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any list needs clear inclusion criteria; this lacks that. I think the WP:LEAD of this article summarizes the problem with the article fairly well: However, the subjective nature of intuition limits the objectivity of what to call counterintuitive because what is counterintuitive for one may be intuitive for another. This might occur in instances where intuition changes with knowledge. For instance, many aspects of quantum mechanics or general relativity may sound counterintuitive to a layman, while they may be intuitive to a particle physicist. Moreover, we already have List of common misconceptions and especially List of paradoxes which overlap in scope with this. That being said, things being counterintuitive is perfectly valid to note where they appear (with proper sourcing), but I don't think grouping them like this is meaningful. It would be better to have articles such as counterintuitive aspects of quantum mechanics and counterintuitive implications of special relativity than to have a single list for all counterintuitive things (if for no other reason than the "intuition varies depending on previous experiences and knowledge" problem), but even then I'm not convinced that separate articles are better than integrating it into the existing articles. TompaDompa (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While there are lots of keep votes, the primary policy based reason to keep an article of this type is that it is covered by reliable sources. In this case, evidence is provided that these sources are not reliable, and this isn't refuted in any meaningful way "I like it" isn't sufficient to pass the bar of WP:GNG, it must be supported by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as per the policy. What is reliable and what isn't reliable is not just a function of finding from WP:RSN, although that is considered the final authority if cases brought before it. In the event a website or other type of source hasn't been taken to the noticeboard, we use WP:COMMONSENSE and compare it to prior instances of like sources. Howard the Duck has provided an analysis of the sources that seems reasonable, and his experience adds credibility to those claims. And again, no one has refuted or disproved this in any meaningful way, even though the discussion has been relisted twice. So looking at the weight of arguments based on policy rationales, I see a consensus to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iba 'Yan![edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. Nominated for G5 as creator is indeffed, tag removed by involved editor with no source added. Lacks any RS, coverage. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article has reliable sources and article needs more update to edit. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is never a reliable source, and using ABS-CBN News as a source for ABS-CBN programs don't make it a reliable source at least for that program concerned. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: I added yesterday 1 reliable source, that is also the same as Paano Kita Mapasasalamatan? (Philippine TV program), the source on that article is the same as Iba 'Yan! but Paano Kita Mapasasalamatan? (Philippine TV program) did not request any deletion. If you want to add more source to make it reliable, please do so before the answer will be delete. Thank You! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007:. Please read WP:RS. Your so-called "reliable source" is ABS-CBN News writing about an ABS-CBN program. That abjectly fails the WP:RS test. You can't use that, even on the other article you used (assuming it's also ABS-CBN News writing about an ABS-CBN program). BTW, you gave me a new article to WP:PROD. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the source that HueMan1 (talk · contribs) added here. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: Howard the Duck already said that that source isn't a WP:RS. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: I searched reliable sources for Iba 'Yan!, but no reliable sources has not popped out, what should we do? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: Simple, delete it. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: All articles that has no source or reliable source moved to draft, if that article moved to draft, an administrator will revert it to article space if the draft has reliable source. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All articles? I don't think so. If a poorly sourced article fails the WP:GNG, it gets deleted after an AfD. I don't think draftifying these two would make any significant difference at all, just like what Alexandermcnabb said. Besides, all drafts are automatically deleted after 6 months of inactivity, will you ever find an RS for these two? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: See this if this is okay.... For Iba 'Yan!, [22] [23] [24]. For Paano Kita Mapasasalamatan? (Philippine TV program), [25]. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: I implore you to read and understand WP:RS. None of these are good enough. LOL at "TeamAngel.com" as a reliable source. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: So can I add the "teamangel.com" source at the article so the article will be reliable? LOL haha. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: No, that's not how it works. Haven't you read WP:RS yet? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: I already read that. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: Where exactly in WP:RS does Wikipedia allow fan-generated fansites as WP:RS? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: None, it is not included there :). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SeanJ 2007, I have struck your other votes. You can vote only once. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources in the article (except YouTube) are reliable, including the ones indicated above (except for Team Angel PH). I also found some reliable sources which talk about the show: [26], [27], [28], [29] and [30]. It's also mentioned here as well. Search results also return coverage of certain episodes. Even if these sources are from local media, they're definitely reliable. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:TVSHOW. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PR promo pieces and paid media. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Essentially the same reason I have for keeping Paano Kita Mapasasalamatan? (Philippine TV program) - Upon research, the subject of the article has been covered by news outlets other than the station. If the creator or other editors are given the chance, these outlets could be cited within the article so as to make it comply with the criteria of having an independent reliable source. Gardo Versace (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed on Gardo Versace's decision, because this program might do something with a reliable source on it. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: Do what exactly? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: Changes on timeslot or name, events like returning on nationwide free-tv on 2022 when Duterte's administration ends, etc. These things might get a reliable source. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: Chill pal, we're not a crystal ball. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: Ok! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superastig added reliable sources here and will be added to Iba 'Yan!, so Iba 'Yan! will have a reliable source and will not be deleted. I am asking a favor to close this debate. Thank You! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • SeanJ 2007 Seriously, have you read and understood WP:RS? None of the sources fit the bill, and all sources used the article have been tagged. This was a poor performance for a WP:REFBOMBING if I ever saw one. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: I read WP:RS. SeanJ 2007(talk) 12:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: But did you understand it? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: No. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: You can read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maybe it could help you understand WP:RS? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let's see if these pass the WP:RS test:
      • [31] Fail; unsigned praise release
      • [32] Fail; copy-paste praise release
      • [33] Fail; discusses the TV show trivially
      • [34] Fail; unsigned praise release
      • [35] Fail; tabloid
      • [36] Fail; copy-paste praise release
      • [37] Fail; unsigned praise release
    • All of these sources are terrible. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Howard the Duck: if Abante is unreliable because it is a tabloid, then you should boldly remove all Abante references/citations on dozens of Philippine showbiz articles, like those of Gerald Anderson, Michael de Mesa, Ranz Kyle, and Kyline Alcantara. Also remove all sentences supported by Abante citations, if you claim Abante as unreliable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JWilz12345: It is unreliable. I'm surprised that someone's insisting that it's reliable. Would you use Abante for politics and sports articles? Of course, not. Now if I'd do that, maybe, but there are more important things to do here. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Howard the Duck: that won't stop unless you will report it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where there is a chance that it will be blacklisted for good (if really found unreliable). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @JWilz12345: I actually considered saying that but I figured, is anybody actually using Abante as a reliable source to merit blacklisting? Like people exclusively use Abante over other sources? I don't think it has come to that. It's not as if people insist on using WP:DAILYMAIL as a source over other sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:TVSHOW with sources presented above. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are serious concerns about the quality of sources, which I am hoping future participation can address.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was already relisted twice. We've seen AFDs before with references that are published on usually WP:RS sources, but the news articles itself are not reliable. This is one of them. None save one of the RS, no matter how plentiful, make the cut. As per WP:GNG, articles with just one WP:RS fail that criterion. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Emani[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all on May 13 log @4nn1l2:, if these are all only DAB'ing one topic, you can apply a WP:REDIRECT to the page listed; no need for an AfD here yet. Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mrschimpf: This one should be deleted as Emani is different than Amani in Farsi. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Sahab ol Zeman[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Rashid Farkhi[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Rahmatabad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Hajjiabad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Mehdiabad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Akbarabad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Hajj Malek[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Ahmadabad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Naseriyeh[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Safaiyeh[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Sadeqi[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Shajai[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cavin, California[edit]

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

The ever-reliable Railroad Commission of California identifies this as a non-agency station, and that's what the topos show too: a passing siding with no buildings around it. The siding is gone, and this is still in the middle of a spread of orchards with no sign of a settlement, so I'm going to say this isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find nothing apart from that it is a station whose class was changed years ago. I had a look for Cavin Road for explanation, and even for the Leavens and Goodenough ranch. The article at hand is false on its face, and I can see no way to write anything here. Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created this article under the assumption that places marked as communities on a fairly recent state highway map would be actual communities, but it looks like I was wrong about that. I can't find anything more about Cavin than anyone else has. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Found a 1940 announcement of reclassification of the station from Class B to Class E, and a single reference to "Cavin crossing", but everything else is last names, scanner errors, or passing mentions of Cavin Road. There's nothing in-depth about this. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt. Daniel (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Dillon[edit]

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

Almost all references provided are trivial mentions where his company Westminster Digital is the main subject. Nexus000 (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and apply salt. I am not seeing sustained in-depth coverage of this guy. fails GNG JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been nominated for deletion 4 times previously. For 3 of them, the consensus was to delete. For the other, there was no consensus. Given this article has removed well-documented but unfavourable information on the subject 1 2 3 4, I suspect this page has a WP:COI from either himself or his social media agency. Nexus000 (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ {{Cite web|url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2017/aug/05/womens-conference-panel-expels-msf-leader-1638618.html
  2. ^ {{Cite web|url=https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/Adv_CIS_database_03-02-2021_6pm.pdf
  3. ^ {{Cite web|url=http://barcouncilkerala.org/PDFs/Rollno.pdf
  4. ^ web|url=https://calicutbarassociation.com/directory/members/view-member-detail/251
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_May_13&oldid=1026380720"