Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 13	May 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 21:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The House (Porches album)[edit]

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

Withdrawn, I apologize for the lack of BEFORE on my part. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) ~~No claim of notability. Non-notable album by non-notable group~~ HouseOfChange (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: umm... what? This has been reviewed in EIGHTEEN reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - clearly notable, 18 critic reviews available, out of which 9 are already present in the article. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG with coverage from The Guardian, NME, Pitchfork... Bizarre deletion nomination... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As per all above, it meets WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG with coverage from The Guardian, NME, Pitchfork and many more. A quick google search shows many results. Hypogaearoots (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom has some explaining to do on this one. Why start an AfD for this album after PRODing Porches (band) minutes earlier? Deletion of the album requires discussion but deletion of the band does not? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slapping myself with a trout here for a nomination done without adequate BEFORE. I somehow landed on article for a non-notable album, noticed the band had articles for multiple albums, assumed without really checking that there was PROMO for non-notable band. So I started AfDing albums until I found an album that clearly had real coverage, at which point I stopped AfDing. I also decided not to dispute the removal of the Notability tag I had put on the band's article, since I saw my mistake. Sorry for not doing more to clean up the mess. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:23, 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 redirect to Porches (band). (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 14:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Dance in the Cosmos[edit]

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

Non-notable album ~~by non-notable band~~ HouseOfChange (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC) The group is notable but this album is not. I agree with others below who suggest a redirect. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Porches (band). I'm not sure why nom thinks the band is non-notable; I'm seeing plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG (e.g., [1][2][3]). This early release by the band does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS, but a redirect to the band is appropriate. I found a review of the album's first single from Pitchfork ([4]), but the other album reviews I came across are from blogs or short blurbs that don't satisfy GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Porches (band) as per Lord Bolingbroke. Hypogaearoots (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Porches (band), fails to meet WP:NALBUMS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:34, 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 23:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senani Hemantha Dodampahala[edit]

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

This article was repeatedly refused at AfC for being autobiographical and lacking references. It has then been created ignoring the issues identified at AfC. The only reference is where the individual has been included on a list of multiple award winners of a non-notable award. The citations on Google scholar are very low - fails WP:NSCHOLAR. In addition a major contributor appears to be the subject of the article - clearly an unidentifed WP:COI. Dan arndt (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation profile is far below what we expect for NPROF C1. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very clearly fails WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 04:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marek.kapicak. Not eligible for G5 given subsequent edits. MER-C 19:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree this doesn’t pass WP:NPROF for the reasons stated by others. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:00, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Ridgway Willing[edit]

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

Like too many "Gilded age socialite" articles, this is almost entirely about more notable family members, and notability is not inherited. All coverage is trivial/routine announcements, or entirely about other rich people and so unrelated. I do believe in increasing representation of truly notable women on Wikipedia, but articles like this present women as merely links in a chain; as people who have accomplished nothing more remarkable than marrying, birthing, or being being birthed by actually notable people. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I note that we have pages for nearly every member of "The Four Hundred", the list of the most influential New York socialites of the Gilded Age, which included Willing. I also note that her brother, John Rhea Barton Willing, has not been nominated for deletion, despite a comparable level of accomplishment. They were famous for being famous, but that's still notable. pburka (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As per pburka. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:26, 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 23:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Westbury Park, Staffordshire[edit]

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

This is a housing development, should be a clear delete since they are rarely notable. I have found no sources that make this development any different. Does not pass WP:GNG. Rusf10 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks references proving that it meets WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication this passes GEOLAND2 with significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 23:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacks news coverage. Purosinaloense T/K 11:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:57, 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 23:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Moradian[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO Destin Fox (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Mike Moradian

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, coverage is either: not independent, focussed on the companies or WP:BLP1E about his decision whether to go to college or not. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:02, 18 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 Far Eastern Bible College. Missvain (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning Bush[edit]

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

Article was nominated for deletion in 2015, which was closed "no consensus" after a rather unsatisfactory discussion and a disappointing close. Nothing seems to have changed since then, so taking this to AfD again. Previous nom still stands:

"Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "it is the only reformed theological journal in singapore", which does not show notability. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete." Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Far Eastern Bible College to the search term finds a number of equivocal references, enough for me to be satisfied we can meet V, but not enough for me to have a strong opinion one way or the other on N. I'd suggest merge to the college. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Far Eastern Bible College Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above seems reasonable. Worth a section in the institution article, but I can't see any of the WP:NJOURNAL reqs being met. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Far Eastern Bible College per above. Peneplavím (talk) 15:52, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Rashidi (futsal player)[edit]

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

Notability tagged last year but removed by creator. None of the references provided show significant coverage. A player's name appearing in a squad list does not confer notability. I found this article in a search of his Persian name but this isn't significant either. WP:GNG doesn't appear to be met and futsal players are not given any presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable futsal player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Peneplavím (talk) 15:51, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 22:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abram Ilcisin[edit]

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

Article about a youth activist, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for activists. As always, activists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of significance, such as major awards and/or substantive media attention. But of the eight footnotes here, three are primary source press releases from organizations he's directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability; one just tangentially verifies the existence of a protest march while completely failing to mention Abram Ilcisin at all in conjunction with it; and the other four are just brief glancing namechecks of his existence within media coverage which isn't about him, which is not how you get a person over WP:GNG. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than just existing as a local organizer of activist marches. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment out of process, no notice. Blurjoey (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What process do you think the AFD process is "out of", exactly? Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All sourcing I could find, including what is already in the article, only mentions the subject in passing. I commend the subject for their excellent work around climate change, but, I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for this young activist to have their own Wikipedia article until he can meet our WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Missvains's statement. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:05, 22 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 23:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denyce Lawton[edit]

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

More chaff than wheat here, but doesn't appear underneath it to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Lacks in-depth coverage anywhere unless you count decidedly-not-RS listicles about celebrities (broadly defined) of her ethnic background. The best citations anyone can find, and the only two in the article, are an interview with a site I'm not confident in the RS status of and a report about her brother being murdered. Meanwhile, her highest-profile role is just barely significant (and I'm happy to be lax about what NACTOR significant roles are), as a 29-episode role on a 254-episode show, and none of her others are even a tenth of that -- meaning she lacks the repeated success necessary for NACTOR. Vaticidalprophet 12:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The interview doesn't establish notability, the news item about her brother's death definitely doesn't establish notability, and my own search didn't turn up any reliable sources with significant coverage of Lawton. The films in which she's had co-starring roles don't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability standards and TV work is not significant enough as described in nom, so WP:NACTOR isn't met here. DanCherek (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my due diligence to seek reliable secondary sources, I cannot find that the subject passes WP:GNG at this time. Mainly passing mentions in listacles. I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for her to have an article. Missvain (talk) 14:44, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hridoypora[edit]

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

The sources are all non-WP:RS and fail to establish notability. A WP:BEFORE search came back with nothing in line with WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nowhere near to our notability guidelines -- Ab207 (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film. Sources are not reliable. Fails WP:NFILM Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 15:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fails GNG and NFILM. Simply is not a candidate to have a separate article on WP. I think it should have been PROD'ed. Kolma8 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Kolma8 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the creator is now locked as a sock of DipanwitaDatta0 (talk · contribs). --Blablubbs|talk 12:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and the other votes...this clearly fails WP:GNG. versacespace leave a message! 14:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Have a real Source and This Article Are New Please Consider It

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nisswa, Minnesota. The arguments against keeping are far more substantial and subsequently given more weight in terms of policy. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Run for the Lakes Marathon[edit]

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

Only sources are local news (mainly Brainer Dispatch) or results listings. The race falls well short of the standards at WP:NATH; for context, a course of record of 2:35 is amateur and could likely be achieved by a healthy runner with 4-5 years of training. Also, the race has only been around since 2008 and so has no or little historical significance beyond the local level, if that. One source ([5]) which is beyond the local level, is simply a forum and not a WP:RS. Other evidence that could be taken into consideration for a lack of notability is the low participation and low prize money. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: AFD made in good faith by editor concerned about Notability, citing references are too close to source. References are from multiple news organizations, some local, but extend beyond region (though not eliciting an A1 headline at NYT), move past one-time event coverage from a variety of sources. Coverage extends beyond "bear-in-the-tree" and routine so-and-so won, is not sensational nor criminal nor single person. GNG event is notable as a large event in the region. Other articles the editor should consider putting on the list include Minneapolis Marathon, Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Film Festival, Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show.Comm260 ncu (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the "references are too close to source". Also, all but a few sources are local not just "some". It is not a "large event in the region" seeing as the participation is "150+". Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The box you added says that you are looking for sources that "are independent of the topic." I believe the sources show a wide variety, much more than most, with a core of articles from a newspaper based south of the small town where the marathon takes place. The articles states that the weekend draws more than 1,500 participants and 500 volunteers, so along with the families/spectators, the event is one of the larger events in the region. I figured the info-box should be for just the race, but I can change that to match the total race participants. Though you are correct that it is no massive 25,000 person race. But I believe it is an event of notable prominence, one that takes a solid place in the community and so the article allows even smaller communities to say that Wikipedia is indeed a comprehensive written compendium. On a side-note, great work on the Boston year-to-year articles—they look great! Let me know if you need more help on those.Comm260 ncu (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lots of results sources listed, but that's pretty typical of a marathon page (though most just list one source, even though the results are incomplete on the one page, so it that sense, this page is more thorough). A quick Google search only turns up four Brainerd articles, which doesn't mean there isn't more out there. There are local sources here, but others from outside the area demonstrating length and depth of coverage. Star Tribune is one of the top 10 news orgs in the US, though I would like to see deeper coverage for this. I've seen some pretty ragged marathon pages out there Seattle Marathon, Flying Pig Marathon, Washington D.C. Marathon—and DC isn't setting any land-speed records either. Keep with consideration to re-evaluate athletic events in the future (does Wikipedia need a sweep of all non-AIMS events? Small league baseball/football in US is considered notable, see Burlington Sock Puppets or Carolina Phoenix, but has less participants, less fans and less impact in the community than a marathon in a tri-city area).Kingsriter201 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have been trying to sort out marathon articles for a while now and have taken a few to GA, so I am certainly not filing this AfD with little knowledge of what else goes on around Wikipedia, and especially with little knowledge of marathon articles. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and redirect - Per Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:GNG. I do not see how this event - based on the sourcing I found online and in the article. 99% of the reliable secondary sources are from the same publication - the Brainerd Dispatch which is the local newspaper. The rest are unreliable, primary sources. I also do not see, per WP:EVENT, how this marathon has "enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." Nor does it have widespread - national or international - coverage. I'm not convinced it merits inclusion in our encyclopedia. I would perhaps support a Merge and redirect to Nisswa, Minnesota - perhaps creating a Nisswa, Minnesota#Culture section - as an WP:Alternative to deletion. Missvain (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions, Missvain. You're right that the Dispatch is one of the main sources here, as it is the large city near the town where the race is run. I'll push back by saying that the coverage demonstrates "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group" by restating the importance shown in the coverage from the Dispatch, the magazines, and the other news orgs. I'll look for some TV coverage based on your comments. Thanks for your time. Comm260 ncu (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect As per Missvain. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Missvain. Powerful Karma (talk) 03:04, 24 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 Minecraft server. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hive (server)[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth sourcing from independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the oldest Minecraft servers and also one of the few servers of this age that still exist today and is known to many PvP players. In my opinion, there is definitely relevance, it just needs to be presented more clearly by finding and using more third party sources, which is why I think the third party tag is appropriate. However, there are already some reliable third party sources cited, which is why I think the topic passes WP:GNG. Admittedly, the majority of sources are first-hand, but that is not a problem with regard to neutrality if you look at what they are used for and, as I said, I think the third party tag is appropriate and sufficient here. --Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game server failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Of the reliable independent sources, Polygon is just a name mention, PCGamesN is barely a paragraph in a listicle, Eurogamer appears to have more content at a glance but is really half a dozen generic sentences. Not sure about Sportskeeda and Gamepur reliability, but they are also just a paragraph in a listicle. With the amount of reliable sourcing, an entry in Minecraft server#Notable servers is sufficient. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minecraft server per above.78.36.163.169 (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)'[reply]
Redirect agree with above user; however if significant events do occur, we should bring this page back up, like a major hack, database leak, lawsuits, etc.
Redirect with possibilities per nom. SWinxy (talk) 03:38, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew & Alaina Mack[edit]

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

An impressive 29 references, and claims of global recognition and a number one in specialized German charts.

However, the sources are mostly self-published, or blogs, or other minor or unreliable sources, nothing that actually seems to give notability. I can't find any evidence that they topped any charts, and the very, very limited hits I get when searching for the album[6] indicates that this hasn't made much of an impact. Searching for the duo[7] gives equally poor results. Fram (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. As the creator of this page, I welcome robust and honest assessment of all content on Wikipedia. Only through a vetting of sources and material can we ensure that articles created on this platform fulfill the mission and standards of Wikipedia. The user above rightly mentions that there are 29 sources cited for this article. I believe these sources can be expanded and some may be unnecessary. What the user fails to mention is that the Berlin Tagesspiegel, Berlin Morgenpost, Arte are quoted as sources verifying the claims made in the article. These are irrefutably reputable and well-respected publications and each source mentioned is an entire article or interview pertaining to the claims mentioned, not merely a passing comment. Additionally, CCM Magazine's Ross Culver, a well-respected and notable publication and journalist in the Christian scene, dedicates an entire article to the release of their work, also cited in the article. Of the sources mentioned only one is a source that can be considered self-published, therefore the above statement that the sources are mainly self-published is inaccurate. If the community would feel that the cited claim of placement on German charts be removed, I would support this change. An alternative would be that the multiple interviews cited in the article be cited as support for this claim, including the source from Arte which clearly states this fact. But I also agree to removing this sentence. Additionally, the user above when linking to external Google searches does not provide accurate search results and actually searches incorrectly the artists name. An accurate search will reveal that the artists mentioned in the article have multiple other published works including releases in Mandarin Chinese. I would recommend adding information about these additional publications to the article. Finally, I do believe that regional importance can play a important role in notability and should be considered especially in an industry where European artists are under-represented on Wikipedia. While the Gospel music scene in Europe is inherently smaller than its North American counterpoint, to use the same standards universally for similar artists without considering geographical and regional differences would be unfair and unhelpful for the Wikipedia community and for its readers. This page will bring value to understanding the European Gospel music scene and I would hope that not only this page but other similar artists will be able to be represented on this platform for their contributions to Gospel music in Europe. Christian Trautenberg (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tagesspiegel[8] and the Morgenpost[9] are sources from 2004 about their parents, and don't even mention Andrew and Alaina. So these sources have no bearing at all on the notability of this musical duo. Fram (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I completely agree with the initial user's comments but I do not believe they accurately pertain to this page, which is why I am recommending: keep this page. I would offer criticism to the page creator that some of the sources, as the creator openly stated, should be consolidated as some are cited twice. I must, however, suggest that the sources mentioned should not be considered self-published or “minor blogs” because these sources are indeed reputable within the societal segment they are associated with. The page clearly meets the standard for notability but some of the word-usages in the article could be refined to provide more neutrality. For example, in the opening paragraph, to utilize the word “worldwide”, while factually true and properly sourced, implies scale when the competition may not be as “worldwide” as for example the Grammy’s. A possible remedy to this could be to simply state “several” instead of “worldwide”. This brings greater neutrality but may not be necessary. Regarding the claim as to the specialized German charts, I would not cite the interviews as a source for the claim because they provide supporting evidence as to the biographical information and a general consensus of facts to the claims. Josiah Adenegan (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC) — Startnow65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 11:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I agree the article should be kept up. Angelika M. Schroeder (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)— Angelika M. Schroeder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did my due diligence and this musical duo does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:MUSIC. All mentions are in non-notable, non-significant podcasts or Christian publications, but, nothing significant that would reflect notability. Also, the German articles don't even mention the subjects by name, so those don't qualify. Missvain (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, a sockpuppet investigation has been opened and approved regarding the three "keeps" per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christian Trautenberg. Missvain (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Investigators have requested that admins block all three accounts. I have struck their comments. Missvain (talk) 15:59, 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 keep. Consensus is clear that coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to spell out encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 18:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tramezzini NYC[edit]

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

De-prodded. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. I evaluate these as the best GNG sources: [10][11][12][13][14][15]. These have various issues, including not being long enough (3 of these are 1 paragraph), not passing WP:CORPDEPTH, and the last one mentions the press release it's based off of. WP:BEFORE not turning up additional GNG passing sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is definitely a WP:GNG pass. Thousands of similar restaurants are already on Wikipedia as well, so I do not agree with the deletion nomination. This is clearly a very notable restaurant and is probably the only authentic Venetian sandwich restaurant that you'll find in the US. I'm a foodie who knows which kinds of restaurants are generally noteworthy and which ones generally aren't. These 4 articles all feature in-depth coverage.
https://www.veneziatoday.it/cronaca/tramezzini-nyc-pianiga-new-york-box-san-valentino.html
http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/2017/06/tramezzini-nyc-venetian-sandwich-specialist-opens-on-east-houston-street.html
https://www.italiani.it/en/venetian-tramezzino-lands-in-new-york/
http://www.palateconnect.com/stories/businesses/filippo-paccagnella-tramezzini-nyc/

Also these are more than one paragraph.

https://ilmioultimoannoanewyork.com/2017/05/02/tramezzini-nyc/
https://www.veneziaradiotv.it/blog/tramezzino-veneziano-approda-giappone/

In addition, the NY Times coverage is very significant (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/dining/tramezzini-party-box.html), and they are also in MSN:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/video/meet-the-tramezzino/vi-AAEmYSX (check the archived version)

Atlanticatticus (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage. meets WP:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Wikipedia who writes about restaurants, I do agree this subject meets WP:GNG and can also use WP:BASIC for some sourcing. I did my due diligence (not using the sourcing in the article) and found that the subject is either featured (full profile or a significant paragraph or more) or included mentioned in listacles that are from reliable secondary sources - both in New York and Italy, English and Italian. Based on what I found, and what is presented in the article, I believe it qualifies via GNG/BASIC. Missvain (talk) 15:10, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) VV 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham V. M[edit]

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

The subject could satisfy WP:NACADEMIC#6 but the references available are based on press releases and hence cannot be considered. The google scholar citations are very low to be considered. VV 11:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. VV 11:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 11:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Vice Chancelors of major universities in commonwealth countries are notable as per WP:Academic. And the article is just created few hours ago. Not yet completed. Powerful Karma (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added two more non-PR sources [16], [17] that verify this. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:29, 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. Taking care of this early. Missvain (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Verma[edit]

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

Fails GNG (all unreliable sources)

Hindustan Times (has a disclaimer and is tagged under "Brand Post")

International Business Times (unreliable), refer to WP:RSP

Mid-day (has a disclaimer at the bottom and tagged under "partnered content")

IMDB isn't considered reliable

Also, a similar draft(under different name) was declined,when requested AfC, here -> [[18]]

Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 11:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per CSD A7, no signs of importance CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It must be a speedy delete. GermanKity (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. No independent coverage. Ab207 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should have been Speedy. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No news coverage. Peneplavím (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Nomadicghumakkad I did through CSD under "A7", but it was removed by an admin citing WP:CCS, you can check his/her/their edit over here -> [[19]]. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 11:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yes; I have been seeing declines on the grounds of WP:CCS which, honestly, is baffling. But luckily we still have AFD routes. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:37, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 22:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iyah may[edit]

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

Not satisfying any criteria of WP:SINGER. The article looks highly promotional. References as found while WP:BEFORE are suggesting WP:TOOSOON. Chirota (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Most of the citations appear to be "reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" (WP:SINGER). However, I've edited the article to remove puffery and perhaps give it a better chance at survival. Meticulo (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to find more on this artist. I've supplied her non-performance name (from songwriting credits) and her winning two categories in a song writing competition in 2017. I've added singles by Mayah via Apple Music. I'm not ready to vote, yet.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added more content and references. I'm now willing to vote Keep per WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:50, 14 May 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) 10:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that it meets WP:SINGER. 5 sources are from Apple Music, which are not news articles. Lesliechin1 (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find how this subject meets WP:GNG, let alone WP:MUSIC. All mentions are passing, no charting. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for this subject. Missvain (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per the above. Non-winning reality show contest participants are rarely notable. The sources in this case do not spell out an exception to this rule. BD2412 T 18:08, 22 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 09:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jad Allah Al-Qurani[edit]

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

There seem to be no good, secondary sources about this person. The film they refer to was about a Jewish boy, and it looks as if some "conspiracy theory" or similar is doing the rounds on some fora about this being in fact based on some until then unknown Arab(?) boy who converted "millions" of people. Seems like a fringe theory which doesn't belong on enwiki, but perhaps it is true and I just haven't found the right sources? Fram (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written after authentic sources.Please not to Delete it.There is movie also made about this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad236 (talk • contribs) 2021-05-14T08:56:39 (UTC)
Delete - I vigorously attempted to find any information I could on the subject because I understand the passion one feels for certain topics. However, I found out very little outside of the things the nominator has already mentioned. There aren't any good secondary sources by which to draw from for notability. The subject fails the encyclopedia's basic notability guideline (See WP:GNG) --ARose Wolf 15:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I also cannot find any mention of this person in reliable sources. But I agree that it's possible that if you know the right search string in the right language then there is enough out there to pass GNG, so I will watch the discussion and change my !vote if someone does succeed in turning up enough references. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:08, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Schjenken[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV (and thus WP:GNG). No international merits in her sport, not notable as a politician or trade unionist, no independent significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Respectable sportwoman and politician. Note that the Norwegian version is more developed. WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting she is "respectable" as a person but that sounds kind of irrelevant... Geschichte (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator also didn’t do any sign of a WP:BEFORE. Person had both as speed skater and politician coverage in Norwegian newspapers: Dagbladet, Stavanger Aftenbladet and also in some other newspapers. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See these norwegian newspapers https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Elisabeth%20Schjenken%22&mediatype=aviser as Elisabeth Schjenken and https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Elisabeth%20Arntsen%22&mediatype=aviser as Elisabeth Arntsen <- this one spots also some namesakes at the National Library of Norway. PS. Not all norwegian newspapers are digitized like this in the searchresult here. Best regards Migrant (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has coverage in Norwegian newspapers passes WP:GNG. Purosinaloense T/K 11:39, 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. ✗plicit 09:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 United Wiffleball National Championship[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this tournament, just one local source of a reporter regurgitating a press release[20]. No coverage of the actual tournament from independent sources.[21] Fram (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nominator as it fails WP:GNG with the lack of independent resources. HawkAussie (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting this to a parent article about the tournament, since it appears to be an annual thing, but no such article currently exists. Smartyllama (talk) 12:14, 18 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O'Neill (Oney)[edit]

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

Fails GNG, lacks news sources Patriot0239 (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are news-sources, and Chris O'Neill meets WP:NOTE. I'm hoping to expand the page with all of his projects, each of which has ample coverage. WoahCoin (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more news sources here than before. I don’t think this article meets the criteria to warrant deletion. If there are more elaborations on Chris’s projects then it could end up a good article. Bagabondo (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article's not perfect as is but subject is notable which is clearly defined. Needs a bit of a cleanup and likely a re-title but not delete-worthy. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename --Pokelova (talk) 16:22, 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 speedy delete. Log:

2021-05-14T09:10:54 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Nandani Tiwary (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page, see WP:YFA WP:RS WP:COI WP:Notability (people)) (thank)

Note that the page was moved to Nandani Tiwary and then Draft:Nandani Tiwary before being deleted. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NANDANI TIWARY[edit]

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

Fails GNG, not enough reliable coverage Patriot0239 (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:20, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amadou Gallo Fall[edit]

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

Fails GNG, was deleted before too Patriot0239 (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't think the nominator's argument holds water. Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Amadou was very notable NBA executive, he is the President of Basketball Africa League which was launched lately. I don't know what's the reason of deleting his page it was clearly stated he was notable person. Highlightreal12 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article shows a number of sources useful for passing WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 14:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable NBA manager (specifically within Africa) and professional basketball executive and President of the Basketball Africa League (BAL), Africa's premier men's basketball league, as well as a variety of sources, passes WP:GNG NinHawk8940 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all notable NBA manager passes WP:GNG. Peneplavím (talk) 15:57, 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 05:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaram Komati[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. I had speedy it but someone removed it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject fails notability. (Ashique2020 (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet NPOL or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I conducted a quick WP:BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, and newspapers.com, and failed to unearth additional RS that would help this pass WP:ANYBIO. Nor does Komati appear to hold any office that customarily infers inherent notability. Chetsford (talk) 06:04, 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Popular Economics[edit]

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

Written by a COI and tagged with {{Primary sources}} & {{Notability}} since 2015. Can only find trivial mentions or basic listings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources about the organization are just mentions in websites listing nonprofits. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination is correct. This appears to be a COI account and does not demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. ABT021 (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find no independent coverage of the organization. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:18, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacDonnell Road[edit]

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:GEOROAD Rusf10 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient coverage about MacDonnell Road in this article in the Oriental Daily and this article in the Hong Kong Economic Times to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
There is also coverage in this article from Hong Kong Brand Museum, which says (from Google Translate): "There is a McDonald’s Road in Mid-Levels, but it has nothing to do with fast food brands. It is named in memory of Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, the sixth governor of Hong Kong. Before 1957, it was called "McDonald Road", and Hong Kong people would also translate the English name Donald into "Dang Slave", so some people would sometimes write "McDonald". According to James L. Watson, a former guest professor of anthropology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, in his book, McDonald’s in Hong Kong considered using the word "slave" to avoid confusion with McDonald’s Road."
Alternatively, this article could be merged to Richard Graves MacDonnell#Places named after him or his wife per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
Cunard (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least one building on the road described in this article is a listed building, so unless it gets its own article it deserves to be kept per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong guideline! GEOLAND, used for geographic regions, populated places, and natural features has nothing to do with it. Roads do not get notability for buildings.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above notable building passes WP:GEOLAND as per available coverage. Peneplavím (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, GEOLAND is not the appropriate guideline (the correct one is WP:GEOROAD) and the notability of a building has nothing to do with this.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:53, 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 Kowloon Peak. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fei Ngo Shan Road[edit]

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

Part of a long series of articles about non-notable Hong Kong streets. Sure, this road might lead to a great place to make out with your girlfriend if you're a teenager, but how is it notable? Fails WP:GEOROAD Rusf10 (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources since 2007, text doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Avilich (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kowloon Peak (also known as Fei Ngo Shan) (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the road is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Fei Ngo Shan Road is one of the paths that leads to Kowloon Peak (also known as Fei Ngo Shan). 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.
Cunard (talk) 01:22, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 15:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Cliff, California[edit]

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

This was quite a pain to sort out, problems abetted first by a great deal of label drift on the maps, and second my a lot of sloppiness in naming. Older topos make it clear that "Sea Cliff" was first of all a small yard which was reduced over the years to the long passing siding which is still there. As more roads were run through the area, the label drifted away towards the northwest; then an interchange was dropped into the mix which obliterated the area most recently labelled "Sea Cliff", which inspection shows was always the location of various industrial/maintenance structures. Complicating all of this is a narrow strip of gated community wedged between Pacific Coast Highway and the shore, which after some searching I discovered is now called "Seacliff Beach Colony". At the southeast end of this is Hobson Beach Park, a county campground with a little cafe in the midst of it. Well, OK, and there's a Hobson Rd. running alongside the railroad on the north, but the main road in the gated community is Rincon Beach Park Dr, except that Rincon is a fair ways up the coast. Nonetheless, until the houses show up on the topos, the strip of land is labelled "RINCON". The upshot of all this is, it's clear there was never a town here called Sea Cliff, it's not even clear that the little strip of houses was always called Sea Cliff, and I just don't think it is a notable place anyway, considering how hard it was to find out its name. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the contributors to this article. I do see that the area has not received significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:NGEO. ~~I have not seen a clear guideline of notability of communities.~~ This community has a Caltrans overhead freeway sign for Exit 68 in both directions on the 101 which is signed as Seacliff. I would be glad to expand the article as the Times article has additional information which includes the railroad siding and industrial area you mention. It is true it will never be a very long article though with only 49 homes. Just a bit of context on the Rincon name. The narrow area between the ocean and steep hills stretching from Rincon Point to the Ventura River is commonly called "The Rincon" in traffic/news reporting and by the County of Ventura in the two cited reports (which sloppily uses Seacliff as one word and as two). This coastal area is also described in Rincon Parkway and the California State Route 1 § Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Note that other sites along the Rincon Coast also have label drift especially with the construction of the freeway. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources linked above detail aspects such as the place's biology and industry. As it is recognised by the highway authority and people live there, it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as there are several independent sources linked above detail aspects such as the place's biology and industry. I agree with Andrew's assessment. Purosinaloense T/K 11:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm assuming Mangoe found these sources based on their description of the place, this article and this article are substantial articles about the community's development and land ownership, and this article is a long look into the train derailment that happened there in 1991, which also talks about the community itself, and this article describes the evacuation of Seacliff from the same derailment. There's also the newspaper source that's already in the article, and as Fettlemap points out, it's signed as an exit on US 101 (which is actually why I decided to start an article on it in the first place). As far as I'm concerned, this all adds up to both significant coverage and evidence that this is a real community under the name "Seacliff". TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has sources. Thank You-RFD (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is probably a keep per Catalyst31, as there is significant coverage of this site in multiple sources. Hog Farm _Talk 22:15, 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 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 02:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Mohammad Zaman[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 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 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 02:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Seyyd Mohammad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 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 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 02:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Hajji Heydar[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 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 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 02:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Lal Mohammad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:25, 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 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 02:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Hajji Amid[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:25, 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 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 02:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Qader Bakhsh[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:24, 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 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 02:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Delmorad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:24, 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 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 02:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Chengiz[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:24, 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 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 02:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Safar[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:24, 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 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 02:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Bajar[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 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 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 02:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Malek[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 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 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 02:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e 22 Bahman[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 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 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 02:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Mohammadabad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 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 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 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Yar Mohammad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:20, 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 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 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Heydar[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:20, 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 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 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Abd ol Rahman[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:19, 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 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 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Ahmad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:19, 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 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 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Mohammadabad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:19, 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 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 02:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Navvab[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:18, 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 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 02:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Gol[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 15:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Soltan[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are more, for some reason they just weren't listed. I've added two more. 1 I guess is questionable, but that still leaves two possible meanings with no clear WP:PTOPIC, so I think WP:D is appropriate. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:15, 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 speedy keep. Speedy keep since the nomination was withdrawn and had only suggested a merge (WP:SK#1). (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Nonpartisan League[edit]

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

Merge into Nonpartisan League. These two articles are duplicates of the same subject. Curbon7 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not the place to propose a merge. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Curbon7: I agree with the above comment. In fact, I would suggest withdrawing this AfD now and do a wp:bold merge instead considering they are the same subject, so opposition is unlikely. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nom per above. Curbon7 (talk) 00:33, 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 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 01:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Salar[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:16, 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 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 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Khoda Bakhsh[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:16, 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 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 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Gomshad[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:16, 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 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 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Hoseyni[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:15, 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 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 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Sangi[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 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 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 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Zeyayi[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 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 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 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Paliz[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 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 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 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Shand[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 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 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 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Alhiyeh[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 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 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 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Kamal[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 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 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 01:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Isa[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 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 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 01:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Taqi[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 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 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 01:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Amiq Bazmi[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 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 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 01:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Arabha[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 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 01:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Talqori[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom disambiguates only one extant page. Peneplavím (talk) 16:04, 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 01:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Basheh[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom disambiguates only one extant page. Peneplavím (talk) 16:05, 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 02:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bagh-e Kuh[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom disambiguates only one extant page. Peneplavím (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary DAB page. Chetsford (talk) 06:02, 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 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 02:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bagh-e Zinab[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 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 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 02:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bagh-e Ebrahim[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 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 02:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bagh-e Mir[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom disambiguates only one extant page. Peneplavím (talk) 16:04, 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 Liz Cheney. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effort to Remove Liz Cheney from Chair of House Republican Conference[edit]

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

What is this, a joke? WP:POVFORK that could be summarized in two sentences on the main Liz Cheney page. And the title…the title alone. KidAd • SPEAK 01:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay, let's see, this fails... nah, just get rid of it. Nuf sed. (Good grief.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:RECENTism, but I don't agree that the content is obviously unencyclopedic. While I agree that this should not be a standalone page, I would support turning the table into concise prose and merging that prose to somewhere like, say, 117th_United_States_Congress#House_of_Representatives_2. I actually think that a discussion of this topic in that particular subsection is crucial, and a template that someone already placed there appears to agree with me. The question is only whether material here can be usefully merged into an appropriately brief discussion, or whether it's better just to write that material from scratch. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per above, this doesn't need a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page and move the table to the Liz Cheney page. Update the page of the Congress members involved in her ouster to note that they ousted Cheney from the leadership position because she voted to impeach Trump after he incited a pro-Trump mob to storm the U.S. Capitol and because she refused to say that the election was stolen. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Merge anything of value and redirect to Liz Cheney as an WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 22:27, 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 keep. There's consensus that this passes WP:GNG and, on slightly shakier grounds, WP:NOTNEWS. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 15:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Mario Cerciello Rega[edit]

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

Although tragic, it doesn't need a dedicated article. Many murder cases get significant media attention, that doesn't mean they warrant an article. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both tragic and worthy of its own page. I started the article. This case is extremely notable ... locally, nationally, and internationally. I provided many, many, many reliable sources in the "Sources" section. Also, there is already an Italian Wikipedia article about this. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the more that I think about it, I believe that this is a "Snowball Keep". Or a "Speedy Keep". Or whatever the correct procedural terminology is. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: The fact that it has an Italian article has no bearing in this discussion. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has significant bearing. It's already established to be notable in Italy (i.e., Italian Wikipedia). Now -- as a result of yesterday's events -- it has become even "more" notable, even here in the USA. In fact, it's probably more notable in the USA than in Italy itself. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: It really doesn't have any bearing, I suggest you read WP:OTHERLANGS. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Yes. However its not notable to have it's own article. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. But, please re-read what you just stated. Notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Yes. However its not notable to have it's own article. I don't even understand what you're saying. To me, that statement is saying: It's notable to have an Italian Wikipedia article, but not an English Wikipedia article. (Unless I am misinterpreting your comment.) This case is highly notable (in Italy), due to the fact that two foreigners -- that is, American teens -- committed the murder. That's what the whole case is about. (The American involvement angle.) It's not just "some police officer that was killed in Italy". The notable part is that he was killed by American teenagers on vacation in Italy. Thus, that being the general thrust behind its notability, it is notable in the USA (i.e., English Wikipedia) just as much -- if not more so -- than in Italy (and Italian Wikipedia). In any event, we've both made our points clear. We will let others weigh into the discussion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Once again, none of what you are saying proves notability. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens upon dozens upon dozens of reliable sources -- local, national, and international -- does not invoke notability? That's actually the very definition of notability. (And it's probably "hundreds", not "dozens", of reliable sources.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG easily. NOTNEWS is a little fuzzier, but this is a case with likely long-term significance given the recent history of cross-border criminal cases involving Italy (Amanda Knox, Enrica Lexie case). --Trovatore (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC) UPDATE -- oh, also Cavalese cable car disaster (1998). --Trovatore (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG which its passes. Good sourcing. The article needs some formatting and improvements but AfD is not a clean-up tool.BabbaQ (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: - I like that you created this notable article. But, why did you do a source list, instead of including the sources in the article text? BabbaQ (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Hello. Thanks. Good question. This is what happened. I thought the event was important / significant / notable ... so I wanted to get an article started. My past experience has been that, one minute after I create a new article, someone calls for a "deletion" of it. Not necessarily a "defend-able" call ... but typically a "knee-jerk" reaction. So, when I first typed up the text, the first thing that I did was to add a million sources ... to lay the foundation that it is notable and that the "itchy trigger-finger" editors should not rush to a "deletion" call within 5 minutes of the article creation. Then, I hit "save" ... with the intention of fixing / editing / cleaning up the article, later. Also, with the expectation that -- once created -- other editors will chime in and improve the article. That's how my editing strategy goes, when I create a new article. (Rightly or wrongly.) So, in other words ... to answer your question ... when I create a new article, my prevalent concern is "protecting it from deletion" (by adding a million sources) ... a more prevalent concern, for me, than having the article be "nice and neat and clean" ... which takes time and effort and I can get to it later. Hope that makes some sense ... does it? Not saying that it's "right" or "wrong" ... but that is how my thinking goes when I create a new article, and expect it to be called for deletion, one or two minutes after I create it. I've been through this rodeo before. I don't start an article unless I think it's notable. And, after an AfD ... I am usually right / correct / aligned with consensus about 90+ percent of the time. So, again, I'd rather get the article started and establish notability ... by typing in a "million reliable sources" ... and worry about the "formatting" and "clean-up" later. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. And I fully agree. Very notable article subject.BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A highly unusual and notable case of a European police officer murdered by two American students. I see no good reason to delete. The murders of police officers generally receive far more attention than other murders in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 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) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. That's enough. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG, A highly unusual and notable case of a European police officer murdered by two American students. Covered in many news media. Purosinaloense T/K 11:49, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DST Systems[edit]

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

The company 'DST Systems' has been acquired by SS&C Technologies https://www.zdnet.com/article/ss-c-acquires-dst-systems-in-5-4-billion-deal/. It does not operate with this name anymore and there is a Wikipedia page for SS&C Tech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS%26C_Technologies. It mentions that the company has been acquired. I do not think that we should keep this page. Yaywoh (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. The company was acquired, and any important information on the page should just go onto SS&C Technologies. Jmill1806 (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Properly transcluded on 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC). ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From its creation out of Kansas City Southern (company) to its acquisition by SS&C Technologies, this company had quite a long history, given in some detail in this article, including the post-takeover mass layoffs. Although that and other available sources are from the perspective of the firm's hometown, they may contribute towards the question of whether the firm had attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy based rationale to delete/merge that I can identify. The discussion doesn't address the subject's notability. Someone should first argue that it isn't notable, not that it would be merely opportune to (effectively) merge two articles. On a first look, the subject appears notable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the relevant issue here is not notability, but whether this makes sense as a separate page? Given the company itself has merged into SS&C Technologies? I don't think anyone would disagree that this business was notable when it existed. I don't know of an explicit policy about when a notable entity merges with another notable entity, what should happen to the page of the entity that no longer exists. Jmill1806 (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, proposing a wp:merger is more appropriate. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jmill1806, I am still not entirely convinced that this firm met the WP:NCORP criteria (hence my query above), but if so, then it comes under the "notability is not temporary" line. Its subsequent acquisition by a competitor is not relevant if it was indeed notable in its time. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. That seems to be about not requiring continued coverage in reliable sources. The problem here is that the notable entity is now merged into another notable entity. That seems different to me, so I'm leaving my vote for now. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a possible merger target, the article I linked above seems to indicate the takeover was the dismantling of a competitor, in which circumstance it is hard to see what would actually be merged into SS&C Technologies. An alternative would be the source page at Kansas City Southern (company) under whose initiation this company at least operated. But as Aseleste says, the assessment of merger proposals and targets generally follows a process other than WP:AFD. AllyD (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merger?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. (please don't strike – this is a separate !vote in the reframed post-relisting discussion, which is about merger specifically). I just don't see a case for merger. A past company with a long history should not be merged with the company that acquired it, I don't see a practical or a more formal policy-based need. It's like merging the Republic of Texas into United States of America. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:49, 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 01:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hridith Sudev[edit]

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

Much of this self-promotional BLP has been uncited since 2012 (some earlier versions were even worse). If the uncited material and puffery is removed, there won't be enough to support notability .

Among the unsourced claims are:

that International Energy Globe Awards, Austria (about which we do not have an article) , awarded to an organization for which he was one of the founders, is "Nature's Nobel Prize"
that he is "one of the youngest recipients" of this award
that his self-published poetry book is "one of the best-selling English-language poetry books in the Middle-East."
That he is a graduate of the schools he lists.

Material cited only to self-serving local pseudo interviews where he says what he cares to.

that his high school eco-club developed into a major organization
that his work was inspired by his grandmothers household practices
that "He has worked extensively on ending gender-based violence and racial discrimination, informed by his own personal experiences."
that his occupations are "poet, Environmentalist, Public Speaker". His actual status would seem to be college student, (thought that too is an uncited claim)

among the puffery or extremely minor material and extensive namedropping, even if some of it should happen to be true:

that he is descended from a Royal family
that"as often been called the 'World's Greenest Boy' for his environmental stewardship"
his self description in the personal life and activism section
that his latest venture might "help solve the world water problem in regions with water scarcity."
that he has a "scientific career" in medical research
that his one published paper on water purification amounts to a scientific career in Water resource management

that he has a career of s fiction writer when he has not yet published a single work in that field

that he " participated in Black Lives Matter rallies in Denver and Aurora, and expressed solidarity with George Floyd, Elijah McClain, Trayvon Martin, and Breonna Taylor in an Instagram video shortly afterwards.[10]"
that he " named poet and Nobel laureate Pablo Neruda, writer and activist Jessica Mitford, and Instagram-based writer, Lindsay O'Connel as his literary influences.
that "On multiple occasions, Sudev has identified PennState researcher, Stephanie Butler Velegol, on whose work his research is based on, as is his biggest inspiration in science alongside Russian chemist, Dmitri Mendeleev and Indian rocket-scientist, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam" DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the detailed analysis done above. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Looking through the page, the uncited claims listed in the above analysis have now either been removed or properly cited. Following subsequent investigation, the news media sources listed above as "self-serving local pseudo interviews" appear to be prominent, well-circulated publishers in their respective target regions- primarily, Madhyamam, Times of Oman and Rocky Mountain PBS. I see no proof as to the cited claims being lies. Further investigation required. EJaunper (talk) 00:42, 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) 00:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with DGG, self-promotion, so fails GNG. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an advertisement piece fails WP:GNG. Purosinaloense T/K 11:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promotion piece with lots of self-promotion. Nothing really notable on the article. Participating in Black Lives Matter rallies, that are attended by millions of people, is not notable at all. The claim that the book is among the best selling is Oman could make it notable, but I fail to find any references to support this statement. Him trying some novel technology and create a paper about it is interesting, but is not notable. SunDawn (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:58, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D4Science[edit]

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

Non-notable organization with no reliable secondary references. nearlyevil 665 18:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep: D4Science is an infrastructure whose development has been supported by several EU projects. It is currently serving thousands of users. Moreover, its infrastructure represent a tangible implementation of the Data Infrastructure concept. The Virtual Research Environments it enacts are tangible examples of environments supporting the implementation of Open Science practices. (User:Leonardo.candela)
keep: the article contains 10 references to scientific papers about the article topic. --Leonardo.candela (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)(User:Leonardo.candela)[reply]

* Speedy delete: CSD G4, had been deleted before CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was back in 2016, so I assumed applying G4 was not entirely accurate. nearlyevil 665 18:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the current article is completely new wrt 2016 version. 2016 concern was "Ephemeral project. No independent sources. No indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG" (User:Leonardo.candela)

Delete: per nom, no reliable independent coverage found CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep: The SGCI Science Gateway catalogue https://catalog.sciencegateways.org contains a significant number of entries (not added by the D4Science team). In Google Scholar there are hundred of entries on D4Science https://scholar.google.it/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=D4Science&btnG= In a recent paper discussing the state of art of scientific gateways D4Science is referred https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.6099 --Leonardo.candela (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the European Grid Infrastructure wiki page contains some references to D4Science I made more explicit now. --Leonardo.candela (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peachnote, BioISI and D4Science service agreements renewed https://www.egi.eu/news/peachnote-bioisi-and-d4science-service-agreements-renewed/ --Leonardo.candela (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the FAO website contains hundreds of pages referring to D4Science (see http://www.fao.org/home/search/en/?q=d4science) --Leonardo.candela (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else not named leonardo.candela have thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as several independent sources have been added since nomination. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Keep comments above. Meets notability. Webmaster862 (talk) 10:28, 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Jose[edit]

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

Nonnotable Person. Fails WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought he might qualify for WP:BASIC but doesn't. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:46, 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) 00:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, lacks news coverage. Purosinaloense T/K 11:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 15:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spellcross[edit]

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

Article admits this game was obscure, and a BEFORE identifies no sourcing to establish notability. The claim of the most significant game to come from Slovakia is sourced to a blog with the person quoted having no obvious status or facts on which this is based. StarM 19:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will add references from two-page review in contemporary (and well-regarded) gaming magazine, Pelit. --Kiz o r 19:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added, alongside a contemporary Slovakian magazine, so I !vote to Keep. StarM, the article's sourcing was indeed lacking and the fault is mine. Apologies for making you bother with an old mistake of mine. I think the article now passes muster, so if you agree, would you be willing to withdraw, please? I've had some bad experiences with AfDs, and though you've been entirely polite, would still feel better not having to wait for this one to close. --Kiz o r 14:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while they don't help the article as it now stands, these reviews can be extremely useful in developing it in the future. --Kiz o r 16:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to withdraw, Kizor, as I'm not certain whether some of these sources meet general reliable source guidelines and would like others to weigh in. Thank you for improving the article. If it is notable, I'm sure the discussion will close in that favor. StarM 15:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The video games wikiproject curates a list of sources evaluated by the community and considered reliable. Pelit is considered reliable, as are Power Unlimited, GameStar and PC Games out of the reviews quoted on MobyGames. Riki Multimedia Magazine and this review are not listed one way or the other. This certainly satisfies me, in particular since the best way to determine reliability that I can think of would be to have more community discussions. What about you? --Kiz o r 19:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above two reviews are not significant coverage but together with those nine magazine reviews listed at MobyGames, there is plenty of source material for this topic. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason is that this is a product, and WP:NPRODUCT is a subset of NCORP and it is expected that they follow the same CORPDEPTH and ORGIND requirements like businesses. If there is an appropriate merge target, I am perfectly fine with WP:ATD and merge into one of those. Graywalls (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The existing sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Further sources are also likely to exist though they may not be in English. Also, the suggestion that WP:NPRODUCT applies is not correct but is also beside the point because GNG is clearly met here. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable video game passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS-compatible magazines identified above. Power Play, Gamestar, PC Games, etc. are all reliable contemporary publications (and most can be accessed with Internet Archive). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There is third party sources that cover this. It’s a little thin but enough for a stand alone article. No valid merge target. Reception section is enough to pass AFD but I would like to see it expanded for quality. Archrogue (talk) 17:20, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Twitchell[edit]

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

Deprodded without a rational rationale, and with zero improvement. An associate professor with a high citation count of 5. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage, only award was a local community prize. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, but some of the sources already in the article look reliable and in-depth enough for WP:GNG. In particular, I think this is true of the sources from Indian Country Today, the Anchorage Daily News, and KTOO, all of which are primarily about Twitchell's work, include some additional coverage of his background, appear reliable and independent, and are from a wide enough span of years that I don't think there is an issue with BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This is one of three articles created at the same time for individuals associated with Molly of Denali, which in itself should be a red flag (WP:NOTDIR). Another red flag is this passage: "In 2020, Dr. Twitchell led an Tlingit online class with Outer Coast College. Dozens of students participated.", apparently inserted solely to link to a promotional article about a college which currently exists more in theory than anything else. The nominator chose to ignore all that and target the article with the highest likelihood of notability, using a rationale which appears to be about arbitrary thresholds and not significant coverage. To add to David Eppstein's comments, the Alaska Journal of Commerce is also a reliable source. Top Forty Under 40 was created to recognize notability within a particular community and to provide coverage to individuals so recognized. It's unclear to me whether this is the same thing Alexandermcnabb derisively refers to as "a local community prize". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashley yoursmile! 05:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the discussion. I created the article. The sentence about the Outer Coast open class has been removed as the intent was merely to suggest an emerging practice. orcalover (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:49, 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) 00:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with David Eppstein. The coverage appears reliable, and it's in my view sufficiently substantial to eke out a GNG pass. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:15, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dowd[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The sources are very poor: a few WP:INTERVIEWS (least niche outlet is San Francisco Gate, I think: [22]) , some press-release like annoucements that he will give a talk somewhere, and a bunch of references to his webpages and other WP:SPS. I am not seeing any independent discussion of his life or significance in GBooks/Scholar, a few mentions in passing, pretty much all related to his book Thank God for Evolution (which may be notable, although it is currently a very poor stub; not seeing any awards for it or for the author, although it did get some media coverage and citations since). If the book is notable (which needs to be shown to save that article), maybe a summary of his bio could be merged there. Anyway, given the subject has coverage pretty much only in the context of this single book, WP:ONEVENT applies too. PS. I will try to improve the book article shortly, as of now it looks like this. PPS. While not directly related to the notability, it is worth noting the article has been created and significantly written by presumably the subject themselves, see MBDowd (talk · contribs). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- WP has a tendency to eliminate any views that do not conform to the consensus and to rubbish creationists. There are some claims in this article that need more verification, which is important for BLP articles, but subject to that it is not so bad that it ought to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron, I am afraid what you are saying is that WP:ITSIMPORTANT... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep his most notable book is held in 720 libraries as shown here which indicates he has at least one major work, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - while library holdings are often used as direct evidence of impact for WP:NACADEMIC, for WP:NAUTHOR the relevant criteria reads The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work...or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Since the relevant work seems more a work intended for a general audience than academic scholarship per se, I think we still need to see evidence of significant coverage. MarginalCost (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I missed that the sources to support notability are found at the book's article itself, rather than Dowd's own page. I think the coverage there - particularly Geoscientist (by the Geological Society of London) and Theology and Science, in conjunction with Atlantic's evidence of library holdings meet the WP:NAUTHOR requirements that The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work...or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. We can debate whether TGfE should be merged here, but I think there's enough content to justify an article for Dowd. MarginalCost (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- MarginalCost, His book may be notable, per WP:NBOOK. I don't think authorship of one notable book however is enough to give him NAUTHOR pass. I think that if someone is notable only for a single work, their bio can be summarized in article on that work. Once they have two or more notable works, then they likely pass NAUTHOR and it makes more sense anyway to have a central entry for them. (Also, it is not yet very clear if his book is indeed notable enough to even merit a stand-alone article). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:50, 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) 00:13, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Cinkovich[edit]

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

Non-notable collegiate assistant coach, fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assistant coaches need lots and sustained coverage to show notability which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this. He was the offensive coordinator and assistant head coach and a quick google search turns up some SIGCOV like this, this, this and this. No time now but I will do a deeper dig later. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A review of Google hits and newspapers.com finds trivial coverage. The subject was an assistant coach and the coverage does not meet any of the criteria listed at WP:NCOLLATH. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Cxbrx (talk) 14:14, 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 merge to Australian Baptist Ministries. Missvain (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford College (Australia)[edit]

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

Non-notable/unverifiable. I figured it must be notable but poorly-sourced and tried to fix it but was unable to find any record in newspaper archives of a "Bedford College" in Sydney in the 1940s (or of a Baptist college in Glebe at all), and every significant reference to them online appears to be self-published. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge As a couple of sentences into Australian Baptist Ministries, but only if someone can confirm the college's affiliation (I tried briefly but couldn't find anything). Meticulo (talk) 15:52, 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) 00:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge is the best that can happen to this article. --Bduke (talk) 08:39, 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.