Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 26 May 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maliban[edit]

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

The firm might conceivably be notable but none of the sources are usable to show it. The articles in the Sunday Times are all the sort of promotional interviews where the head of the company says just what they please; by WP:NCORP, these do not count toward notability DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep, there are sufficient independent/reliable secondary sources to clearly establish that it satisfies WP:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG. Maliban is the second largest biscuit manufacturer in Sri Lanka and has won a number of national and international awards (see [1] and [2]). I believe that the nominator hasn't really looked hard enough before putting this article forward at AfD. Dan arndt (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dan arndt, "second largest biscuit manufacturer" in Fooland is not sufficient for NORG/GNG. Awards? The article doesn't mention any. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Piotrus, I'm not certain if you are serious or not. This is a major company, over 70yrs old, exports its products internationally, has a net worth of hundreds of millions, employs over 1,800 people, has won a number of national and international awards and has significant coverage in all the major newspapers in Sri Lanka and yet you are trying belittle any who has a dissenting view. I think you just need to do a simple check / search and you'll find that there is plenty of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as mentioned by Dan, this the second largest confectionery company in Sri Lanka. One of the largest non-listed companies in the country. There are plenty of WP:RS.--Chanaka L (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Academic studies
Reference Comment
Ilmudeen, A. "Business and Information Technology (IT) Alignment in Theory and Practice: Evidence From Selected Companies in Sri Lanka" (PDF). South Eastern University of Sri Lanka. Retrieved 29 May 2021. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) An academic study on one of Maliban subsidiary
Ilmudeen, A. (2012). "MEASURING BUSINESS - IT ALIGNMENT STATUS AND IT GOVERNANCE: SPECIAL REFERENCE To 3 SELECTED COMPANIES IN SRI LANI(A" (PDF). South Eastern University of Sri Lanka. Retrieved 29 May 2021. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) An academic paper, Maliban is one of the companies selected
Wanninayake, Bandara (203). "Attaining Competitive Advantage through Successful Brand Building" (PDF). Economic Review. University of Kelaniya: 18–20. Retrieved 29 May 2021. An academic study mentions Maliban
Madiwanthi, C. (2013). "The impact of non-financial Rewards on motivation in Eam Maliban Textile (pvt) ltd in Mahiyanganaya" (PDF). Eastern University, Sri Lanka. Retrieved 29 May 2021. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)< An academic study on EAM Maliban Textiles
Bawa, Mohideen. "Impact of Initial Training Programme on Employee Retention: A Case Study of Garment Factory" (PDF). South Eastern University of Sri Lanka. Retrieved 29 May 2021. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) An academic study on one of Maliban subsidiary
Madushani, G L W E N (2012). "Consumer Preferences for Different Attributes of Powdered milk: A Conjoint Analysis" (PDF). Retrieved 29 May 2021. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) A study on Maliban milk powder
Rajapakse, M. (2013). "A preliminary economic study on the Market for glucose syrup in Sri Lanka" (PDF). Retrieved 29 May 2021. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) A study on Maliban biscuits
Abeysekera, Nalin (2011). "Philip Kotler and Hinniappuhamy". Retrieved 29 May 2021. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) Marketing practices, Hinnippuhamy is the founder of Maliban (the author has taught yours truly.)
--Chanaka L (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The problem I see is WP:INHERITED - a study on their biscuits or subsidiaries is not that relevant to the study of the holding company. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Biscuits and milk powder business is carried out by the parent company. In this case, it is clear that more notable company is Maliban Biscuits Manufactories not EAM Maliban Textitles.--Chanaka L (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG and has significant coverage.Webmaster862 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Requiring a higher standard than GNG would only serve to reinforce systemic bias in this encyclopedia. Ibadibam (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. [3] is in-depth, but really, it reads like a press-release or company's own history write up (and is businesstoday.lk a reliable source?). Ditto for [4], the publisher seems possibly notable (The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka)), but that's not the same as reliable, and the quality of the tiny paragraph speaks for itself. Both articles are highly promotional: "Maliban, Sri Lanka's premier biscuit manufacturing company, celebrates 50 years of quality, taste and successful commercial operations this year, thus marking another milestone in the company's rich legacy." is the opening of the first, or the ending of the second "this philosophy of using the best quality raw materials and ingredients in the manufacture of Maliban products has been practised unchanged". Actually, the second source is clearly attributed to "This is a statement made by the present CEO Mr D Lakshman Weerasuriya." so it is pretty much a press release (the first source is unattributed, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't written by the company's PR dept, too - the last paragraph ends with attribution of a quote to "U Keerthie Adasuriya, CEO of Maliban"; at the very list it is a very poor excuse for journalism). WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an issue, but it doesn't absolve content from requiring RS and so on. Standards are the same for all companies. The company got the "National Quality Award" but is the award notable? Sadly, I am leaning delete here, as I am not convinced WP:NORG is met. The closer should consider the strength of arguments - a lot of them are sadly WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:LOCALFAME (that one specifically discusses systemic bias fallacy in notability arguments) and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all other keep !votes. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment have added further WP:RS to the article. Noting that national newspapers such as The Sunday Times, Sunday Observer and Daily News are all considered to be highly reputable newspapers - it would appear that some editors have a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in not accepting foreign published newspapers as being notable. The awards that the company has won are both national and international - which is clearly not WP:LOCALFAME. As previously stated the article satisifies WP:NCOMPANY, in that it demonstrates significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.Dan arndt (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sufficient to read sources cited to see why those newspapers have very low standards and are of borderline reliability, and likewise, poor for establishing notability. Their 'articles' are press releases or their rewrites. This is not a type of source that we can rely on to prove something his notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is fairly clear that you have based your opinion on a few select articles and therefore have then dismissed all articles as being unreliable - that to me is cultural bias. I think you need to read WP:NEWSORG. These newspapers are considered reliable sources as they have independent editorial oversight and are not reprints of press releases. Maybe you should check before being so dismissive in future. Dan arndt (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying that it is largest is problem. But it still has sources. Check [5], [6], Someone talking about them in NYC in an Entrepreneur article [7] Fishandnotchips (talk) 11:09, 30 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 Arch Enemy discography. czar 05:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Arch Enemy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs recorded by Arch Enemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found in CAT:NN, tagged for notability since 2011. This does not seem to be a needed list, as it duplicates content elsewhere. Arch Enemy discography lists all of the significant releases, and the others, which all appear to be minor and obscure, are listed on the album pages. As almost none of these are notable songs, this serves no navigational purpose.

A similar AFD I was involved in awhile back, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Upchurch, resulted in deletion. Searching indicates to me that only unreliable sources attempt to list all of the songs recorded by this band; this doesn't appear to meet the guidelines for stand-alone lists. Hog Farm Talk 05:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:48, 27 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 03:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffmann Mineral[edit]

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

Promotional article (by paid editor) on a non-notable, albeit well-established, ROTM company; no encyclopaedic value. The only claim to fame seems to be that they are the only ones mining a deposit of siliceous earth, but that is already mentioned in Neuburg Siliceous Earth and surely doesn't need a separate article. Much of this is unsourced, and the sources that there are, aren't exactly solid. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:46, 27 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. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DECIM[edit]

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

Article has been around for over 10 years and there's still no sources other than some published papers, no secondary sources, nothing showing notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are not many sources because the algorithm didn't pass eSTREAM. Anyway, I can see at least 1 secondary source. This paper is one of the main reasons why the algorithm is not popular, but it is a good source: https://www.ecrypt.eu.org/stream/papersdir/049.pdf Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not an expert in the subject but how does a published paper without news coverage indicate notability? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my humble opinion the most notable thing about DECIM is that it was broken before being approved. That paper is renown in the Cryptanalysis field. The expected computational complexity of an attack was O(2^80), while the researchers found that the actual complexity was O(2^21). Bad fame is fame. That's why I don't like the idea of deleting the article. There are more papers, like this one: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288306103.pdf Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not news coverage. Notability is demonstrated by people other than the creators/inventors/subjects noting something and writing about it independently themselves, in depth. Newspapers are some of the people who can do this, but they are far from the only ones. "No sources other than these sources." is not no sources, either. Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 21:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article adequately sourced to pass notability. There's room enough on the server for these sorts of niche articles and an encyclopedia full of reality TV stars and third rate sportspersons is not totality of the encyclopedia should be about. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • doi:10.1007/11799313_3 (already cited in the article and the same as the PDF raw hyperlinked above) is reliable and independent, but by itself is thin. Bernstein at https://cr.yp.to/streamciphers.html addresses eSTREAM in toto, rather than DECIM in depth, which is listed as one of many at https://cr.yp.to/streamciphers/attacks.html#decim-v1 . I always want multiple independent sources, and the aforemented claimed renown can be demonstrated by more than that just 1 paper, after 15 years of people purportedly pointing to this as a renowned example.

    However, I do not think that this is in fact the case. I cannot find people pointing to this as a renowned example.

    Instead, the introduction of doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2011.01.057 (also already cited in the article) indicates that there is a significant body of independent literature addressing the revised versions of this subject (v2 and -128). Other things such as https://www.ijcsit.com/docs/Volume%202/vol2issue6/ijcsit2011020662.pdf (which isn't much but is something) and https://eprint.iacr.org/2008/128 also turn up on a search. This subject is not renowned, it is documented on its merits, and the aforementioned doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2011.01.057 does so in depth, both the original algorithm(s) and a summary of the subsequent literature to 2012. This is a poor article, that is uninformative and superficial. But then that is true of so much of Wikipedia, and Project:deletion policy is that we keep in the hopes that one day someone will take doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2011.01.057 and the like in hand and actually improve this stub.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As demonstrated by above sources, this algorithm has significant third-party coverage. Most modern cryptography is built on idea of learning about past mistakes (to avoid them in new designs). This article deffinitelly needs improvement, but not WP:TNT.Anton.bersh (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:33, 27 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 02:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PokerBaazi[edit]

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

Fails NCORP and CORPDEPTH. The coverage is either routine announcements or passing mentions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The links given here not look very reliable and look like they have some connection with company. Fishandnotchips (talk) 11:12, 30 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. Please nominate other articles for deletion separately. ✗plicit 02:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of men's Olympic water polo tournament top sprinters[edit]

List of men's Olympic water polo tournament top sprinters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very detailed, long list of statistics based on primary sources and databases. The actual topic (who were the top sprinters of tournament X or of team X at the Olympics) doesn't seem to have received significant attention from reliable, independent sources though. Fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of women's Olympic water polo tournament top sprinters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is detail and then there is too much detail. This is probably one step more than that as the real question is really do we need this. If not then should be deleted as well as the other articles that @Reywas92: has mentioned. HawkAussie (talk) 07:24, 28 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 02:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marv Terhoch[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as producer of a single-market local television newscast, not making or sourcing any strong claim to wider notability. The only real notability claim being attempted here is that the newscast received unspecified and unsourced "national and international awards for its documentaries" -- but that isn't a notability claim if you don't name the awards in question, because not every award that exists is necessarily always an instant notability clincher -- and in reality, the content is much more genealogical, devoting far more time to naming his parents, grandparents, wife and children than it does to saying anything notability-building about his work as a producer. And for sourcing, there's one obituary in a non-notable community hyperlocal, one article in the local newspaper about the newscast, one very short blurb on the website of the local historical society, and a book that's being used to source information about a house his grandparents once lived in rather than any content about Marv. This is not enough sourcing to get him over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:30, 27 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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Blue (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable television series, with lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. I could not find anything to establish that the series is notable for a standalone article. All sources used in the article are either primary or unreliable, except I think this one. Fails WP:GNG. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's edit it to get it up to the standard you seek. The problem is, being a 1970's children's TV show, there are few remaining references online. Yet, this was referenced in Wikipedia on Yorkshire TV for some years prior to me making an entry about it.

I feel this strikes at how one should construct Wikipedia articles. Is the point not that we collaboratively and incrementally construct reliable materials? Or are you advocating an article be pristine in its first incarnation, or else it must be deleted? I'd find it more useful if so-called "editors" took the approach of fleshing out an article or giving pointers as to what they wish to see included, instead of running to the delete button as their default option. Davidmwilliams (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: More detail has been added, including additional references, and importantly, clearing up the uncertainty in the previous text whereby the people credited changed because, it transpires, an original co-creator passed away. I hope you find this helpful. If not, then constructive guidance is certainly welcomed. Davidmwilliams (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Davidmwilliams, thanks for the response. The sources you have added are not reliable with no evidence of editorial oversight. For instance, the "About us" of this website mentions that it is a blog which constitutes WP:SPS. This source is a retailer, hence definitely not reliable. This just verifies that the television series existed and nothing else. This is perhaps the only source which looks okay to me but I'm unsure about its reliability. Ashleyyoursmile! 13:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ultimately not enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The sources that cover this show in any detail are just blogs which are not considered reliable soureces. The strongest source highlighted by User:Ashleyyoursmile is just a blogger site with a custom domain name. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:30, 27 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvandale, California[edit]

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

The only search result of any use refers to it in passing as a "road station"; I still have no idea what that means, but it suggests a single facility rather than a town. Other than that, the topos refer to it as a "site", and that's it. No sign this was a community, notable or otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It helps if one spells it "Sylvan Dale". Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and if one does, it appears to be a station on a former NWP RR line out of Willits. So, still not notable. Mangoe (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is the same thing, but "Sylvan Dale" is referred to as a planned resort in a 1902 brief mention in a Ukiah newspaper. Found another passing mention of Sylvandale as resort, as well as references to a saloon and a barn dance. Some passing mentions to a Sylvandale School, but also a couple statements that an attempt to get a school district in Sylvandale was rejected. There seems to be a modern subdivision (possibly in the Ukiah area) that is named Sylvandale but is unrelated to this historic site. Hog Farm Talk 19:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subdivision is definitely elsewhere. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:30, 27 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 Valérian and Laureline#Animated television series. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Asteroids of Shimballil[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about the pilot episode of a television series that never happened. As always, unsold pilots are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed -- the notability test per WP:TVSHOW requires reliable sources independent of the show itself to cover it in a way that establishes its significance, but nothing like that has been shown here even though the article has existed for 15 years. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have been the subject of real coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A proposed TV pilot that never even moved past the concept art phase. The article is completely devoid of sources, and searching does not bring up any kind of coverage on this never-made show. It could possibly be used as a Redirect to Valérian and Laureline#Animated television series, where it is very briefly mentioned. The topic is so obscure that I don't actually think it would be a particularly useful search term, but if others think the redirect would be appropriate, I have no objections. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Valérian and Laureline#Animated television series. I couldn't find sufficient evidence to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:28, 27 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. Doing us all a favor. Missvain (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Srinivasan[edit]

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

Not really notable compared to other CTOs given as examples here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technology_officer#Notable_CTOs article seems to be a puff piece

Creating deletion discussion for Balaji Srinivasan

Quicklibrary (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Srinivasan is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article in my view. The problem is with the article as it is currently written. It reads like a laundry list of his accomplishments. No attempt has been made to explain his thoughts and ideas or place these thoughts and ideas in any kind of context. Srinivasan is an associate of Peter Thiel and an advocate of Dark Enlightenment ideas. Several of these folks are the subject of Wikipedia articles — Curtis Yarvin, Nick Land, the aforementioned Thiel. Srinivasan is also an important figure in crypto-currency circles. Chisme (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Delete He isn't published anywhere as an author, and it looks like his writing is mostly just tweeting stuff about crypto. Wikipedia's articles on notable CTOs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technology_officer#Notable_CTOs are a list of their professional achievements. Without published thought leadership on topics besides crypto (where he seems to just tweet) us asserting what his 'thoughts and ideas' are would require original research into it. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the place for that. Quicklibrary (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nominator of the article for deletion. You can't !vote. You basically !voted when you nominated it. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah gotcha, didn't know that, thanks Missvain. , Quicklibrary (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC) QL[reply]


  • Delete This individual seems to be only "Twitter-famous." Many of the citations are to the tech-press and not serious pieces, but possibly just a way for this individual to obtain publicity for their companies. The entire "crypto" space is filled with these individuals. There are references which point to this individual being marginal and side-player to notable events, but nothing where they themselves are at the center, outside of the hot-house of the tech-sector, which is notable for flash-in-the-pan publicity. Perhaps notability would be established if they produced something original rather than contribute to the stream of crypto-chatter.

TheFutureIsHere2100 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is enough WP:NOTABILITY from reliable primary and secondary sources. His sparing with the media makes it in the news a lot ([8] There's significant coverage for Balaji's entrepreneurship and personal notability. --Plasticdying (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is notable but the article is a mess and fails BLP many times over. Recommend blowing it up and starting over Ew3234 (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)* Keep Changing my vote to keep to build more consensus towards keep for this poor-faith Afd. Ew3234 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Inclusion in WP:BLP must meet a high bar of notability, and if dispute exists, should not be included in BLP. WP is not a publisher of original research on a subject’s “thoughts and ideas” if they are unexplained by reliable sources. Other WP users have already proposed deletion of concepts referenced in this page (“paper belt”, "teleport") due to the dearth of reliable sources (WP:RS) on these topics. Kristyuhorton (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if the tech press is trying to boost this guy that is in itself interesting. Nuking and starting over can be done without a deletion. Sam Vimes 22:46, 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) 23:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage by RS over multiple topics. Sure, let's slash the article down, but plenty to work with here. Jlevi (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This person is not important enough to be in Coinbase page and their main claim to fame is a firm which does not have a page. This is someone trying to ride crypto to fame and fortune. They gin up attention. Not notable. Delete and bring back when they do something. Bitbro1972 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - he's obviously very notable. He's one of the most powerful influencers in tech (just look at his Twitter and press coverage of what he says) and founded 1729, a very notable new decentralized education startup that isn't even mentioned on the article, but really should be!! There are routes to improve this article and make it less focused on just Coinbase. Danski14(talk) 20:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Never even heard of the guy until the recent article on media vs tech VC 173.31.203.116 (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Delete - I don't see much here besides the technical fact of being a CTO: a motion to keep mentions political views, but I cannot find such perspectives of the Subject published anywhere reputable. Another mentions him sparring with news media, but this seems to be only an active twitter presence and no feature besides his own tweeting. As a CTO, there's no particular notability. As a very active twitter user, Wikipedia would be profiling an unlimited number of people as 'notable' if that were the bar. As for 1729 - what is it? why is it also notable? is it part of his work as a CTO? The answers to these questions are unclear to me, and answering them would mean writing up original research into the biography of a living person. Quicklibrary (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nominator of the article for deletion. You can't !vote. You basically !voted when you nominated it. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


* Speedy Delete

I'll try to summarize my prior comments.

- Doesn't seem to compare to the figures listed here as notable CTOs: here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technology_officer#Notable_CTOs

- is ascribed views by other Wikipedians but doesn't seem to have authored anything about them featured in any reputable publication (would require original research to establish his views, or their cultural salience)

- main written output seems to be an active twitter that is highly focused on the crypto space, which all seems to have come *after* his main work as a CTO for Coinbase

- Is not even featured by Coinbase as notable

- current projects like 1729 appear to have little traction or impact

- was once a CTO but thousands of others are also presently CTOs. Will every former CTO be notable?

- looks to have gotten into fights with people on twitter: this doesn't seem important

- not much left to say on this page besides the founding and sale of his company. Looks to be a successful one, but I don't think this alone establishes particular notability.

Quicklibrary (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nominator of the article for deletion. You can't really !vote. Missvain (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Delete

- Again, he is Twitter famous. But that's not a real metric, as that is easy to manipulate in a non-organic manner. Twitter is not irrelevant, but it's importance is conditional on other concrete contributions.

- As noted by others he isn't even listed as CTO on Coinbase page. CTO at a firm in a new industry isn't notable. If being Silicon Valley rich is notable, there should be way more people on Wikipedia.

- A lot of reference to a 2013 article. Is that it outside of Twitter? Not everyone who wrote an article in the WSJ in 2013 is notable. If that piece did not spawn an ecosystem of countervailing ideas then what's the importance?

- The whole economy of firms like Coinbase seems pretty fragile right now. This individual isn't in a well-established industry, but an influencer who is good at manipulating Twitter. The crypto-space may exhibit the features of being a bubble, and this person's reputation may be the same.

TheFutureIsHere2100 (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can only !vote once. If you have new comments please add them to your original !vote. Missvain (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. Seems rather notable, even being considered for public office for some reason, and it looks like there's a lot of sources there (granted, some look to be primary or dreaded press releases). But the article should be edited or something to remove the promotional tone; right now it just reads like a list of "hey, he did this company". This sockpuppet stuff really sours this AfD, but I was going to vote for Keep anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdoTang (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WOULD LOVE INPUT FROM EXPERIENCED EDITORS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. . There is enough WP:NOTABILITY from reliable primary and secondary sources. His sparing with the media makes it in the news a lot ([1] There's significant coverage for Balaji's entrepreneurship and personal notability.Plasticdying (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plasticdying, you can only !vote once. So please chose one or the other and combine your thoughts accordingly, thanks. Missvain (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's some weird shenanigans going on here. Let's please close this as a Keep. I'm going to change my previous !vote to keep. Ew3234 (talk) 02:20, 28 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) 18:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LacusCurtius[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article was created in 2004 by the website's owner. SL93 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think it really matters whether the site's owner created the article, as it's received significant attention from unaffiliated editors since that time. The issue is whether it's notable. I glanced around for signs of notability without finding anything I thought I could use, but I'm far from an expert in the field of determining notability and my search wasn't exhaustive. I do have considerable reservations about concluding a lack of notability, however. This site is one of the premier sources for classical texts—probably used more than any other by Wikipedians working on Roman topics, and perhaps a good percentage of Greek topics as well. It's reasonably well-designed and clearly a good deal of scholarly work went into putting it together, and in organizing and annotating many of the texts.
That makes it pretty important for modern classical scholarship; not all classical scholars can afford a large library or access to the texts concerned, so sites like this and Perseus, along with on-line epigraphic sources are invaluable. That's not something that lends itself to news coverage, however, and scholars who use the site for convenience may only be citing to the texts it contains rather than the site, since the original source carries scholarly weight that the site does not. So my opinion as someone who's used it quite often over the years is that the article ought to be considered notable, although I don't feel able to prove that at this time. I'll bring this discussion to the attention of my colleagues at CGR: maybe some of them can help establish notability. P Aculeius (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly is a key resource (when it's not down) like Perseus Project, but it hasn't been publicised in the same way (probably because it's a private project). I don't know where you'd find the sort of sources that wiki needs. Furius (talk) 12:21, 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) 23:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote either way: I did indeed write the seed of this article, when I was new to Wickedpedia (and WP, a site slightly younger than mine, was new itself), being impelled, almost told, to do so by a WP contributor who had been around for a while. I have no idea whether the site is noteworthy and don't much care one way or the other, but have occasionally edited the page from an IP in this range 24.136.4.218 (variable depending on my server, apparently), usually not bothering to log in, just to keep info current as long as the page was up. WP itself links about 7000 times to it, but then Wickedpedia hardly makes anything noteworthy or otherwise… 24.136.11.43 (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a further parenthesis, it happens that Lacus has been down for about a week currently, the longest outage ever; COVID-related problems made it hard to find out what was going on, but finally this morning I thought I learned that the University of Chicago is pulling the plug on it (and apparently on Perseus at PhiloLogic as well). I have a couple of offers to host the site, and it looked like I would have to be moving it soon. If it moves I'll put in a notice to WP's robots to change the root address to whatever the new one is, of course. 24.136.11.43 (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UoC is not in fact pulling the plug on LacusCurtius: the outage was due to an electrical glitch in a COVID-unoccupied building on campus, and the length of the outage was due to a one-week delay by some peon in replying to an urgent request for permission to enter the building to ascertain and fix the problem. The e‑mail was finally answered, permission granted, and this morning it took all of ten minutes to restore the server. ▸ LacusCurtius therefore continues to be online as before, notices of its demise (incl. by me!) were premature. I've edited my previous note. 24.136.11.43 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment somebody needs to now actually incorporate the new sources into the article if they want to save it. I don't know much about the site and feel unqualified, but the websites provided above seem adequate. use template:cite web SpartaN (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Would normally have recommended Draftify because it meets the criteria and just needs a lot of work, but the author of the article (and apparently according to others above, the author of the website) hasn't been active on Wikipedia since 2010, and others don't see to be keen to work on the article so it's unlikely that a draftify would be worth it. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing controversial or contentious in the page and there's no reason to believe anything on the page is untrue, so I don't think there being original reasearch is reason to destroy the entire page in the hope someone recreates it some day. If it meets the critera and there's no pressing reason for it to be deleted my view is that it should just be left alone. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re the comment it "needs a lot of work" above, I don't think the article needs to be improved in order to be kept. I think the only question is, is the topic notable enough? @Dr. Universe: Does your "it meets the criteria" mean you think it is? Paul August ☎ 00:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per reasons stated by P Aculeius and Furius, and sources provided by Paul August. Curbon7 (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with sources provided in mind. It seems to have been very notable in the early days of the internet with all the excitement of being able to learn everything about everything, and even if that has dwindled WP:NOTTEMPORARY still applies. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will issue a keep !vote with an actual rationale in a short bit. jp×g 04:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arizona State University. Missvain (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Luminosity Lab[edit]

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

Unclear if this passes WP:GNG. Might be more appropriate to merge with Arizona State University. nearlyevil665 19:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 19:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winner of notable X-Prize next-Gen Mask competition. Explicitly named in state-wide and national independent news sources for work in COVID-19, CNBC and Bloomberg reporting found in references[1] [2]. I do not believe merging would be preferable as other institutes at Arizona State University such as Biodesign Institute are separate from the Arizona State University with much less sourcing outside of the university itself. Additionally, much of notability may not be associated with ASU as X-Prize and NASA competitions were competed in by Luminosity Lab teams specifically, not ASU teams generally.User:LabRat55
Comment: The second link is a press release. The first one is an article about over 10 different mask inventions and one of them is about a mask developed by the students from Arizona State University's Luminosity Lab. nearlyevil665 21:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article from The Arizona Republic is an independently written article from a notable newspaper that specifically discusses the Luminosity Lab winning Mask Design. [3] Additional Luminosity Lab specific articles from Arizona's Fox News station and Arizona's PBS included here. [4] [5] And additional notable information to be included in the article includes projects in COVID-19 response work. [6] [7] [8] User:LabRat55 22:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/25/pictures-face-masks-designed-by-young-people-competing-for-xprize.html
  2. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2020-12-22/xprize-announces-winners-of-million-dollar-next-gen-mask-challenge-to-reveal-the-next-generation-of-face-masks-following-a
  3. ^ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe-breaking/2020/12/08/asu-students-earn-top-5-spot-international-xprize-next-gen-mask-competition/6497316002/
  4. ^ https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/researchers-at-arizona-state-university-develop-breakthrough-face-covering-amid-covid-19-pandemic
  5. ^ https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2021/02/04/university-students-and-faculty-join-the-race-in-mask-innovation/
  6. ^ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/2020/08/25/asu-student-lab-makes-sterilization-systems-fight-covid-19/5529254002/
  7. ^ https://kjzz.org/content/1601971/asu-student-lab-creates-2-cheap-portable-personal-protective-equipment-cleaners
  8. ^ https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2021/04/07/arizona-universities-play-key-role-in-covid-recovery/
Comment: The Arizona Republic coverage is clearly locally-themed coverage, which is why they're covering the ASU group. The Fox News coverage is not third-party, as Fox Corporation is one of the labs partners, as the rather promotional listing in the article lets us know. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is my first article and I was trying to expand on what looks like a project to document the major research centers on the ASU campus. I tried to improve on what Biodesign Institute and Center for Meteorite Studies did. I felt as though I had far more non-asu sources in my article, which I gathered was the preferred from my reading of Wikipedia guideline pages, if not I found a number of ASU stories and State Press articles documenting the lab's work, the same sources as the Biodesign Institute article used, just thought the sources I was using would be better, please advise. Could anyone explain why the other articles were accepted so I could understand for the future? Just trying to learn my way around the editing and writing process. Thank you User:LabRat55 19:10 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - there are several in-depth article about this group due their winning the award, which btw is hardly a notable award, but I can't find enough to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. If some sourcing from non-local sources turns up please ping and I'll definitely re-assess. Onel5969 TT me
  • Delete No RS are discussing in significant depth the lab. Cinadon36 13:52, 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) 22:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The number and quality of RSes seems OK to me. The delete arguments are substantial, but I think poorly explained, given that LabRat55 is not familiar with our notability guidelines. The content in sections 2 and 3 is sourced but these are poor quality sources and the coverage here is insubstantial. While the sourcing for section 4, on the competitions the org has taken part in, is substantial, the worry that leads to citing WP:ORGDEPTH is that this coverage is about things the org has done (cf. WP:INHERITORG) but doesn't provide the kind of substantial information about the organisation that we would need to write a balanced encyclopedia article. LabRat55: can I suggest you identify an RS that does have substantial coverage of the organisation itself? WP:THREE is often cited in deletion discussions, but I think a single ref that puts to rest this specific concern would really strengthen the keep rationale. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hi there Charles, I searched on Google Scholar for articles about the Lab and these are what I found. Two appear to be written by someone connected to the lab, but are published in scientific journals so I am not sure about tests of reliability. The other two are written by people without any direct connection to the lab that I have found. Any thoughts on these sources?[1][2] [3] [4]User:LabRat55 22:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nai/ti/2020/00000021/00000002/art00003
  2. ^ https://www.proquest.com/openview/b742aa2bab5a10eac3524b2f146969db/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
  3. ^ https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nai/ti/2020/00000021/00000002/art00002#
  4. ^ https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nai/ti/2020/00000021/00000004/art00014#
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit concerned that the one "keep" !vote might have a COI. What do folks think about merging anything of quality to Arizona State University, followed by redirect as an alternative to deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While it seems that the aggregate of what people from this lab have achieved should satisfy notability requirements, I must agree that we are lacking the independent coverage to write about the lab as a whole. Sometimes you get these cases where notability seems intuitive, but the third-party material to write an article just isn't there; I think we've got that here. Sucks but no barrier to reviving this if such material surfaces. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that last batch of links was meant as a response? None of these four is independent coverage - therein lies the problem. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi there Elmidae, I am sorry, I did not mean for it to look like a batch of links, it was me trying to add links to my response to Charles Stewart above you. I am new to editing and I am not sure how to get the articles to not go at the bottom. I did not mean for it to look like a response to you, my apologies, I was a bit busy and could only respond to one comment at that time. User:LabRat55 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revision made to article I'm not voting to delete, but I've blanked out the "notable partners" part because not only was the reference to Luminosity Lab's own website, but the website said "current and former partners" whereas the Wiki article said "partners" without revealing that most (or all) of them might not even be partners anymore. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes, I am relisting this ONE MORE TIME. Should we merge and redirect? Should we just delete? Do you think this merits inclusion due to GNG?

I'm very close to either deleting it or going with no consensus. I'd prefer experienced editors - and those without conflict of interest - to share their thoughts.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect with Arizona State University per nom. A student-run lab at a university, which has only been around for 5 years: the notability is limited to winning a one-time $500,000 prize in a mask design competition, being 1 of 22 finalists in a NASA competition, and 1 of X finalists in another NASA competition, which appears it could even be the same as the first one, meaning that there's only 2 events within about a year, so compelling evidence yet that coverage will be WP:SUSTAINED. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there's some useful information, but the useful information is so small it can just be put into the university article. It's standard for universities to have multiple research institutes, but they don't need their own article unless they're individually notable. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 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. Going with no consensus - see if you can improve the article outside of passing mentions. If not, I perhaps explore MERGE into Jim Gaffigan or Late Night with Conan O'Brien? Not opposed to a speedy renomination to AfD if needed. Missvain (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Force[edit]

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

This does not meet WP:GNG. This belongs on a fansite, not wikipedia. Rusf10 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The current article is completely devoid of sources, so there is nothing worth salvaging. The only real secondary source I could find with searches was in the books "Internet Comedy Television Series, 1997-2015" and "Internet Horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy Television" (the same entry appears in both books, this is not two different sources), but the coverage there is pretty limited. Outside of that, one of Jim Gaffigan's books talks about it, but as he is one of the creators and stars of the show, it can hardly be counted as a secondary source. I'd be open to suggestions for a Redirect - I was actually initially going to propose this be redirected to Late Night with Conan O'Brien, but the show is not mentioned there, and there is not any content appropriate for merging - so if anyone has a target in mind, I would be fine with it. Rorshacma (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm still not completely convinced that the sources provided by DanCherek below are enough that the show should be kept as an independent article, and not covered somewhere else (Jim Gaffigan, perhaps, as the sources seem to mostly be discussing the show in how it relates to his career?), but at the very least, I think they are enough to demonstrate that straight deletion should not be performed at this point, so I am striking my earlier recommendation. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pale Force has received significant coverage in the Chicago Tribune,[1][2] The Province,[3] and more, and it resulted in a "cult following" for Gaffigan.[4] The current article focuses too much on plot and not enough on reception and real-world connections, but this meets WP:GNG and there is enough coverage in reliable sources to discuss it in an encyclopedic manner. DanCherek (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Liebenson, Donald (September 16, 2007). "Comedian Jim Gaffigan shines again in 'Pale Force'". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 21, 2021.
  2. ^ Wagner, Curt (December 1, 2009). "Gaffigan to the rescue". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 21, 2021.
  3. ^ MacPherson, Guy (January 31, 2008). "Set apart from the pack: Pale Force helps Jim Gaffigan gain new fans". The Province. p. C5. Retrieved May 21, 2021.
  4. ^ Horgen, Tom (October 17, 2007). "Comedian's cartoons go beyond the pale". The Miami Herald. p. 4A. Retrieved May 21, 2021.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:10, 27 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. I've read through all the comments, and basically the arguments to keep or to delete are about the same in depth, volume and convincing detail. So I think it's a tie. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty Licks[edit]

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

Fails NCORP and GNG. None of the sources establish notability. It is routine press-release type coverage, or otherwise inclusion on lists. All local sources. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 17:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. I've worked on dozens of articles about restaurants in Portland, and promoted approximately 25 of them to Good article status, so I have a sense of how much coverage is required for a decent Portland restaurant entry. I've reviewed current + unused external sourcing and believe there's sufficient secondary coverage to meet notability. Also, the passing "all local sources" is a bit dismissive when The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to fail WP:NORG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)'[reply]
  • I still don't think the sources presented below pass WP:NORG, they're all local press release type coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning of Another Believer and because there are additional sources available to expand the article. While some of it is press coverage, I disagree that it is all "routine press coverage" Mukedits (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think is significant, specifically? It all seems like either routine mentions (Guardian, LV Sun) or routine business news. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they're referring to its inclusion on the list of "16 worthy ice cream candidates that opened across the country over the past year or so". I don't know, it just seems like every chain in every city is 'notable' under these guidelines, and I don't think that's true. It's a Portland ice cream store. Is that enough? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 16:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not notable. The sources are just the typical puff pieces that every restaurant or local eatery puts out to their community. It has really no place in an encyclopedia. Convocke (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do article sources satisfy WP:ORGCRIT for notability, and is there significant coverage to meet WP:AUD? Below in green are the notability guidelines that apply, and below those guidelines an analysis in table format with my notes. Completing the table is a useful exercise; I do apologize it takes up so much space, but I think it helps to clarify the quality of each source. I concluded several of the sources are not reliable enough to use, so will be editing then and related content out. Please note: while passing mentions do not contribute to notability, those sources are still okay to use for verifiability, Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related guideline, WP:ORGCRIT:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.

  1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
  2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
  3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
  4. Be a secondary source, primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Related guideline, WP:AUD:

Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

Comment: I've collapsed the assessment table below that is actually sourced to the guideline in WP:SIRS: Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability. To summarize: nine sources meet the guideline, including four from The Oregonian, a statewide and regional source, and three are from Thrillist and Eater, both out of New York. Interested editors may want to read our articles on those organizations to verify they meet the "strong indication of notability" criterion in the guideline. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Fifty Licks ice cream to open first west-side location this spring Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Statewide and regional source The Oregonian
Portland's best new food carts Green tickY
Red XN Reywas92		 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
Red XN Reywas92		 Statewide and regional source The Oregonian
Fifty Licks opens new Burnside location this Friday Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Statewide and regional source The Oregonian
Bluebird Bakers, Petunia's Pies & Pastries and Fifty Licks set to make Portland a bit sweeter Green tickY
Red XN Reywas92		 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
Red XN Reywas92		 Statewide and regional source The Oregonian
The Six Weirdest Ice Cream Flavors That Work. Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Men's Journal, a subsidiary of A360media, (same media group as National Enquirer)
The 16 Hottest Ice Cream Shops in the US Right Now Green tickY
Red XN Reywas92		 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
Red XN Reywas92		 Eater (website) (Vox Media) National source
The Owner of Fifty Licks Will Base the Design of His New Scoop Shop on a Pair of Shoes Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Eater (website) (Vox Media) National source
These boozy ice cream cocktails are everything you've ever wanted Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Thrillist (Thrillist Media Group) National source
The Inside Scoop on Fifty Licks, Portland's Suddenly Hot Ice Cream Shop Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Portland Monthly Local source
Fifty Licks Is Coming to Slabtown Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Portland Monthly Local source
Occupy Ice: activists blockade Portland building over family separations Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN The Guardian is international, but passing mention only
Portland ICE facility closed until 'there are no longer security concerns' Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN KGW,) (NBC affiliate) Local, passing mention only
Portland protesters set fire inside county building as tensions continue to escalate Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Washington Post National, but passing mention only
Stars of 'Shrill' express love for the 'hippest of places' Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Associated Press, via ABC News, National, but passing mention only
Portland Ice Cream Shop Fifty Licks Is Raising Money to Help Children Detained at the U.S.-Mexico Border Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 'Willamette Week, Local, passing mention
Total qualifying sources 6
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements. Other sources may still be used for verifiability.
Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Also in the table above, a lot of those are to the same local paper and are just puff pieces for advertising in the community. This is an encyclopedia. Also can we get a hide on the above table? It is way to large and unnecessary. Convocke (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Convocke: Agreed, the table is large, but it's sourced from the relevant notability guideline. Sorry if it offends your aesthetic sensibilities — it's helpful in identifying not only the sources that fulfill notability, but also sources that are inappropriate, which I have excised along with related material from the article. BTW, "This is an encyclopedia" is not a cogent or relevant argument, just an obvious truism. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment scope_creep, It appears you may have been confused by the cookie policy for BeOp, an advertiser on the Thrillist site that posts an ad after the last sentence, "it's a solid bet that you'll make this place your regular stop". The BeOp ad is composed of click-bait questions and their cookie policy. However, Thrillist is published by Group Nine Media. The actual Group Nine Media Privacy policy, and the Gruop Nine Media Terms and conditions that apply to the article are available all the way at the bottom of the Thrillist website. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above source analysis is a serious failure if it calls this, especially this, and absurdly this significant coverage. Sources are routine local coverage of generic local restaurants, covering them as they do other typical restaurants. pdx.eater.com is a local source using a national site as its platform, and when a Portland-based newspaper covers local Portland businesses, that's also local, not exactly the sections folks in Medford are reading. Reywas92Talk 00:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG and has significant coverage, with some in-depth such as THIS and THIS. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added the input of Reywas92 to the 3 assessment of sources table entries above, and I have removed 2 entries no longer cited in the article. Updated summary: six sources meet the notability guidelines, including two from The Oregonian, a statewide and regional source, two are from Thrillist and Eater, both out of New York, and two from Portland Monthly, a local source that contributes to notability. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted, the Eater site was local, and many of the "good" articles are simply "ice cream shop opens new location," which I don't think contribute to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 19:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for updating. I respectfully disagree with SportingFlyer and continue to support keeping the article for continued development. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:08, 27 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Daccache[edit]

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

Non notable actor who fails to satisfy any criterion from NACTOR and in general lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. They haven’t won any major awards neither have they taken significant lead roles in movies they featured in. A before search only links me to their social media accounts, hence user generated and very unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find enough evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:06, 27 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. czar 22:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Linger[edit]

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

A non-notable computer game. It was cancelled after poorly received early access. Before showing blog posts and user generated content that doesn't appear to satisfy WP:RS. Desertarun (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leaning delete right now, but I'll wait if anyone finds something better. There are two reliable sources discussing the game's development post-cancellation on PCGamesN [9] and Hardcore Gamer [10]. However, that's it in my searches. Everything else consists of Kickstarter article recommendations, WP:ROUTINE Early Access announcements on various sites (Rock Paper Shotgun, PCGamer, Polygon for example) without any depth towards the gameplay and features from the writers' perspective (such as previews) themselves. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I saw the sources that say the game was cancelled, they didn't look they were written with much editorial oversight. It is possible that game cancelled sources could offer the subject notability but personally I wouldn't want articles routinely kept on this basis. Desertarun (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, I definitely understand where your AfD nomination comes from, it's an extremely weak case at best overall. If the developer was notable, this could have been merged in nicely, but alas... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've just re-read The Hardcore article, it was written by someone who had backed their Kickstarter campaign and so it isn't independent of the subject. The PCGN article was written by a freelancer with no declared links to the subject but I wouldn't be surprised if there was one. Desertarun (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find reliable enough sources to show notability. Can't see an appropriate redirect as the developer doesn't have an article. Suonii180 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per what I said above, considering nobody found anything new other than what I mentioned. This isn't enough for a WP:GNG pass. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:13, 29 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 Zatch Bell!. If something sourced is needed from the article let me know and I'll provide access. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zatch Bell! The Card Battle[edit]

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

This does not meet WP:GNG and lacks sources. According to the article it never was that popular to begin with. Wanted to prod this, but apparently this article was already deleted and then someone recreated it anyway. Rusf10 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Zatch Bell! Even with the lack of popularity it was known merchandise and it's plausible someone will look it up. Nate • (chatter) 20:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Zatch Bell! would be the best solution.TH1980 (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Unless reliable sources can be found then I don't think merge is appropriate as unsourced information shouldn't be added to Zatch Bell!. Suonii180 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I actually concur with Suonii180. None of the information here is actually supported by reliable, secondary sources, and we shouldn't merge unsourced material into another article. The game certainly existed, as evidenced by the various "for sale" pages that come up with searches, but I am finding absolutely no coverage in reliable sources that actually discusses the game in any way. If any kind of valid source is found, a brief sentence can be added to the main Zatch Bell! page mentioning it, and if that occurs, this page can be re-created as a Redirect then. But, there's no reason for any of this unsoured material on what is looking to be an ultimately non-notable game to be preserved in the meantime. Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the others above. Dr. Universe (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What about a redirect to Zatch Bell!  ?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:01, 27 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. Not convinced this subject merits its own inclusion on Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thai anniversaries celebrated in association with UNESCO[edit]

List of Thai anniversaries celebrated in association with UNESCO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable list for which no independent sources can be found other than UNESCO 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These UNESCO anniversaries are seen as a big deal in Thailand, where they regularly become news items. See e.g. coverage in the Bangkok Post.[11][12][13] That said, if we're going to carry a list on the topic, it probably shouldn't be limited to Thailand. I've actually had a userspace draft lying around for some time, but honestly haven't been able to identify independent sources that are about the programme itself. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The UNESCO references should be fine in this case since it's a list not an article, and all entries in the list have their own (notable) article. The Thai version of the article does have several references at the end, unlike the English version. Dr. Universe (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." so we need multiple independent reliable source to establish notability.
    The items seem like hoaxes to me. What is celebrated is the 100th birthday of Damrong Rajanubhab not himself! So items are not notable either. The Thai article is out of discussion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:00, 27 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. Feel free to speedy renominate if you desire. Missvain (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Venture Network[edit]

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

Entirely promotional and non-notable , with lack of good sources for notability that meet NCORP.

I am not even sure how much of this is still active, or ever was-- I cannot identify any books claimed to be published. There are no references for the affiliations listed, or for individuals being memebers. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First off it doesn’t exist any more 1. However I found a number of sources that give it decent coverage, including 2, 3 and 4. It is mentioned in many other books but because Google books now mostly shows snippet views I can’t tell how much depth those mentions involve. Mccapra (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:00, 27 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) 23:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jadon Wagner[edit]

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

I PRODded this article because thought this was a clear-cut case of non-notable college athlete, followed up by his complete lack of any appearance in the CFL due to an injury. Fails WP:NCOLLATH and the coverage is routine and transactional. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of which are from either the area he played college ball in, or from Calgary, and not all of them are independent. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said above that the coverage was routine or transactional. Do you really consider coverage like this feature story in a major metropolitan newspaper to be "routine"? Cbl62 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contextually, yes. He only received that coverage because he's a local player who wanted to play for his local team, even though he never actually took the field for them. It's mere draft coverage. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a four column feature story focused on him. That is SIGCOV plain and simple and published by a major metropolitan daily. I fear that the dark side has taken hold of you ;) Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have thought further about this one and end up agreeing in part with JoelleJay's reasoned arguments below. For someone who received such extensive coverage in multiple outlets surrounding his draft, signing, and trade, I was surprised I could not find SIGCOV concerning Wagner's college career at BYU (a Division I FBS team). On digging deeper, I found that he tallied only 37 tackles in 28 games as a varsity player at BYU (see here) -- a very unremarkable output for a linebacker. Accordingly, we have an unremarkable college career and a pro career that never happened due to injury. I still believe that WP:ROUTINE is utterly inapplicable to the type of SIGCOV found here. Nor can I fully agree that WP:BLP1E is apposite to an athlete whose playing career spanned four years. However, I do conclude that it is a reasoned exercise of editorial judgment for us to decide that a stand-alone biographical article is not warranted given the complete lack of significant on-field accomplishments at both the college and pro levels. Cbl62 (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A hit or two on the occasion of his initial signing to a team he never actually ended up on the playing field for, in that team's own local media market, is not enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass the actual notability tests for professional football players. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — GNG does also test the coverage for the context of what the subject is getting covered for, and none of the coverage shown here exists in noteworthy contexts. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, even if he had played enough for NGRIDIRON, NSPORT explicitly requires GNG so he'd have to meet that anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Bearcat, robust local coverage is hardly a solid indicator of notability, particularly when it's confined to proseified draft buzz and game reports. Otherwise we'd have articles on every high school football coach and almost every college athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery slope argument ("we'd have articles on ... almost every college athlete") is way off base. Very very few college athletes (< 0.1%) receive the depth of coverage that has been brought forward here. This is a clear GNG pass with multi-column feature stories like this and this. I think the "delete" voting is simply reflective of an anti-sports bias where some seek to hold athletes to a much higher standard. Cbl62 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's correctly identifying the fact that two articles talking about the fact he signed with a professional team, in spite of the fact he never appeared for that professional team, or for any professional team, are WP:ROUTINE coverage (especially considering he had a hometown connection to that team) and don't make him a notable athlete. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a gross misapplication of WP:ROUTINE. Routine coverage includes passing mentions in game coverage or brief reports of injuries, signings. Multi-column feature stories focused on Wagner are the antithesis of "routine" coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's really not. ROUTINE applies to WP:NOTNEWS - people who would receive coverage even just because they get in a local news cycle, not because they're actually notable. It's the same principle we use for people running for office who aren't otherwise notable. Otherwise everyone who received two multi-column feature stories in their local paper would be wiki-notable. I ask once again - how can someone be a notable professional football player if they never even played professional football? SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, your interpretation of WP:ROUTINE to include multi-column feature stories is inconsistent with the plain language of that provision. It has long been applied to exclude passing mentions in game coverage, brief injury announcements, and statistical databases, but never has it been extended to cover multi-column feature stories. Further, the coverage here is not limited to "feel good" stories in a local hometown paper. The coverage instead consists of feature story coverage in major metropolitan newspapers. Cbl62 (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can have routine multi-column feature stories. Further, he signed with Calgary, got a couple stories about how a local player returned to sign for Calgary, and then never played for Calgary. Just because the Calgary paper happens to be from a major city doesn't make this any less routine. SportingFlyer T·C 18:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we just disagree. I'm not aware of any precedent whatsoever for your view that multi-column feature stories in major metropolitan dailies can be disregarded per WP:ROUTINE. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. and For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Just because "routine" hasn't been "extended" doesn't mean it can't apply here, as Wagner has no enduring notability as he was only locally covered and never actually played. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. SportingFlyer T·C 18:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist to establish consensus on if the sourcing meets GNG. Reading debate, currently leaning 'no' but that might change (or become firmer).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep The sources listed by Cbl62 lead me to think that Wagner just barely meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Otherwise it would be the first time I've seen someone who signed with a CFL team not being regarded as notable enough. Dr. Universe (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think coverage related to his drafting/signing ought to be interpreted as BLP1E. It's the same underlying conceit: an event that generates in-depth coverage of a person for a brief period but isn't notable by itself and doesn't lead to sustained coverage of the person outside of that event isn't enough to warrant a biography. Draft buzz is extensive; while most of the time it correctly predicts future SIGCOV, when a signing quietly falls through like this did we should take into consideration why we have BLP1E. Wagner has remained a low-profile individual for 9 years, coverage was exclusive to his drafting/signing, and the coverage was entirely local-interest. JoelleJay (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage of him joining a regional football team, and him playing in a regional division for that football team is just routine coverage. Therefore it fails WP:GNG. It also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he didn't play in a national match according to his article. With the amount of time between the last addition I don't think that's going to change in the future. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is quite the discussion above about WP:ROUTINE, but I'd like to point out that the guideline applies to events and not people -- this is a person, so the ROUTINE argument doesn't really have any impact.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:54, 31 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) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YECR[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NMUSIC. I don't even see any mention of the subject in the listed sources. (Note: I blocked the author for spamming, but I'm looking for an objective opinion on notability apart from that.) – bradv🍁 22:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be entirely non-notable in terms of WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, with no significant coverage in reliable sources that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search. In addition, it looks like some of the references have been falsified — references 1 and 14 literally took sources about Bad Bunny [14][15] and replaced his name in the headline with "YECR". I have no idea why they decided to fill the article with Bad Bunny references but essentially the entire article fails WP:V as well. DanCherek (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability . it fails WP:GNG . no single significant coverege on independent RS Samat lib (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:54, 31 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. Going with the keeps here. Please improve the article. Missvain (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Kukula[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PROF and WP:GNG does not appear to be met. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other commenters have provided adequate sourcing to pass the GNG, however I agree that the article should still be deleted as we cannot write a meaningfully complete biography due to lack of coverage of his conviction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here is his Scopus citation profile compared to that of 104 of his extended* coauthors:
Total citations: avg: 7326, med: 2809, Kukula: 1478.
Total papers: avg: 140, med: 113, K: 24.
h-index: avg: 37(!), med: 31, K: 17.
Top citations: 1st: avg: 531, med: 324, K: 410. 2nd: avg: 360, med: 172, K: 241. 3rd: avg: 279, med: 144, K: 114. 4th: avg: 230, med: 122, K: 110. 5th: avg: 201, med: 111, K: 96.
So, strong but not outstanding in his field, especially for someone publishing for so long.
*Paper cutoff: 6. I analyzed the 44 direct coauthors of Kukula, as well as the 66 authors of his two most frequent collaborators' 3 most recent papers (to offset bias toward people publishing in the 90s, since they will have accumulated far more citations). JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. would fail a pure WP:NPROF test as shown by JoelleJay but as Public Astronomer at the Royal Observatory Greenwich there is additional press coverage with over 140 press articles including in-depth profile in the Guardian [16], coverage in the BBC [17] [18] etc. There is also this story about a conviction for child pornography (though from the Sun). --hroest 00:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW , this AFD is here because of on RS/N a point was raised that his conviction was noted only by deprecated sources Sun and DM, and is surprising no other RSes discuss it given how frequently he was quoted prior to the conviction. A question on whether he was notable was raised there. --Masem (t) 03:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is likely to do with general press coverage of paedophilia-related content. Unless its someone notable (in the small n sense) with a reasonably high profile, sources like the Guardian or the BBC dont routinely engage in the sensationalist reporting that tabloid-style press (Sun, Daily Mail) count as their bread'n'butter. For the Guardian to cover this for their readers, he would have to be significantly more famous than he is already. I'm saying Keep based on his academic credentials, but the upshot is there will likely need to either be an exception for the Sun/DM use in his article for that specific claim, as its verifiable via primary sources (negating the usual depreciated argument of routine inaccuracy), or agreement not to include the material as undue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The piece in The Guardian is certainly SIGCOV, but the others likely wouldn't count towards GNG (although the Easter one would probably partially count toward NPROF C7). From my own search it does look like he is frequently consulted on varied astronomy topics (I'd count the astrophotography articles as one source), so I'll change my !vote to weak keep as well. JoelleJay (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I raised the possibility at RSN that he's not actually notable, on the theory that a child pornography conviction is a notable event for a notable person, so if the event wasn't written about in reliable sources then he's not actually notable. As others have noted, if we keep the article we're in a weird position. Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was notable before his conviction; notability is not temporary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pigsonthewing, I'm not convinced that he was. In any event, if there are insufficient reliable sources to write a complete article, then we probably can't have an article. Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Analysis of his citation indices and NPROF is irrelevant; he meets GNG. He was Public Astronomer at the Royal Observatory Greenwich. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep per these changes and the additional sources found in the wayback machine that support them.
I actually had to sleep on this one.
On the one hand, this guy's position was absolutely notable, and that notability absolutely extends to him as a result. As far as WP:BIO goes, that's a clear and unambiguous answer.
On the other hand, half the existing sources at his article failed verification, and no more sources (other than from deprecated outlets like the Daily Mail) were available.
This is quite a conundrum, where by one standard (holding the position he held), he's met our notability guidelines, but by another (significant coverage in independent, reliable sources), he fails. But at the end of the day, practicality must rule out. Without the source coverage provided by him meeting GNG, we simply don't have the ability to write a proper article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MjolnirPants I see the point but notability is not temporary, either he is notable or not. If he was notable before the CP conviction, he is still notable now. Worst case we cannot mention the CP conviction since no RS exist. --hroest 14:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hannes Röst, If you saw my point, you'd not have responded this way. For that matter, I'm fairly sure that if you'd so much as read past the word "Delete", you'd not have responded this way.
    We lack the ability to write an article, because we lack the sources to do so. That was the point.
    Objections of "but he's still notable" are not only explicitly acknowledged in my second sentence, but are addressed and shown lacking in my concluding sentence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • MjolnirPants, I'm guessing Hannes and I are approaching this from the NPROF C7 perspective, rather than from GNG. Academic bios are rarely fleshed out with biographical details the way regular bios are since they don't need to demonstrate direct, in-depth SIGCOV. So while I would agree with you in any other case that technically meeting notability doesn't demand an article if we can't find much material on someone's personal life (although try telling that to NSPORT AfD participants...), for an academic just discussing their important research and professional pedigree is considered sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • JoelleJay, I suggest you go over the sources and try to work out what we can say from that. this will get you started, though I have to warn you: only the first 26 results have him in the byline. Of the 6 papers he's written with over 100 cites (in astrophysics, where important papers regularly accumulate well over a thousand citations), he's the lead author of only half, and none of the leads on the other half have articles of their own.
        The fact is, the only reason this guy was notable was because of a position he held.
        If we had the sources to write an article about him, I'd be all for keeping it. I'd even support the mixed-use of primary sources (court documents) and those deprecated sources to add to the article about his conviction. But we don't even have any indication he's ever done any important research, and barely enough to summarize his pedigree. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • this will get you started
          Thanks but I am very familiar with his citation profile and those of astrophysicists in general, and obviously agree with your assessment of his C1 notability. However, the coverage Hannes found and what I turned up myself demonstrate he is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. Since academic bios are usually woefully sparse on biographical details due to NPROF being the governing notability guideline, what we have for him from the one SIGCOV article and his limited research footprint, coupled with his providing expert opinion in dozens (hundreds?) of internationally-recognized RS articles (The Guardian, Smithsonian Magazine, BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent, Financial Times, National Geographic, New Scientist) spanning at least 16 years is actually far more than the standard academic page. JoelleJay (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, this is what I also see here: compared to other academics, there is far more literature about him and if you look at WP:NPROF it becomes clear that we can write an article about him even from non-independent sources as long as we establish notability. I suggest MjolnirPants look at WP:NPROF and common practice in academic articles. --hroest 16:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • JoelleJay, I found those as well. There's one or two where he's quoted extensively, which is decent attestation of notability, but still ignores my point: He could write thousands of volumes about astrophysics and we'd still not know a single thing more about him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • MjolnirPants, yep, and that's the unfortunate thing about NPROF articles. I don't like it either, but that's what Wikipedia has decided to do for academics. He's got way more mainstream coverage than most tenured professors so that's at least something. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • JoelleJay, I would like to point out that Wikipedia may very well decide that the sky is orange, but that will not change the fact that the sky is actually blue. Similarly, we're right back where I started with my initial comment: I actually agree with you that this guy meets the minimum requirements for notability, but we're nonetheless incapable of writing an article about him, because he lacks sufficient coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this is the case for like 90% of our articles on academics. The fact that he has one SIGCOV article on him puts him waaaay ahead of the majority of NPROF-based bios. What you are arguing would essentially require GNG sourcing, which is explicitly bypassed for academics because they're unlikely to have the IRS SIGCOV needed to build a biography in any other discipline. I do think C7 is one of the looser criteria and is more prone to elevating people who aren't actually academically notable, but that's an issue to be resolved at NPROF, not at AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, you're missing my point. If we don't have the sourcing to write about him, we can't write an article about him, all we could do is list a few facts on a page. If there are academics out there who have articles that are just lists of a few facts, or brief descriptions of their specialties, then they, too, should be deleted. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia; not an academic directory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • MjolnirPants, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but what I'm saying is that NPROF explicitly allows anemic articles on academics to exist because they don't receive significant coverage themselves (or even of their work). Deleting such articles is not supported by any guidelines because the community decided scholars deserve recognition even if a biography can't be written on them. JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm saying is that it's process wonkery (Note: I'm not accusing you of wikilawyering, you are clearly engaging thoughtfully and in good faith here, It's just the most relevant essay to the issue,) to have such a situation as this. The community decided, in effect, to treat WP as an academic directly in some cases, which undermines the core principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the article should be a bio, and we can't make it a bio, but we have a policy that demands something.
        It's a conflict between Wikipedia's core principles and a Wikipedia policy, which the core principles should always win, per WP:IAR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that we have WP:SIGCOV. The Guardian has published an in-depth piece on him, and interviews solely involving him have been published in the journal Astronomy & Geophysics as well as on The BBC. His position also seems to have been noteworthy, being that he served as the Public Astronomer at the Royal Observatory Greenwich. Regarding the concern of being able to write an article about him, there are sources that we can use to describe his work outside of his role as the Public Astronomer. Even if it will take a lot of digging, I think it can be done. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete pending more significant recent coverage in reliable third-party sources. This AFD is a spinoff of an RSN thread where it was claimed that his career was ended when he pled guilty to possession of a particular crime, but apparently the said crime and the said career-termination were only reported in unreliable (deprecated) tabloid rags. If a basic fact about his life and career cannot be written on Wikipedia because it has only been covered in unreliable and potentially fabricated sources, and no reliable sources whatsoever can be found to either confirm or disprove these claims, then he doesn't meet GNG, per the Benta precedent. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Hijiri88. Better no article than a bad one that can't be complete per BLP rules. (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unless we can adequately source the conviction, our article is going to present a seriously misleading portrait of him. The case for academic notability is borderline enough that I think we're just better off without. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Delete arguments above seem to make zero sense? They keep going on and on about a conviction, which is irrelevant, since that's not the source of his notability. Either he is notable or not, period. And there are a lot of sources discussing and involving him, rather high quality ones too. Here's some examples:
The closer should dismiss any votes made above that don't make an actual deletion argument. SilverserenC 21:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not irrelevant that we apparently cannot get the article to comply with WP:NPOV. That takes precedence over GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your issue seems to be that you can't find a good source to cover a crime the subject has committed. Not being able to cover that isn't a violation of NPOV and in no way overcomes GNG and notability. SilverserenC 21:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In any normal biography a career-ending criminal case (at an age too young for retirement) and conviction would be a significant part of the life story. There is no real controversy whether it happened. We are merely prevented from reporting on it because of our strict sourcing rules. But not reporting on it creates a significant gap in the story that misinforms people who come here looking for information for whatever reason. When an article would misinform because it is unbalanced, that unbalance must be fixed, per WP:NPOV (which, let me remind you, is policy, unlike GNG which is merely a guideline). There may be multiple ways of fixing the unbalance but in this case the simplest would seem to be deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that if a notable person ever commits a major crime that ends their career (or gets them put in jail for life), but that event isn't covered by RS, then we should delete their article despite them being notable and having plenty of RS coverage prior to that point? Is that an official thing we should add to notability guidelines on how subjects can lose notability by becoming criminals? SilverserenC 21:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: If there's no real controversy whether it happened, we in some way have an implicit agreement that the sources we have seen are reliable for that fact, no? If that's the case, then I'd point to the language on WP:DEPS as providing a way forward: Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation...reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Would it possibly be permissible, then, to sparingly include the sources we have seen with attribution on this specific topic? I feel like that would get around the issue of the content gap while also respecting current community consensuses. In particular, the RfC close on The Sun doesn't use the language of deprecation explicitly, though I'd be very cautious about extending this to details other than the conviction occurring itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we in some way have an implicit agreement that the sources we have seen are reliable for that fact, no? No, we do not. What we have is an agreement that non-notable (or perhaps "semi-notable") individuals are more likely to have their names dragged through the mud by unreliable tabloids than legitimately notable public figures whose crimes will be reported in reliable news outlets. If you think this person is notable and the accounts given in these tabloids are reliable for the information they provide on this affair, why are The Guardian and The Times not covering it, in your opinion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what are you even arguing here? That the incident in question didn't happen since we have no actual reliable sources covering it? Because i'm fine with agreeing with that. If all you have is the Sun and the Daily Mail covering something and it's absent from literally everything else, we probably should question its inherent factual nature. SilverserenC 23:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the only compelling argument for deletion -- that by excluding unsourceable but major negative material we are presenting a non-neutral POV. But to me it seems kind of ... hypocritical? to on the one hand say we trust the reporting by these sources enough to believe it would go against policy not to include the content they report, but at the same time assert they are too unreliable to trust for us to cite them. I do think it's valid to consider what we'd do if the subject was unambiguously notable -- and whether NPROF C7 and/or GNG need to be reevaluated if they're catching people who aren't significant enough for the media to report their major transgressions. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the subject were unambiguously GNG-notable, I imagine that the less-sketchy news sources would have covered the criminal case. Instead, I'm guessing after deciding that the borderline notability of the case makes such coverage scandal-mongering, they just suddenly stopped mentioning him at all, not unlike what would happen here if we deleted the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Eppstein, yeah, that's what I think happened too. However, I also feel he meets C7 (rather than GNG), and given academics don't generally receive SIGCOV I do wonder if we even should expect such coverage to appear for NPROF-notable people. And if you don't agree he meets C7 (I don't see it invoked often by itself so haven't developed a great feel for consensus), if you want to expound on that I'm always open to adjusting my priors. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not being able to [simultaneously comply with two of our core content policies] in no way overcomes GNG and [other] notability [guidelines] Is... is this a joke? I think such a statement, if unrecanted, may be grounds for a block, as it implies either a failure to understand how Wikipedia works or a willingness to publicly pretend not to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am disagreeing with it being a violation of NPOV in the first place. Not including some event in someone's life, especially when it doesn't have anything to do with their notability AND isn't covered by reliable sources anyways, isn't a violation of NPOV. Our articles are only meant to cover what is included in reliable sources anyways. SilverserenC 23:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles are only meant to cover what is included in reliable sources anyways That assumes that topics on which we have articles will be covered in all the relevant detail in reliable sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And if the articles are notable from what is covered by reliable sources, then we included what is covered therein. Notability and NPOV are not reliable on what the reliable sources don't cover. Who would even get to determine such a thing if we did include that? That would be OR entirely if no reliable sources are covering it. SilverserenC 02:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for the love of... has this turned into one of those "removing content based on discussion between Wikipedians constitutes OR" non-discussions? Did you seriously just invoke OR in relation to the argument several editors have used for deleting this page? The first paragraph of Wikipedia:No original research explains why this is wrong. Discussion between Wikipedians as to whether and why reliable sources have not mentioned this person since early 2018, and deciding to remove potentially outdated coverage based on the conclusion of said discussion, is the opposite of OR. You have been on Wikipedia for more than ten years, so your needing to have this explained to you is quite unbecoming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing specific content in an article on a notable subject is not the same as deleting an article on a notable subject entirely. We can have discussions on not including specific content in an article via things like WP:DUE as well. But that is not an argument to make on an entire article. How would you use DUE to remove an entire article on an acknowledged notable topic? That's not how it's meant to be used. That's for inside article content, not the entirety of the article. That's the difference here between what you're arguing and what this discussion is actually about doing. And, honestly, your personal attacks are getting tiring. SilverserenC 04:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
an acknowledged notable topic Please show me where either myself or any of the other delete !voters has "acknowledged" that this topic "is notable"? The fact is that both GNG and all the other subject-specific notability guidelines are just that: guidelines. Maybe in 2009 or 2018 the notability of this subject would have been assumed pending evidence to the contrary, but now we are using our editorial discretion to judge whether the subject can be reasonably assumed to meet our notability standards now that he has apparently been found guilty of a crime and the only sources that are reporting on it are those that deliberately search out such stories to the delight of their voyeuristic readership. You said above that the closer should dismiss those of us who are making well-thought-out and reasoned arguments based on the circumstances and our policies and guidelines, but it seems to be you who are the one ignoring our points in favour of some bizarre strawman argument and an insistence that GNG is always clear-cut and always constitutes a bright line meaning that, if we would have assumed notability at some point in the past, we cannot use our judgement based on more recent developments to decide whether said assumption would have been wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Mjolnir's vote up above, "On the one hand, this guy's position was absolutely notable, and that notability absolutely extends to him as a result. As far as WP:BIO goes, that's a clear and unambiguous answer.".
And now you're just saying we should dismiss and ignore all notability discussion, including the GNG itself, to rule on something unrelated. And the entirety of the unrelated thing is that reliable sources have decided to not write anything about a crime the subject committed. And, because they didn't write about said crime, that means we shouldn't have an article on the person. Maybe instead we should be arguing that, without reliable sources backing up the claim, that the Sun and Daily Mail are just lying and the event didn't happen? We certainly have no reliable sources to show that it happened, which is kind of the point. Why should we even acknowledge it happened if we have no evidence it did? SilverserenC 05:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silver seren, I should point out that the next sentence in my comment is necessary for context. My point was that, while he may have met one standard for notability, he did not meet another, more important one, and the more important one should be a necessary standard for any article, because failing it leaves us unable to write an article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also disagree with you on that he doesn't meet that secondary requirement. The Guardian article, for example, goes into a decent amount of detail about his life and career. We have enough to write a decent article. SilverserenC 17:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Silver seren, Just from that Guardian article, can you tell me what year he was born? Can you tell me what town he grew up in, or what his parents did? Is he Jewish? Danish? English? French? Can you tell me where he got his PhD? When he got it? What his primary topics of research are? Has he ever been in a relationship with a notable person? Does he have children? What year was he hired by the Royal Observatory? Why was he let go from that position? When was he let go?
      I understand that it's not fair to limit you to a single source, so go ahead and check all of the sources provided here, and then try to answer those.
      Those are all questions a reader might have, and which an encyclopedia should be able to answer. If we can't answer them, then we shouldn't have an article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're claiming that any biography article where we don't have personal life details and only career details should be removed from Wikipedia? I notice you had to be very specific on saying Ph.D., because we know both where he got his lower degree at and what in and where he did his post-doctoral work at. We do know what his Ph.D. was on and where he conducted his research at. Like I said, even on his educational background, we have enough detail on his life. We may not have every single detail, but we have plenty. SilverserenC 18:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Silver seren, Yeah, I am in fact suggesting that we can't write a bio without enough info to write a bio. I mean, that's exactly the sort of thing WP:NOTCATALOG was written to address.
        If the article will consist of nothing but a few scant details about his work and education, then what point does it serve, except as an alternate CV? I mean, we can't even write about what was arguably the most notable (and if it's not, it's without a doubt the second most notable) event in his life.
        Also, you may want to revise your statement about his post-doc work, because that Guardian article pegs him as doing post-doc work for 13 years following his degree, and makes it clear they didn't tell us all the places he did so. You may know what all of those positions were, but I certainly don't, and I've gone so far as to check his linkedin while looking for sources on him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was created (via AfC) in 2015 and the page views show it bumbling along nicely - median daily pageviews 5, the occasional day of 80 or 100, and a short-lived peak (max about 270) in 2018. His notability was not challenged until now. It is being suggested that we delete the article because of something which has only been reported in deprecated sources. If the Mail and Sun aren't good enough for us to use as WP:RS, then information from them, which no other newspaper has apparently found worthy of comment, should not be being used to delete an article. Yes it's a horrible crime, but the article should survive without mention of it if we have no reliable source. He's written a couple of popular science books, which I've added to the article. There are probably many, many other biographees in Wikipedia, both BLPs and historic, who have ghastly skeletons in their cupboards, irrelevant to their notability, which no interested editor has come across and added to their article. PamD 09:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also found a medal award and followup Q&A profile in Reliable Source, added. PamD 09:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No credible reason is being offered as to why these specific reports, especially given the lack of any contradictory information, cannot be assumed to be inaccurate. Celebrity tittle tattle, it is not. The man was obviously considered important enough for a biography before his conviction, and no credible reason is being offered as to why that was a mistake, or why deletion after the fact would be a sensible way to deal with the paradox that has arisen. At worst, Wikipedia can indeed host an incomplete biography, and it would be, by definition, neutral, if the reason for the ommission of this conviction was that you didn't believe that information to be accurate or significant. That is obviously ridiculous, as paradoxes tend to be, so mentioning it on the assumption it is accurate, is the sensible course of action. Not least since no serious claim can be made that Wikipedia is able to do more harm to this man that isn't already being done by the existence of those reports. Should he ever succeed in a Right To Be Forgotten action, then obviously things could be reconsidered. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC) {— Mr Happy Shoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The Guardian piece is sufficiently indepth about him, we can write a biography from that. Our Daily Mail and Sun policies (small p) are clearly wrong in this case, and result in us not writing about his conviction, but we do the best we can. --GRuban (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone above suggested that Kukula's associates may have deleted mentions of him from their websites etc after the court case. I had a feeling this whole discussion reminded me of something and remembered overnight: Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, whose job was to rewrite history to remove all mention of "unpersons". Should Wikipedia be going down that route? PamD 07:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Observatory removed Marek's employee profile, their press release announcing his appointment, and funnily enough, even the job advert. But it is worth noting they haven't taken down pages like this, so if they were trying to 1984 him, they didn't do a very good job. And of course, the missing pages were in the Wayback Machine, and they included some of the details mentioned above by Mr Pants regarding what he would like to see in a Wikipedia biography, so I have added them. The rest would seem to he trivia, for example, who really cares where he was born? Is it relevant to his astronomy? It doesn't appear to have prevented him travelling or getting good jobs, unlike a serious conviction. The main question remains, what is Wikipedia going to do about the paradox wherein the only important things that apparently can't be added to this biography, are the date he left his most noted career role, and the reason why. The most absurd way to deal with that, would indeed be for Wikipedia to 1984 him. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Pearce (data visualizer)[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage about him from independent, reliable sourcing to show that he meets WP:GNG. He was part of a team which published a study which got some media play, but his Scholar profile, here, does not seem to indicate that he passes WP:NACADEMIC. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 TT me 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am definitely not seeing evidence of scholarly impact on Scopus or MathSciNet -- the 2 papers that are indexed have a total of 15 citations. I'm not seeing how he meets NJOURNALIST either. JoelleJay (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay his GS profile is a bit more representative for his discipline, but at h-index of 9 and 500 citations its still low. --hroest 00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hannes Röst, yeah after seeing David's reply on the Armstrong AfD I checked him out on GS -- the disparity between the GS record for his BERT paper and that on Scopus is alarming (145 to 14! so. much. arXiv). Not sure how to interpret this. JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoelleJay In CS it is much less common to publish in indexed journals, so Scopus misses a lot of the actual citations. ArXiv citations are mostly reliable, there is noise of course but most of it is scientific in nature. Also the BEST paper is more recent, so some of these papers will eventually get published in conferences / journals but GS is ahead since it indexes arxiv. --hroest 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete. fails WP:NPROF#1 but may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, citation record not sufficient to pass NSCHOLAR (though it may be a TOOSOON situation), and does not meet GNG.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of what passes for scholarly work in his Google Scholar profile is really the creation of newspaper infographics. What remains is not enough for WP:PROF. And we have no evidence of GNG-level notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG Devokewater (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zan Armstrong[edit]

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

A lot of primary sources, but not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 19:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 19:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does Armstrong publish under a different name or something? Scopus only has 5 papers from her, totaling 16 citations, which is obviously far below NPROF criteria. Routine lay coverage of research results is not enough for GNG either. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Google Scholar has more, including a 75-citation paper in an online journal Distill. Scopus is ungood for computer science (because it focuses on journals and CS largely focuses on conferences) and ungood for non-commercial publishing (as an Elsevier project centered on traditionally published journals). You will get distorted results, not just smaller results, by missing both important publications by the subjects of your searches and citations to them from other CS publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • David Eppstein, thanks, I'll see what kind of comparisons I can pull from GS then. I do try to use a variety of indices for fields outside the natural sciences (AMS reviews and Current Index to Statistics for math/stats) and actually try to avoid non-theoretical CS papers for this reason, but didn't realize data visualization was also a conference-heavy area. Where do we stand on the arXiv here? Is there a Perelman of Data Science to push it into RS? JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, information visualization at least is conference-heavy. The top conference, IEEE Visualization publishes its proceedings in a journal, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, but some of the other conferences like PacificVis may still have separate proceedings, I'm not sure. ArXiv doesn't count as a publication. I'm also not sure whether the people who call it "data visualization" think of it as the same thing, as a branch of statistics rather than of computer science, or something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. neither GS nor Microsoft Academic have substantial citations, this in a field of high citation rates. Also no notable awards (silver of a non notable award). --hroest 00:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The citation record is not enough for WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation area, and I don't think her infographic work has led to enough coverage to give her (rather than the infographics) GNG-type notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass NACADEMIC. I don't see a GNG or NAUTHOR pass for the infographic work.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krtzyy[edit]

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

WP:A7 tag removed by an account that has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. I have done a WP:BEFORE search and could not find even one reliable source about Krtzyy let alone the multiple required for WP:GNG and there are none cited. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Appears to be completely non-notable. There does not seem to be a single bit of coverage in reliable sources, under either name given. Rorshacma (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, complete failure of WP:GNG. The account that removed the A7 made the account 4 minutes before making the edit, I wouldn't be surprised if theres WP:SOCKING going on. Jumpytoo Talk 20:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not notable. Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing takes it close to notability. Before search showed nothing useful. Kaspadoo (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birol Aksancak[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure about GNG but he passes NFOOTBALL according to Soccerway and World Football. I've done a quick search and found little better than Bein Sports in terms of GNG but a more comprehensive search may yield more. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 21:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expanded the page a bit, but he clearly passes GNG and NFOOTY, played in the UEFA Super League and the Super Lig for various seasons.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with 47 Super Lig appearances, and somewhat in-depth Turkish-language coverage (all English-language coverage appears to be superficial), I think the article passes NFOOTBALL and GNG (but only just). Jogurney (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the keep assessments, he has played more than enough football that he should easily pass GNG. Yes there are issues with the article but I am sure that can be addressed. Govvy (talk) 10:12, 30 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. The general consensus would seem to be that a redirect is out of place Eddie891 Talk Work 22:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasaland Kingdoms[edit]

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

Under-referenced, fails WP:GNG had a WP:PROD removed with no discussion. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The PROD tag was removed by a sockpuppet of the article creator. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspected that it was a sockpuppet, but I was not certain. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Princess Daisy. Non-notable, fails GNG. WP:VG/RS has only 3 total results for "Sarasaland", "Sarasaland Kingdoms", or other variations I tried. 1 was a misfire, the results were from the comment section. One was a "top 5 characters we'd like to see more of" type list, which mentioned it only in passing in connection to Princess Daisy. The last one was user uploaded fan art tagged on the same site as the one with the comments. There is essentially zero coverage of this kingdom even within the video game focused media. Of the non-primary unreliable sources in the article.... Only two actually mention Sarasaland, and one of those is again in passing to Daisy. -- ferret (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a fictional location that's used very sparingly in the franchise. It absolutely does not meet the WP:GNG. I would be absolutely floored if someone found significant coverage that showed independent notability. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Minor fictional location (it really only was featured in a single game) without the coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. I would be against using it as a Redirect, as the term "Sarasaland Kingdoms" is not commonly used at all. Pretty much every source only refers to it simply as Sarasaland, which already redirects to Super Mario Land, so it is not a particularly useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I didn't even check if the shorter redirect existed, good catch. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I had initially typed up a redirect argument, but I agree with Rorshacma that this term is not commonly used and there is already a redirect for Sarasaland. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mario_(franchise)#Settings where at least it is mentioned, in fact a tiny merge wouldn't be amiss. Now, what do we think about Mushroom_Kingdom#Reception? Is it enough? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could've been reprodded since the editor has been blocked. Avilich (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft and Wikia-type material. Fails GNG standard.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable fancruft which does not belong to an encyclopaedia. I think that a redirect can be considered if it is viable, as I think that the edit history should be saved if possible, but if a redirect is not viable, this should go. JavaHurricane 16:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No real-world content whatsoever. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Google Books doesn't seem to show any good quality secondary sources. Google News primarily produces false-positive results from listicles that are clearly either primarily discussing Super Mario Land or Princess Daisy and thus makes assessing available sources somewhat difficult. Google Scholar produces no results. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: topic not independently notable from searches conducted. Kaspadoo (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Bernard (writer)[edit]

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

I recently semi-protected this article due to a request at RfPP about a dispute. The article was nominated for deletion in 2018 and reached no consensus - the deletion around the same time on French Wikipedia was accompanied by legal threats. On checking the content, I've found it is difficult to verify and I strongly doubt the subject is notable. I can find the occasional interview in trade press such as https://www.finchannel.com/world/georgia/51646-ep-lobbyist-advises-against-long-term-contract-with-gazprom and it is possible to verify that he has received some minor French and Belgian honours (see the reference in the article and https://vlex.be/vid/ordres-arr-tes-nommes-promus-officier-37546332) and was registered as a lobbyist for ACIFR, a Francophone business group [19] but I cannot verify that he was awarded the French Ordre du Merité as he says on his CV and he does not meet either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I cannot find any of his work on Google Scholar, his books have not been reviewed or made a significant impact, and he hasn't held a named chair. He is quoted sometimes in the press, but there isn't significant coverage of him. There is some coverage in the Belgian French-language daily newspaper Sud Presse [20] of him receiving a sentence, with the statement that some of his claimed titles are false ("faux titres"), which further draws any self-published information into question; an SPA on the talk page says that's a gossip site though I don't know how reliable it is myself. p.s. A politician in Lyons and a former L'Oréal employee share his name, which complicates searching. Fences&Windows 15:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 15:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 15:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 15:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's never a good sign when you're establishing notability and can't quite find the Bruno Bernard we're talking about here. I assume this guy, writing for The Guardian? "Bruno Bernard is a former senior researcher for the UMP party and senior political officer for the British embassy in Paris", so he's certainly a writer. But that's not notability - and I also note the BLP is unlikely to pass anyone's idea of a balanced, full biography of a notable figure. Parsing the writer is hard, as has been noted - having tried my best to do so, I'm convinced the one we're looking at doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb, that former UMP researcher is a different person. You can see the article subject here. Fences&Windows 17:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fences and windows Quod erat demonstrandum! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete due to lack of notability and per WP:BLP since most of the article is about his conviction. --hroest 15:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main text of the article, on his fraud conviction, does not appear to pass WP:CRIMINAL. The "works" section is long but mostly looks like a bunch of repeat translations of cookie-cutter how-to books, not scholarly works; unless we can find published reviews, they do not pass WP:AUTHOR. What remains is the Order of Academic Palms, but if he has no scholarly work to speak of then he cannot be notable as a scholar, and we would have to treat him as any businessperson who got an award at that level with that kind of brief announcement: worth mentioning in an article, but not in-depth enough to contribute towards GNG-type notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and David Eppstein. AgentCody 09:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete, based on the Hindi-language sources mentioned in the discussion. These need to be translated into English and cited as refs in the article.  JGHowes  talk 17:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Kalia[edit]

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

I'm not impressed with the current references and a WP:BEFORE doesn't produce much, but a search in Hindi might be more successful. As of now notability is not demonstrated. nearlyevil665 17:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 17:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 17:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Google search in English for in-depth coverage gives nothing but a couple of brief obituaries, which, of course, say "a famous writer". I find it hard to believe that in India nothing is written in English about a "famous writer". Lembit Staan (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm going with keep because I believe there is sourcing in probably non-English sources. We just need the support of editors who speak/read those languages to help find them. Evidence of this, I believe, is because of the subject's VIAF entry[21]. And frankly, in the sources I found, the subject is called a "literary giant"[22] and having "famous memoirs"[23]. When he died, obituaries were written in Indian media.[24][25][26][27][28]. I think he passes WP:GNG if we could sort out the language barrier. Missvain (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing more time for discussion of sources presented by Missvain. Unless shown otherwise, consensus would be "keep" by strength of argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 27 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. The nom is a WMF-banned LTA, the IPs are very likely all them socking logged-out (everyone is on the same /16). (non-admin closure) --Blablubbs|talk 07:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekti Khuner Swapna[edit]

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

This article fails to fulfill the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Munder CS (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The novel is not notable in Bengali-language literature, I have searched about this novel in google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.195.101 (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Collection of unrelated references are provided in the article, moreover the google don't give any good information about this novel. 37.111.202.100 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable novel. 37.111.205.82 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. 37.111.196.28 (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, no English translation, no review in English and a very few readers in Bengali-language, see goodreads review. 37.111.210.15 (talk) 06:35, 31 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 02:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Suburban League Chicago[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur baseball league. Fails WP:GNG, arguably WP:PROMO/NOTWEBHOST. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No independent sources found. Fails GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails GNG, No independent news coverage available. Jaysonsands (talk) 15:57, 27 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. North America1000 16:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Dairies Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 27 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 13:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extrapolation based molecular systems biology[edit]

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

Article had previously been nominated for PROD in 2009 by SquidSK, "Article is just a coatrack for a website the user is promoting, SystemsBioInsight.com." I mistakenly renominated for PROD with my concerns being "Unreferenced (list of authors but no titles), orphaned since 2009". I confess I missed the previous PROD in the edit history, but I agree with SquidSK also (they appear to be inactive now) Amkilpatrick (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Basically a bit of self-advertisement for a technique virtually unknown and unapplied in either systems biology or (still less) molecular biology. No proper reference citations. The authors mentioned (apart from Denis Noble, who, I suspect, had nothing to do with this) are also virtually unknown. No significant presence of Extrapolation based molecular systems biology at Web of Science. The web site SystemsBioInsight.com seems not to exist any more (if it ever did). Athel cb (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The concept of using statistical algorithms to guess an organism's characteristics from just one set of its 'omics data is well established (we study genes because they tell us what the organism will do), as is integration of 'omics data by statistical algorithms. Maybe one day the concept will need a name, but it isn't currently called 'Extrapolation based molecular systems biology'. This looks like a page set up to promote a term that has not yet gained widespread (or any) acceptance. The page also has no meaningful information; it's a paragraph of technobabble unsupported by any citations, attached to what looks like a slide lifted from a powerpoint presentation, with incomplete references to primary literature, all old enough to suggest that if the term were going to become important, it would have made some headway by now. Elemimele (talk) 17:30, 30 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 13:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GTPlanet[edit]

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

deleted 16 years ago. still not notable enough for wikipedia Ireadbooks12 (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 28 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 15:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violation (basketball)[edit]

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

I'm going through pages tagged with notability concerns, and I don't know what the heck this page is. Is it a disambiguation page? Is it an article? If it's an article, can it be sourced? If it can be sourced, does it pass WP:GNG?

Just to be clear, I'm on the side of "weak delete" since I'm not sure how to source the page, which is why I'm taking this to AfD, but I'm happy if this gets kept on some disambiguation-style technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A violation is a type of rules infraction in basketball that is distinct from a foul as it does not count towards an individual or team's total number of fouls (for the purposes of disqualification or "fouling out" and a bonus situation. While the NBA Rules no not explicitly group these types of infractions together as in the article, the FIBA rules do (see also [29]). Other sources [30][31][32] also explicitly distinguish "fouls" and "violations." While I did consider whether it would be better to simply make a new section on Violation (e.g. Violation#Basketball) I think the coverage of the distinction between "violation" other types of infractions meets GNG and warrants an article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this should be treated like a pseudo-DAB page, like it is now, just listing out the different types of violations. I don't know what a better solution would be, because I don't think there's a suitable place to merge the list. I guess we could even change this to 'List of violations'.‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense - I don't think any of the sources presented by Qwaiiplayer are secondary, but the dab page makes more sense. Just need to be careful we don't get into WP:DICDEF territory. SportingFlyer T·C 20:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename List of basketball violations. This is in no way a possible dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename - I created this page and have been maintaining it. The page exists because "violation" is a common basketball term, there are many types, and like a DAB, this page directs the reader to a suitable page to read about specific types of violation. There are no citations because citations are on the destination pages. The proposed rename is compatible with this, provided the DAB Violation continues to point to it. (You would not want to spell out every class of violation in the DAB.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per El Cid. Can someone close this? I think we have a consensus. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A066:D0D0:9D48:3659 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oğuz Yılmaz[edit]

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

Barely notable. Other than some media outlets reporting on his death on the past day, I cannot find any in-depth coverage about his career. No songs that have made it to the national charts, no album certifications, nothing. Fails WP:NMUSIC in my opinion, though I'd be interested to see if someone could prove it otherwise. Keivan.fTalk 02:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note that the article does not make any claim of notability so WP:A7 (Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance) may well also apply. MIDI (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom . NO evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. Turkish-language sources seem to exist. Deb (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Turkish version of the page has more references demonstrating a 32-year career where a large number of albums were released. Furthermore it does not seem to be overly promotional or ego-serving at all. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Going with a slim keep here as there are indeed Turkish sources referring to a 27-album career. There is also apparently an out of court settlement about the misuse of his music on the Jack Ryan films. Google translate tells us that the relevant lyrics are "That song I released the grasshopper, did not put the grass in the writing, The sheep and the lamb to the lamb, Hop up the grasshopper, Jumping the grasshopper, My dear grasshopper, Knife was the grasshopper, How much is Bitcoin and Ethereum?" which not only demonstrates how legal genius can cut across language barriers, but also why Google translate will one day start World War Three. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick keep, the person is definitely notable and has coverage in Turkish sources some of which are clearly not promotional. here is sources I found in addition to those existed in Turkish and English Wikipedia: news from 2003 the person apparently also got coverage on scientific journals another scientific paper from CEEOL, [33] Ahmetlii (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has coverage in multiple Turkish reliable sources as identified in this discussion and in the Turkish version of the article so that WP:Basic is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fisk, Iowa[edit]

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

Another case of what looks to be another Iowa trend, I cannot find evidence that this is anything other than a rural post office where someone nearby raised Poland China hogs. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gilliam has created tens of thousands of non-notable places articles with limited GNIS-based sourcing. Citation [34] p. 148 says "In the summer of 1870 Fisk post office was established" which is NOT the same as a notable community, which you'd think "History of Adair County, Iowa, and its people" would probably have more coverage of than this passing mention if it were! Nor does it mean it "is" still a community! Reywas92Talk 18:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not in Hair's 1865 Iowa State Gazetteer, obviously. The 1895 Lippincott's tells us that this is "a post-hamlet of Adair co.". So not an "unincorporated community". And not a documented-in-depth post office from anything that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one was pretty easy to source. It was noted in several historic books and maps, and not merely as a post office, but as a hamlet with a school, church, and several businesses (a creamery, two general stores). This community was at the center of Richland Township, being the only community in that 36 square mile area, and appears on the 1901 Rand McNally Map of Iowa and as late as the 1951 Plat Map of Adair County, so it's not a GNIS error or just a post office, as some editors have worried. It's now received several more sources which I think have established that this community, though small, was noted for over a half-century, and since notability is not temporary, this article should likely be kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that you haven't been able to fix the "unincorporated community" to what it actually was, because Polk's doesn't say what it is (or mention school and church) and all of the rest of your sourcing is interpreting dots on maps rather than something that actually says that this is a hamlet with a school and a church. The very problem with the GNIS records are that they were interpreting dots on maps, sometimes incorrectly. You've shown that it's as easy to source this as inadequately as the GNIS did. Adequate sourcing is a bit more difficult, however, as it involves history books rather than historic books. The only history book that we have so far is Kilburn, that says "Fisk postoffice" on the page cited, not hamlet. Lippincott's says "post-hamlet" but doesn't say school or church. Your cited source for Fisk having a creamery actually says "Fisk PO" too and does not label the creamery or indeed any other dots as Fisk, or show an enclosing settlement of any sort. We literally do not have a source that connects these map dots, and clearly you are extending beyond what at least one of your map dot sources actually labels things. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your argument that "post-hamlet" doesn't mean a community, or that a post office can have a school, creamery, and church? I didn't need to interpret what the symbols mean because they tell you in the book. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nice improvement by Firsfron. Just like what I just did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poplar, Iowa, it is no shock that some number of these populated places stubs in rural America are notable if we take the time to look into them. Though rural America has largely fallen into decay in many places, not everyplace can be England where every footbridge has a legend of a troll from the 11th century or something. There is still history.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Firsfron and Milowent. Also the town seems it isn't as much of a "ghost town" as the article makes it appear, since on Google Maps I see cars still parked at buildings. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:33, 27 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 17:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hammond Square Mall[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GEOFEAT, no indication of notability I can see and none that I can find. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pokemonprime (talk · contribs) has found signficant coverage on Newspaper Archive, including this and this, and has informed me over Discord that he will work on expanding the article. I also found this pretty substantial article about the mall's renovation in the Monroe newspaper. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:38, 27 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 09:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnaswamy Srinivasan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, article created by a sockpuppet who was also the major contributor to the Prime Point Foundation article at AfD. No RS, not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 27 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. Sandstein 07:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Hill Liberal[edit]

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

Article about a suburban community hyperlocal newspaper, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA. As always, newspapers are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because their own self-published web presence offers technical verification that they exist -- the notability test is the ability to use coverage about the paper, in e.g. books or other newspapers independent of itself, to demonstrate its significance. But the sole source here is a single article published in self-same newspaper about its own history, which is obviously not an independent source for the purposes of establishing notability. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd lean toward a 140-year-old community newspaper probably being notable. Keep in mind that WP:NMEDIA does offer some alternatives to GNG. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that NMEDIA offers some flexibility about the possibility of a newspaper not having as much sourcing as a non-media organization might have to show, but it definitely doesn't offer any total exemptions from a newspaper having to have any sources beyond itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
also, see WP:ITSOLD. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - huge WP:BEFORE failure. I added six references from major newspapers. Surely if Pierre Berton read it and wrote about it, it's notable! Nfitz (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't fail to BEFORE, you failed to apply the "is this source substantively about the subject, or is it just a glancing namecheck of the subject's existence in an article about something else" test. That Pierre Berton cite isn't about the Richmond Hill Liberal, for example: it just briefly mentions the paper's existence in a very short blurb whose subject was a ratepayer's association meeting in Maple. So it isn't a source that helps to establish the notability of the Richmond Hill Liberal just because a famous writer once typed the words "Richmond Hill Liberal" — the newspaper is not the subject of the source, but just has its name mentioned in a source about something else. The other Toronto Star citation is also not about the Richmond Hill Liberal — it again gets glancingly mentioned in an article whose subject is a person who happened to write a letter to the editor as a small step in the process of achieving the thing the article is actually about. And of the three Globe and Mail citations, two are obituaries of its former editors, and the third is an unsubstantive blurb which devotes exactly 11 words total to the matter of T. F. McMahon purchasing the paper while devoting several hundred words to other things — so none of them are notability builders either, because they aren't non-trivial coverage about the paper. The only footnote you've added that's contributing anything whatsoever toward GNG is the Ron Haggart "Paper Changes Tune On Interest Conflict" cite — but even just passing GNG takes a lot more than just one source of that calibre. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the various name checks argued for above do not show the substantial level of coverage we need to meet GNG. Notability is not inherited, and just because someone who was connected with a publication gets an obituary does not show the thing itself was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that User:Johnpacklambert if the obituary was primarily about the person, and not the paper he edited. But the headline was literally more about the newspaper than the editor, who wasn't even named in the headline! Also, what did you think of the substantial reference to a book that I've added since anyone else commented? Nfitz (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A glancing mention on one single page of a biography of a person who lived in the town, but had no significant personal association with the paper, is not a "substantial" reference about the paper. Again, we are not looking for sources that mention the Richmond Hill Liberal — we are looking for sources in which the Richmond Hill Liberal is the main subject. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm going keep with this per WP:NMEDIA. 140 years is enough to merit having "served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history." Missvain (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not without a GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about the paper, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The foundation of this historic newspaper is covered in detail in Langstaff: A Nineteenth-Century Medical Life. It passes WP:NMEDIA and policy WP:ATD applies, " If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 02:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bulat[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized and poorly sourced WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a local county councillor, with no strong claim to passing either WP:NPOL #2 or any other inclusion standard. As usual, county council is not a level of office that automatically guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia just because she exists, and "first person of this particular not-English-but-still-European ethnic background to do this not otherwise notable thing" does not automatically make her a special case of greater notability than other county councillors in and of itself -- but there's no other properly sourced indication of preexisting notability for other reasons being shown here, as apart from one local news article confirming her election to the county council, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as raw tables of election results and content on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be the subject of a lot more than just one piece of real journalism in real media. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Going with WK here based on press coverage around her making history as the first Romanian or person of Romanian descent to be named a counselor in the UK. She's been featured in Cambridgeshire Live[35], HotNews[36], Libertatea[37], RFI România[38], NuevoRadici[39], Life.ro[40], Cambridge 105[41], Adevărul[42] and on Al Jazeera[43], and more. She is also regularly interviewed in the UK as a subject matter expert around youth voting and civic engagement. Missvain (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Missvain, a basic search reveals multiyear coverage in RS, notable European activist in context of BREXIT, coverage in both English and Romanian, meets the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, a basic search reveals multiyear coverage in RS, so passes GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilham Nazarov[edit]

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

The article has been refbombed so it appears to be notable. After a closer inspection however, we can see that the most are namedrops, non-independent publishers and/or sources with only a few lines dedicated to the subject (per WP:SIGCOV they have to be detailed). I’ve made an extensive source analysis on the Turkish Wikipedia, which shows that the only good source is this.

The argument the user gave against deletion on the Turkish Wikipedia is that it was (somehow) kept on the Russian Wikipedia. With different projects having different notability guidelines, I don't see how that's a legitimate reason.

The non-Azerbaijani pages have been created around the same time, and all pages are created by, in my opinion, the same person (en, tr, az exactly same user, user from ru-wiki has only created the article). I'm sorry but I smell a paid contribution here. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The person who submitted the request to delete the page did it wrong. There are many references to the opera singer, and they are all reliable sources. Has performed on world famous opera stages, is an honored artist, laureate of the country's presidential awards.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did wrong what exactly? I don't want to go off topic here, but whenever you comment on an AfD, whether it's the Turkish or English Wikipedia, you manage to stun me by saying something I completely don't understand. You need use the policies, not personal comments. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: enough to pass notability, but the article needs some work! Kolma8 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolma8: you really want me to translate the source analysis, which shows why it in fact isn't enough, into English? If there is a need for that tell me please. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 12:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through RUS-net and there was enough to pass GNG for sure. I am not sure about AZE/TUR sources as I don't speak/read those languages. Respectfully, Kolma8 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm going with keep. The article surely needs clean up for cruft, but, I think if we had a few more editors skilled in non-English reliable secondary sourcing this article would be a-okay. I believe the subject is notable in Azerbaijan. He's sang a duet with Joss Stone[44] and he's the subject of a scientific paper[45]. I'm convinced the guy is notable in his home country and would qualify if we had the right sourcing. Missvain (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per admin Missvain, Kolma8, and Elshad. The person is notable but the article needs work. When this happens, it's better to try improving the project rather than destroying it. Various templates can be placed at the top of the page if there's concerns about lack of references. Dr. Universe (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 27 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 09:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Patil[edit]

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

Sources may look good at first sight, but are in fact some form of press releases / promo pieces written by Darshan Patil, who shares his name with the subject and his full name with the author of this article. There seems to be a distinct lack of reliable, independent sources about this local politician. Fram (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sources are Real and Authentic as Maharashtra Government Official Site notes that Vikas Patil is elected for Water Supply Commitee. There are no chances for deletion of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darshanpatil5567 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Council member, doesn't pass NPOL. I don't see a GNG pass, though searching is complicated by a famous actor (who is quite possibly notable) sharing the same name.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to be a term for one of the council members: "The Pachora city is divided into 25 wards for which elections are held every 5 years" (from the blacklisted census2011.co.in site that I can't link here). AllyD (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darshanpatil5567 please only one Keep/Delete opinion. You are free to add more comments as the discussion continues though. AllyD (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clear cut for delete. Fails NPOL. Kolma8 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Corporators (members of urban local bodies) do not qualify WP:NPOL; no independent coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Councilors are not included unless they are Mayors of major cities. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:18, 31 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1993 South Asian Association of Regional Co-operation Gold Cup Squads[edit]

1993 South Asian Association of Regional Co-operation Gold Cup Squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very incomplete, and what is there is sourced to an unreliable site, indianfootball.de[46]. Another site used in this article, 11v11.com, gives a list of players for India in 1993 (not specifically for this tournament, but for the year) which is very different from the one we have here[47].

So the one team we have is unreliably sourced, and the other ones are missing. Fram (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't need a separate squad article. Usually, I would say we should merge back into the parent article, but the content here doesn't seem worth merging, as it's not sourced to a reliable source, and has significant gaps in it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Overall not sources and just not needed. Although indianfootball.de I would say is reliable and is basically RSSSF. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have my doubts about rsssf, but at least that is maintained and supported by many people and groups. Indianfootball.de is basically a one-man personal website, no longer maintained since 2006. Fram (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • True but that man is also a contributer to RSSSF, indianfootball.de is just more expanded. Either way, my thinking has always been to use it as a last resort reference, usually there is an article to corroborate something there. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A mess of a page, doesn't really show what it is trying to do. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless. Geschichte (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to 1993 South Asian Association of Regional Co-operation Gold Cup, as I merged the content into the main page. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thereby ignoring the doubts expressed about the used source completely... Please don't do this during an AfD. Fram (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence on reliability. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the page only has one out of the four squads and I don't think there is a way to find out the rest. Bwmdjeff (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Journeyman (sports). If there is anything of quality, please merge, followed by a redirect ASAP. Missvain (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journeyman quarterback[edit]

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

Page is original research on a narrrow cross section of the generic topic Journeyman (sports). Not enough significant coverage for a standalone topic. The embedded list is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of random players that the sometimes pejorative term has presumably been referred to. Again, unsourced with WP:BLP concerns. —Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 27 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, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lake Resort[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 18, which closed with a consensus to vacate the close of the first AfD and re-start with a new discussion. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The resort is the subject of in-depth discussion by reliable independent sources (Hoberg 2007, Dillon 1995, Gerike 1988) so passes WP:GNG. Aymatth2 (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above passes GNG as per the subject of in-depth discussion by reliable independent sources mentioned above. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep There are plenty of sources that demonstrate notability here for this resort. Fishandnotchips (talk) 11:08, 30 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. Sandstein 07:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry[edit]

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

WP:OR. Apart from one quote from the US coach before a friendly, I can't find any evidence this is actually a WP:RIVALRY. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. The Guardian mentions it's a rivalry in passing. The NY Times only uses "rivalry" in the title of the article. This isn't a derby by any stretch of the imagination. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and the moving goalposts regarding women's soccer notability strikes again. WP editor: "No evidence of notability whatsoever!" NY Times: "This seems like a significant rivalry; let's show you how the teams had done in the past." WP editor: "The word rivalry was only in the title!" Seany91 (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's add more then: FiveThirtyEight did a deep dive ahead of the 2015 WWC Final; Bleacher Report did the same; an entire study was done about coverage of this rivalry (IIRC Gwen Oxenham also had sections about this rivalry in her excellent Under the Lights and in the Dark); in 2016 more coverage about it both before and after a friendly rematch. I mean, Canada is USWNT's regional rivals, Norway and China were old ones that faded away by the 2000s, Sweden are probably the one with the most longevity, but arguing that the rivalry with Japan is not notable is, well, laughable. There are cases where we have to argue WP:BIAS in the media not covering women's sports and negatively impacting notability, but this is a case where notability is so clear lol. Seany91 (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article needs improving but there is enough out there as demonstrated above. The rivalry is written about in all sorts of places. It even has a non-trivial mention in this book by Cynthia Lewis. Seany91's cited sources are enough to meet the guidelines in my view. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • American sports often has difficulty determining what is and is not a rivalry because sports journalists will commonly use the word "rivals" even when a true derby doesn't exist, see for instance the discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Panthers–Seahawks_rivalry_(2nd_nomination). I still don't see anything - even in the Cynthia Lewis book - that actually makes me think this rises to the level of a derby. The Fivethirtyeight and Prost Seany91 quoted only mentions a rivalry in quoting the team's coach, Bleacher Report isn't a RS but only uses the word rivalry in passing. Not taking away anything from the three big games they played against each other in the 2010s but we're far, far away from say a topic of West Brom-Wolves. SportingFlyer T·C 13:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I've been looking through newspaper reports the day before and the day of the 2015 World Cup final. Only one sportswriter I've seen so far (Los Angeles Times) calls it a "budding rivalry" in passing. This is all WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 13:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of rivalries, especially when the two teams are not close to each other in the geographical sense, is always extremely difficult to determine. You're right that essentially the sources only discuss the actual rivalry itself in passing. I think the issue is, though, that such articles will often go "x and y are long-standing rivals, now here's a bunch of matches they played against each other..." or something along those lines. I understand the SYNTH concern. I'll see if any other participants can find any better sources to add to this discussion. I do think that this is a notable rivalry but proving it is going to be tricky. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to point out that it's up to OP/community to prove that it is not a notable rivalry for the article to be deleted, not the other way around. That's why when there's no consensus the default is to keep in AfD discussions. Seany91 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see a lot to indicate any real rivalry, and as for the article, I just see which is more head to head. The same information is already in other places. WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a clear rivalry, and frankly if an unfashionable bunch of provincial second-raters like West Brom-Wolves is going to be our benchmark then there's obviously a great deal more notability here because it's on an exponentially greater scale. However I think an even bigger rivalry (and a better article) would be USWNT v Norway WNT. The Japanese are too nice and don't really do "trash talking", whereas the Norwegians and Americans openly hated each other back in the day. I know SportingFlyer is not usually one of the worst culprits but I'm sorry to say this does look like yet another ignorant and – yes – sexist AfD nomination. The pompous characterisation that American sports "often has difficulty determining what is and is not a rivalry" also jars a bit. You're better than this, SportingFlyer. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a personal attack. I've been going around and trying to save sports articles tagged as not notable. The fact Japan and the U.S. played three important matches against each other does not make this a "rivalry," nor is this a sexist AfD nomination. I saw this in the list, thought, "huh, that's not a rivalry," looked for sources, found only a couple which used the word "rivalry" and none in a traditional sense, and AfD'd. I've also presented an AfD evidencing we typically are too permissive about rivalry articles for American sports - we usually need some sort of evidence of a derby apart from the "the rivals played again," since the word "rivals" gets thrown around willy-nilly in American media. Please retract your statement. SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal attack aside, your argument is basically that you personally disagree with how media sources used the word "rivalry"? Seany91 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is WP:SYNTH. It is expressing Wikipedia's opinion that there is a derby between the two sides by stitching together a number of journalistic quotes which use the word "rivalry." For instance, here are the match reports from the most recent meeting between the two sides: [48] [49] [50] [51] where this preview uses "rivals" but contextually in reference to England and Spain, not Japan. You would expect media to cover this like a rivalry if one existed. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it just seems like you are expressing your personal disagreement of all the existing media reports that have described and covered it as a rivalry. Seany91 (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a disagreement - sources do not describe this as a true derby. The sources you provided clearly don't describe it as a true rivalry, but only mention "rivals" in passing, with the exception of the one study you've presented which doesn't appear to cite any coverage significantly describing this as a rivalry. For another AfD showing we don't keep WP:OR articles about two teams who have played big games against each other on rivalry grounds, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England–Croatia football rivalry. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire discussion of the "rivalry" in that link is The USA will renew its long-time rivalry with Japan in the final match of the 2020 SheBelieves Cup. That's it. It's a throw-away comment. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 14.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources like 538 and Bleacher Report are enough, IMO, to say we have documentation that this is a rivalry, and a notable one at that. I'm not seeing a lot about the nature of the rivalry, which makes me wonder if this is the best article to have. But it passes the GNG and I think the article as-is shows there is some potential. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Point Foundation[edit]

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

Does not pass NCORP. There are a few mentions in passing in context of an award and a magazine started by this organization, but not enough coverage to pass NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that logo's in Comic Sans, right? Isn't there some sort of punishment for that? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:20, 27 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 06:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbir Ahmad Rao[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 27 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 06:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Joseph[edit]

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

I am not sure if he meets the criteria WP:ATHLETE, but he certainlly is not notable in any other respect. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JK.Kite just curious, which criterion of WP:NACADEMIC do you think he passes? --hroest 15:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks to be _far_ WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2019 (!!) DBA. I'm not as familiar with WP:NTRACK, but I don't believe that moderate collegiate success translates into notability per that criteria, most of the parts of which require senior-level international competitions. Watching this discussion in case better evidence of WP:NTRACK notability arises. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fails WP:NPROF#1 and all others. --hroest 15:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are not enough sources that would make notability apper for this article. Fishandnotchips (talk) 11:08, 30 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 07:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Hamilton[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG and the subject is clearly not notable in any way. A search for notable work by this journalist produces an online bio that bears a striking resemblance to the material in this article, supporting the belief that it is written as an advertisement and has no encyclopedic content. Further, the article contains no WP:RS. Finally, nothing in this existing article meets criteria for WP:V and it is unlikely that a more comprehensive search will produce anything of importance. GhostDust (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 27 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 School of Rock. I see a clear consensus to redirect rather than retain or delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Clark (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with only one role. His death is tragic but does not establish notability. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 04:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The subject does not meet the criteria for WP:Ent since they have not had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances or other productions;" and have not accumulated a large fan base or “cult” following and; has not "made a unique, prolific or innovative contribution to a field of entertainment." Additionally, none of the existing citations here, meet the criteria for WP: RS. Sadly, he is more notable for his tragic death than for his minor work as an actor.GhostDust (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He did have one acting role, but it was an important one in a film that's become a modern classic, one reinforced by the ten-year reunion concert and his ongoing career as a musician. If he weren't notable for being an actor, there wouldn't be any more coverage of his death in multiple reputable sources around the world than any other random thirtysomething who died in a traffic accident. Jordan117 (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to School of Rock - not independently notable, but a possible search term. GiantSnowman 09:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School of Rock. While his death is tragic, his one role does not support notability and wikipedia is not an obituary site, so his death (which was the reason that this page was created) is not enough for a page. See WP:EVENT Donaldd23 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School of Rock per above. Fails WP:NACTOR but the term will certainly be searched. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School of Rock. Not independently notable. cagliost (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School of Rock. It's a tragic death, but he was only in one movie. --Zerbey (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per above. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School of Rock. Death is tragic, but only with one role in a film. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would think with the amount of news coverage for his death, it would just fall under WP:GNG. --EatTrainCode (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School of Rock per above. Tragic death, but it should be kept as a redirect because he has no notable roles outside of School of Rock. --Mannytool (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The many articles created over his death simply count as "routine coverage" of a death so they don't add towards significance. Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhat torn between the opinions. Strictly according to the Wikipedia rules, a redirection would be the solution. However, there are one-film-actors like Alicia Rhett where their lasting fame was a successful argument. Clark had a substantial role in a famous film and the media coverage shows that he was quite prominent. He has articles in mutiple languages. --Clibenfoart (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC) With the argument of GNG: Keep. --Clibenfoart (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to pass WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School of Rock. As a fan of the film I was very sad to hear of Clark's death, but per WP:NOTMEMORIAL his death does not make him more notable than before. He only had one acting credit and lived a private life otherwise, appearing in a couple of non-notable bands as a local musician. If anyone searches for his name there is no problem with sending them to the notable film in which he appeared. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School of Rock. Interesting that this person had no major acting achievements apart from one role in this film yet now somehow, posthumously, he is considered notable? Ajf773 (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was notable enough after the film to be shown in multiple documentaries, and he didn't drop off the face of the Earth after he left acting, he just became a local musician. Ranger Aragorn B) (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School of Rock. Not notable. 06:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.86.194 (talk) 5:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to School of Rock, clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 21:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossecom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Google search shows the company website, this article, and then various directories and LinkedIn profiles. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no independant sources. --Bduke (talk) 08:26, 27 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MMNSS College Kottiyam[edit]

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

Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see here, user was renamed. --Blablubbs|talk 11:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does and it's entirely stood up on archive copies of the institution's own web page and links to Facebook. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Fails NSCHOOL. Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like all the references in the article are primary and the only things I could find in a BEFORE were trivial name drops in school directories. Which isn't enough to make this notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fails WP:SIGCOV entirely.Irasa Nira Yaa (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanela Diana Jenkins[edit]

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

Sources are not RS. Subject is not notable. Lots of PR fluff. WP:NOTNEWS Bvcqszj (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She passes WP:GNG. This is not a place for clean up. Sources include:
And WP:BASIC:
Missvain (talk) 01:54, 28 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. Not convinced by what is presented here that the article currently qualifies at this time under WP:NCORP. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secretlab[edit]

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

This is a product catalog, not a WP article. The references areto the multiple product announcemenets. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not much of a product brochure, but it's definitely just an advertisement, and all 90(!) references are, in fact, just product announcements and press releases. AdoTang (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Prior to voting here, I spent quite some time clearing the promotional lines added by several other editors . As it stands now, the page look neutral and factual in line with WP:NPOV. It's no longer looking like "Product catalog" as evisaged by the nominator.
Furthermore, I reviewed all the sources cited. I removed quite a lump that failed WP:RS. Majority of the remaining references are very good sources and they meet the demands of WP:RS.
Also, a search of "Secretlab" in Goodnews turned out lots of sources as given below:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Secretlab&newwindow=1&sxsrf=ALeKk03Lel82fqVsD2xoniStY9Kn19TT_g:1622545473342&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDw8f0pPbwAhUUP-wKHXXjAHAQ_AUoA3oECAIQBQ
This shows clearly that the topic meets the notability standards as enshrined in WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.Irasa Nira Yaa (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Even after the cleanup, this still reads like an advertisement and honestly seems borderline G11 to me. References to product reviews do not necessarily count towards notability IMO, as sometimes media outlets are given samples or paid by companies to review their products so this weakens the necessary source independence. Aspening (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence presented in discussion that this subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thorn Cycles[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. I didn't find any sources after searching as well. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There something here, though maybe not Thorn Ltd itself but its products and/or SJS cycles, which would probably be best incorporated in a single article per WP:NOPAGE, and which may need a title change. Like most cycling-related topics any material isn't going to be low-hanging fruit in the usual online sources, but may require a little digging. There's some reasonable secondary coverage here for example to help establish notability (for SJS as a "nationally significant mail order supplier of bikes and bits"). I'll dig around for more ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks for bringing this source in sight. That's one to begin with. We definitely need more to qualify for notability as per WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:16, 27 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. I'm going with no consensus. Consider discussing a split if any of the subjects mentioned in this discussion warrant it on the appropriate talk page. Feel free to renominate if concerns continue to linger. Missvain (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harvardiana[edit]

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

No sources that indicate notability of subject. alphalfalfa(talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article is about two things, a song and a magazine. Does that make sense? Shouldn't they be separate articles, with each one having to stand or fall on its own notability? PianoDan (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Harvardiana" is also a generic Latin term meaning "things relating to Harvard". The term is used in this sense at the Harvard Magazine website linked above and none of the pieces under the topic there have anything to do with this article's subjects. The reprint mentioned twice above is also probably not evidence of notability either—it's just a low-effort reprint of a public domain book from a company that churns out countless numbers of them. The only relevant source mentioned so far seems to be the first one linked by Jeepday, which does discuss the journal in a fair amount of depth. On Google Books there do seem to be additional older sources discussing the journal, perhaps enough to assert notability but I don't feel certain either way. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:44, 27 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. Going with keeps. Please improve and consider examining Italian sources. Missvain (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Coppa Acerbo[edit]

1950 Coppa Acerbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I might be very incorrect on this one due to time/language barriers, but I can't find any additional sources which demonstrate this specific event passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a Formula One event involving a full field of then-current F1 drivers, all but one of whom are notable. Per WP:SPORTSEVENT some games and series are inherently notable, which I am sure includes Formula One. That said, more sources need to be found. They are out there, because this was a big race at the time. Races of this type are often not well served by the internet, particularly races on the continent, but there will be book sources, if interested editors have them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that this race has other titles, such as the 1950 Pescara Grand Prix [59] or 1950 Circuito di Pescara. There's even a video of highlights of the race [60]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brief race report here [61] in Italian. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: Which books or newspapers might have sources? I'm happy to withdraw this if some are found, but WP:SPORTSEVENT would defer to WP:NSPORT which ultimately require the GNG to be demonstrated. The sources so far seem primary, fail WP:SPORTCRIT, or are blog posts, but if there's some evidence we can expand this with WP:RS I'm happy to withdraw. SportingFlyer T·C 09:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any contemporary season reviews, or weekly/monthly motor sport magazines would have covered the race, particularly as HumanBodyPiloter5 says below, those on the continent, particularly in Italy. It was a big race at the time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly leaning towards keep - A simple look at the entry list shows that this is almost certainly a notable event, although significant coverage is likely to be limited to older print sources and those sources are likely to be mostly in French or Italian. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For all the reasons noted above; an F1 race contested by top-level drivers though not part of the World Championship as the Italian GP would have counted for that. Should be noted that this was the first year of the World title and at this point the non-champ races were a continuation of previous season events and would have not lacked in prestige. Needs sourcing; I have added an EL to Motor Sport (magazine)'s database but race report is harder to find. Almost certain that Denis Jenkinson would have reported on it. Eagleash (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth commenting that in the early years of the World Drivers' Championship the prestige of World Championship events wasn't particularly greater than that of non-championship events. Indeed a recent (paywalled) Autosport article made a note of how in the 1950s and 1960s many Formula Two events were considered to be of similar importance to Formula One Grands Prix. Today records of World Championship races tend to be easier to find because they fit more snugly into a simplified statistical narrative whose revisionist paradigm stems from the current perspective where Formula One is the World Championship and where top-level Grand Prix drivers rarely race outside that series. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I linked this to the Italian/Czech/Slovenian wikis, but there were no additional GNG-qualifying sources there. A search in English brought up nothing about this particular race apart from results. Not disputing the keep necessarily, an Italian archive search might be prudent here though. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an early version of a Formula One event with top level drivers participating. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did find a few sources which could help fill out the article. [1][2] Dylan1496 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm going with keep based on some of the coverage presented by User:HumanxAnthro. Please improve the article and if concerns still linger, feel free to renominate to AfD. Missvain (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dax (Rapper)[edit]

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

still not a notable rapper, despite the multiple attempts to create an article here, same as the last AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dax (rapper). YODADICAE👽 16:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the sources? They were available last time too and were insufficient and they're paid for PR pieces and interviews. This isn't what a snow close is for. YODADICAE👽 16:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Interviews and pieces about songs and live performances of his work from independent sources ARE coverage. I'm aware paid pieces are an issue in journalism media of all topics, but please provide evidence the sources I provided were paid pieces. And don't give me that bologna that interviews from independent sources (magazines like XXL count under that field, you know) are "self-promotion". They wouldn't want to talk with the rapper if nobody cared about him. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not independent coverage and several of your sources barely say anything about Dax or are gossip rags. The standard for inclusion is not "mentioned a few times" or "been interviewed" it's significant, in depth and independent coverage. YODADICAE👽 19:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you're the one who didn't read the sources. He is prominently covered in many of the sources I provided. These are not articles with "a few mentions". You're flat out WP:GASLIGHTING at this point. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are independent. You haven't provided evidence they're not. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Need I introduce you to WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA? I'm not gaslighting you, there's a reason half of these sources are considered to be unreliable per WP:RSN, and the fact that you included this in your assessment really establishes that you didn't bother to actual look at the sources themselves for what they are: a mix of PR puffery, interviews and paid for publications or passing mentions. YODADICAE👽 19:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, XXL, Hiphopdx, Complex and Respect (which is blacklisted) all accept pay for publishing without disclosing it as such. https://www.fiverr.com/natprivalova/write-rap-music-press-release-or-an-article-for-news-website-submission And this is a laughably far cry from anything meaningful. YODADICAE👽 19:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I never cited Respect as an example, and (2) Mind reading WP:DNTL? Calling out when users spread misinfo is not a personal attack or an aspersion. The sources are not passing mentions; stop lying that they are. His name wouldn't be in the title of most of these sources if they only mentioned the rapper in passing. The link you provided as evidence only gives a Fiverr link that doesn't tell me anything about these specific sources; any evidence that this rapper specifically has used the Fiverr page for these specific sources I provided? You know that just because these publications do PR articles for some articles doesn't mean they do it for all of them. "Half of these sources" are unreliable? Since when was Billboard, LA Weekly, Earmilk, Broadway World, Rolling Out, Telegram.com, The Source, HipHopDX, and Revolt (which makes up 95% of the examples) found to be unreliable sources? I will admit that I have seen HotNewHipHop questioned and am not familiar with ghgossip and Side Door, but those are only a tiny minority of the sources I provided. Also, the heck do you mean the Genius.com source "is a laughably far cry from anything meaningful"? It's a notable Youtuber personality who has admitted to having an opinion on a song by this rapper, plus it's by a staff writer of the source. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I literally just linked you to why most of these aren't reliable and as far as Broadway World goes, no I don't see how a republished press release is an RS, nor listicles of "omg look what ur fave rapstar loves!", those lack the depth required. I'm not gonna keep going back and forth with you. Vote or don't, but your feelings are not policy and the fact of hte matter is that most of this is complete paid for puffery and unreliable. Other than the Billboard source, nothing here is meaningful, in depth or reliable and this has already been discussed in a previous AFD. YODADICAE👽 20:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"your feelings are not policy" Well, so much for not casting aspersions. None of what I said is based on feelings. You know most of the sources I provided weren't "a republished press release" or "omg look what ur fave rapstar loves!" lists. Main features about the rapper in LA Weekly and XXL, him being declared part of a Canadian rap scene by Ottawa Scene and a song being recognized by a Youtube personality is WP:SIGCOV. Plus I just explained to you why that link wasn't good enough. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I'm !voting to Keep but clean-up the article with better sources and for the coordinator to reject the nominator's lies and lack of evidence. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, The Source is on my personal unreliable list, as evidenced by the fact that you can see from the fiverr page, as an example, that this is a paid for piece and yet, inexplicably lacks any such indication and doesn't even indicate whether it's a staffer or contributor, so I'm not sure why we should be expected to believe this is a top tier RS when they don't even disclose what is genuine journalism and paid for cruft. It brings into question their integrity. YODADICAE👽 21:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:25, 19 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, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom . No significant coverege on RS : i see No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Thul[edit]

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

Search found little that even approached being sigcov in reliable sources, all of which is in the context of the "Appeal for Courage". Not seeing enough to meet WP:GNG or any SNG. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 19 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, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks SIGCOV, check; fails WP:GNG, check; fails WP:NPOL, check; created by SPA, check. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but there's not nearly enough here to suggest that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Seems like an outdated extension of a failed state legislature campaign. KidAd • SPEAK 19:18, 29 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, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War Victims Day[edit]

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

Searches did not bring up sufficient coverage to indicate GNG is met. Most is press releases, seems the football game and associated day really haven't caught on... Eddie891 Talk Work 02:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googling establishes that this day was marked by a soccer match in Kampala which was attended by the Secretary General of the UN [62] [63], but it doesn't seem to have been observed more broadly. It is not one of the UN's International Days or the holidays marked by the African Union. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 19 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, 27 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. Nothing presented has convinced me this subject passes WP:GNG at this time. Missvain (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Mardani[edit]

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

Author of this article has been blocked for paid editing but that being said this article seems non-notable, I failed to find any significant reliable coverage online. Mardetanha (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:50, 11 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) 05:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete search brings up WP Category:Iranian_sportspeople_in_doping_cases but Mardani is not there - or anywhere else, much. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Category:Iranian_sportspeople_in_doping_cases was misplaced and removed.Afsane1369 (talk) 13:40, 20 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, 27 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) 10:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Joseph Paul[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE search didn't show evidence that he's played enough significant roles to have enough notability. Suonii180 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bunch of 1 episode roles do not add up to notability. Beyond this IMDb is not a reliable source. We really need to rid Wikipedia of every article only based on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah... no reliable refs that supports the articles, but mostly mentions. Didn't find any other refs. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Undersourced, subject fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 27 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. Discounting two related keep !votes, there is apparent consensus to delete. Lourdes 12:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Knauss[edit]

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

The subject has little to no notability. The article has 4 independent sources, and none of them talk about the subject in detail. As far as I can tell, the subject does not meet the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve - like many articles about web people, it can be hard to find good details because they do behind the scenes work. I'll give this a shot and see if I can find sources that would support notability and if not I'm happy to change my suggestion. Jessamyn (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, Jessamyn, you found any yet? Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 23:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet Orcaguy. I did a stylistic re-org of the page to better fit wikistyle and have tossed a few more things in (I think the Romantimatic angle got the most press, but there may be a few other notability angles). I have a Tu/Wed weekend so that was my plan to poke at tomorrow. Jessamyn (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, cheers. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think Knauss meets the criteria of creating a thing (or things) that have received independent coverage (weblog book tours, Romantimatic app) and is regarded as an important figure within his field. I tried to add citations and information to that effect. Early web metadata is terrible which means it's hard to nail down the specifics of his work for Que Publishing but his work writing for MacWorld and early Atari publications is easier to note and track down. Jessamyn (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources and bibliography indicate sufficient notability. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:AUTHOR. App developer, text book contributor (for instance, "Using Netscape 2" authors are Mark Robbin Brown, Steven Forrest Burnett, et al. - I see no Krauss), non notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes this is part of the problem. The metadata for the early books to which he contributed chapters are terrible and the publishers no longer exist. I appreciate that "they were big deals at the time" isn't really a reason to hit GNG, but it falls into the timehole that is before (many) newspapers had content available digitally, but after newspapers would allow scanned content online. I'll see if I can fine better citations about his contributions. Jessamyn (talk) 18:53, 20 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, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the citations (and there aren't that many) are just in reference to his own work, with him replying to journalist's questions about them, which is routine. There's no profile or reference dedicated to who he is, so it fails WP:GNG. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is tough. Objectively, it doesn't feel like a Wikipedia article, but a resume of (admittedly fun!) personal and work projects. Some items got a little press or are attached to sites or books or people who do meet WP:GNG, but that applies to many people's resumes who don't meet WP:GNG overall. Dgpop (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seth's Chhama Chham Waterpark[edit]

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

Promo piece on a non-notable recent ROTM leisure facility, references cited look to me like routine local business 'news' related to the opening, possibly based on press releases etc. Fails WP:COMPANY and likely also WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not often something screams not notable as a water park whose opening celebrity failed to turn up but who promised to write a song about it but hasn't. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:31, 19 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, 27 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 01:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prospects Nation[edit]

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

No indication of notability. fails WP:WEBSITE. DJRSD (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEBCRIT. Only gets passing mentions as part of player bios with no indication of notability. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:37, 19 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, 27 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. Nothing presented convinces me the subject meets WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Horn Evensen[edit]

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

A bronze medal on national level is extremely far from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT, and WP:GNG is also failed. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 TT me 03:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You have to see her in the perspective of that era and that the Norwegian secondary sources are not online. In that era there were, for women, no Olympic Games (in women's speed skating from 1960, for men since 1921), no European Championships (from 1970, for men since 1891). And yes, there were world championships but Norway only sent the best women to the World Championships. In that era women's speed skating was popular. Let me show, the Netherlands was in women's long track speed skating not as good as Norway, but the newspapers of the Netherlands are online. And of all people who were ative at national level in the Netherlands are meeting GNG. I created many of them; see for insntace the list of names at Template:Kortebaan speed skaters (women). To come back to Evensen, she finished third at the national championships. You say "bronze medal on national level is extremely far from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT", but note that all more recent Norwegian speed skating people who have won a bronze medal at the national championships have a Wikipedia page. However, as it's of the pre-internet era, you have to look in newspapers to establish GNG and I added already one good book source that writes about her. The Norwegian newspapers of that era are not online (by my knowledge). And because the most important thing at Wikipeida is Wikipedia:Readers first, this article gives usefull information about a main Norwegian long track speed skater and her background, marriage etc. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Was able to find a Norwegian newspaper that wrote about her. See for instance 22 January 1958 here. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still not seeing any SIGCOV here. The newspaper hits are all trivial mentions in meet results, and the "short article about her marriage" appears to be a self-submitted wedding announcement (this is the entirety: "Celebrated Saturday by Karin Horn Evensen and Femmo Breuwer, Holland. Adr. for the day: Odd Fellow, Gjovik.") of the type standard in local newspapers. There were a couple newspapers running that word-for-word, and a couple running this version: "Fernmo Brouwer, traveler, Gjovik, and telephone assistant Karin Horn Evensen, Stabekk". Clearly still not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGC-New Life Christian Academy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I could find was trivial name drops in school directories. Outside of that, it looks like it's mentioned in "Official Gazette - Volume 106, Issues 40-43" on Google Books a few times, but from what I can tell it's only a couple of sentences of pretty surface level information. Although, even if it was more in-depth one source wouldn't be enough anyway. That said, maybe someone can find a few actually good ones to combine it with. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:07, 27 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. North America1000 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Server sunset[edit]

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

This article does not source any references, also without any expansion for a while. This also includes the fact that it looks like the article is there as a definition, without informational context. Nbagoodfun (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just renamed the article from Server sunset to Sunset (computing), rewrote it to be more general than just servers, and added references. Note that someone had erroneously added information on the software lifecycle sense of "sunsetting" to the Sunset provision law-topic article, and I needed somewhere appropriate to move that to. I didn't see any good place to put it in the Software development process article, so the information is now in this article. Note that Sunsetting now redirects to Sunset (disambiguation) § Other uses, which includes Sunset (computing) as one of its bullets. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with the more general term End-of-life product. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term isn't just in reference to products, though. It can be used, for instance, to refer to an internal server that is in no way productized. Indeed, it would be confusing to conflate the two ideas, since an EOL'd product is sometimes, but by no means always, the reason for the sunsetting of a server or non-product service. If merging, End-of-life product would need to be renamed and rewritten to be more general.
There may be a discussion to be had as to what constitutes a product, but all of the term's references in this article are all within the context of product lifecycle management ... SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my original comments above, before the relist. --Dan Harkless (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One editor, one vote. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been awhile since I've participated in one of these, and thought I was supposed to revote under the Relist line. --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has already been renamed. Its its own term, with multiple articles, reports, and academic pieces written about it. Search term. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the WP:HEY that's been done since nomination; it went from a four-sentence unsourced stub at a bad title... to a very beefy paragraph with seven sources that adequately explain what the concept is, at a great title. jp×g 07:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Herodian dynasty#Family tree of the Herodian dynasty. I'm redirecting it to Herodian dynasty#Family tree of the Herodian dynasty since it's the only solid option presented. If you want to redirect it to another page, please go for it by changing the redirect on the page. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phasael II[edit]

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

Despite the numbers after his name, Phasael II was not a ruler. He was a nephew of Herod the Great who never reigned. All the information we have about him is genealogical so he definitely isn’t notable. This belongs in a family tree and not in a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's to be redirected, perhaps it could be to his father or his wife's page. At the very least, there doesn't seem to be support for keeping as a standalone article. 2601:241:300:B610:2030:B1E1:1C89:3527 (talk) 04:23, 27 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 Berlin International Literature Festival. Please merge anything of value and redirect ASAP as WP:Alternatives to deletion. Thanks everyone! Missvain (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Das außergewöhnliche Buch[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising. Recreation under a different name (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Extraordinary Book) The Banner talk 20:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Berlin International Literature Festival. Not much has changed since the last AfD. None of the sources in the article have the depth or independence to count towards WP:GNG. The German Wikipedia article is entirely unsourced, so nobody at our sister project seems to have found any reliable sources either. My own search turned up lots of sponsored posts akin to those already in the article. I agree with the nominator that the article might constitute advertising by a WP:SPA. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on. The fact that de.wiki has an unsourced article doesn't mean it's unsourceable. What it means is that de.wiki has different inclusion standards to en.wiki. (Specifically, en.wiki trusts sources, but de.wiki trusts editors, which is why pending changes works really well for de.wiki and really poorly for here. A lot of perfectly good de.wiki articles are unsourced.) The Berliner Abendblatt source here is editorially independent and I see no reason why it wouldn't be reliable. The Buchmark source here isn't really about the award so much as about the literary festival, although the award is mentioned. I've looked for more sources and the problem I'm experiencing is that the search term brings up a lot of false positives for me. We probably wouldn't do too badly to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany for input from some Germans.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @S Marshall: My rationale for redirecting wasn't based solely on the fact that de.wiki doesn't have sources on this topic - although I must say that I was unaware of this difference in policy. The problem seems to be the general lack of in-depth coverage. The Abendblatt article you pointed out is certainly reliable but I don't think it amounts to significant coverage. I don't see why we would need specialist input: I'm a native speaker of German and, judging from your userpage, you seem to know German well, too. What's to stop us from searching through lots of pages of search results on the term? Having done this, I've concluded that the award is not by itself notable and should be redirected. That's not to say, though, that I wouldn't reconsider my !vote if significant coverage were to surface.Modussiccandi (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think German speakers are "specialist input"; just that they're more likely to have informed opinions on this topic.—S Marshall T/C 16:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our practical rough guide for prizes is that mosto f the reciipiants are notable .. That seems ti be the case here. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Berlin International Literature Festival, since they're the ones who present it. A single section would do. The award itself doesn't seem to be very notable, and looking at the books that received the award they don't seem to be advertising the fact that they won that particular award. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Prankerd, Tom (2013-06-18). "GP '50 - XIX Circuito di Pescara".
  2. ^ "1950 Non-World Championship Grands Prix".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_May_27&oldid=1026873141"