Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 30	June 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aneel Ranadive[edit]

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

Sources are not RS or DUE. Just a guy with a rich dad. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Likely COI editing that created the article. All sources are about a company he started not about him. Bvcqszj (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass WP:NBIO, no significant coverage found in reliable, independent sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Everything I could see is a passing mention. Does not merit inclusion under WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 21:36, 4 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 Forum Communications Company. Sandstein 07:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Echo Press[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable newspaper. None of the references are independent of the newspaper and its ownership group. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NMEDIA, the subject has not received the depth of coverage required in independent, reliable, secondary sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Forum Communications Company. Missvain (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Forum Communications Company as a reasonable alternative to deletion. See WP:PRESERVE. Doesn't appear to be otherwise notable, under either the GNG or the expansive WP:NMEDIA (which, for the record, is only an explanatory supplement and thus does not necessarily reflect community sentiment) criteria. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:44, 8 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. (non-admin closure) dudhhr_Contribs 01:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WJ De King[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Failing WP:MUSICBIO, a WP:BEFORE doesn’t provide any reliable sources. Xclusivzik (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per WP:WORLDVIEW. Reliable sources do exist, with significant coverage in at least one.[1][2] For a musician in South Sudan to get any international coverage is significant from a notability perspective. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article needs the keen eye of a copyeditor, there are sufficient sources to keep and improve. WP:BASIC and WP:BIAS being important here.--12:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Going to close this after two relistings as WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Ghar Aayi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON. There is also a draft that exists and is blanked (My first intent was to move to drafts). Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:35, 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) 23:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Draft can be kept if needed. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Its a WP:TOOSOON. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Its a WP:TOOSOON. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once again a WP:TOOSOON Bwmdjeff (talk) 17:55, 5 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 00:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Benford[edit]

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

This has been in CAT:NN for 11 years. I was unable to establish that he does meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs in the article are blank. Google returns nothing. Desertarun (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. I don't agree with this proposed deletion - I vote against it being deleted. I agree the entry is not the best, but believe that Douglas Benford is worthy of a Wikipedia entry and is well known on his scene (and known to The Wire magazine) and his Spraw club night was an important club night in the (glitch) music scene of London 0f the 1990s. He also has a decent discography. If I had time I would expand it and improve it myself but I don't at present, but I don't think that is a reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasmian (talk • contribs) 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A goggle search shows no good results. Fails GNG. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He apparently has had a long career in esoteric music, but all media notice is at unreliable websites created by himself or fans, or the usual retail and streaming directories. The aforementioned Wire magazine only has a blank entry about him [3]; AllMusic gives him and his albums a few blank entries plus occasional credits in the works of others. He may a reliable longtime behind-the-scenes guy but he simply does not have the outside notice that is needed for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:22, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Gibbs, 5th Baron Aldenham[edit]

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

No indication of importance. We don't have articles on obscure barons who are not actually notable in any capacity beyond holding that title from any other countries (e.g. France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain). Tataral (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a member of the UK's House of Lords. As a member of a national parliament, he is automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did he actually turn up at the House of Lords and actuallu do something there. I think we need that evidence. --Bduke (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant whether he did or not. He was still a member of the House of Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His Wikidata item demonstrates notability, eg entry in UK Who's Who and member of the House of Lords (via Hansard) Piecesofuk (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike "France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain", British pre-1999 peers are clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN as members of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's not an elected official; he's a hereditary baron. Consider. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Still meets WP:POLITICIAN. Just as effectively unelected members of legislatures in totalitarian countries do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:NPOL refers to having "held" national office, not to having been elected to it. It's irrelevant how he got there: as a member of the House of Lords, he is ipso facto notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:52, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vicary Gibbs, 6th Baron Aldenham[edit]

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

No indication of importance. We don't have articles on obscure barons who are not actually notable in any capacity beyond holding that title from any other countries (e.g. France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain). Tataral (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a baron who succeeded to his title before the House of Lords Act 1999 took effect, he was a member of the UK's House of Lords. As a member of a national parliament, he is automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did he actually turn up at the House of Lords and actuallu do something there. I think we need that evidence. --Bduke (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant whether he did or not. He was still a member of the House of Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His Wikidata item demonstrates notability, eg entry in UK Who's Who and member of the House of Lords (via Hansard) Piecesofuk (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike "France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain", British pre-1999 peers are clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN as members of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And he actually attended Lords https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldinfo/ld03mem/inf3b.htm

Keep – having "held" national-level office, he's ipso facto notable under WP:NPOL. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:52, 6 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 00:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Derecki[edit]

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

A few bit parts (references to IMDB) and a few publications as a PhD in neuroscience don't add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as an actor. In terms of his academic work it is WP:TOOSOON.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. [4] actually doesn't look too bad, but at the same time they are multi-authored. His most cited paper is actuall very well cited (2.5k in Nature), but at the same time it has 12 authors, which means it's anybody's bet if author X or Y was doing serious work there or just riding along for one reason or another (click me). This really rests only on the citation count, since there is nothing else to suggest NBIO is met, and as such, it's probably is not enough (since NPROF is just a supplementary addition to NBIO). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. 4k citations and 6 papers with 100+ citations are generally enough to keep an article per WP:NPROF and the acting just adds to notability. --hroest 00:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a high citation field, and 2,500 of those citations are from a paper where he is the 7th named author.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Countering the point by Eostrix, the next 2 most cited articles, each with 500+ on GS, were first-author articles, without too many other authors. Countering the point by hroest, the h-index is 13, and hroest recently !voted to delete on someone with at least an h-index of 17, far more coverage, and significant disadvantages for h-index (e.g. working in some lower-citation fields, publishing in several different fields, having very few self-citations, etc.), granted the citation count was 1000 lower if we remove the 2500+ citation paper referred to by Eostrix. Dr. Universe (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are the Scopus citation metrics for Derecki and 98 of his extended* coauthors with more than 10 papers:

Total citations: avg: 8123, med: 2733, Derecki: 3254.

Total papers: avg: 110, med: 44, D: 17.

h-index: avg: 33, med: 24, D: 13.

Top citations: 1st: avg: 1054, med: 690, D: 1735. 2nd: avg: 518, med: 254, D: 433. 3rd: avg: 375, med: 220, D: 410. 4th: avg: 295, med: 151, D: 137. 5th: avg: 243, med: 131, D: 91.

Top first-author citation: avg: 419, med: 195, D: 433.

*Extended coauthors: 25 direct coauthors + 73 of his top 3 collaborators' coauthors on their most recent 5 papers. Looking at just his direct coauthors, the values are:

TC: avg: 10323, med: 4186, D: 3254. TP: avg: 103, med: 53, D: 17. h: avg: 39, med: 24, D: 13. 1st: avg: 1400, med: 1735, D: 1735. 2nd: avg: 620, med: 433, D: 433. 3rd: avg: 472, med: 292, D: 410. 4th: avg: 400, med: 243, D: 137. 5th: avg: 327, med: 243, D: 91. FA: avg: 695, med: 292, D: 433.

So, very promising but only a bit above the median in his field, which with a very low paper cutoff (10) is skewed toward early post-docs (this is a high-publication discipline). I would say TOOSOON if he was still in academia, but haven't evaluated him for GNG yet. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 20:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced by his acting coverage either, so for now he is just a TOOSOON scientist. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:52, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muneer Lyati[edit]

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

Non-notable scientist. Doesn't qualify any WP:Academic criterias. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not pass WP:NPROF, not a single citation in GS. Maybe just WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 00:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails in passing NPROF and GNG, google search shows no good results. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable mechanical engineer; does not pass WP:NPROF --Whiteguru (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:05, 5 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile Gospel (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Nothing to disambiguate here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The first four entries all refer to the base article, and the other two are taken care of by the hatnote there to a similarly spelled group. And that's the gospel according to the Church of Deletionism. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails basic criteria needed for disambiguations. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very obviously, the first four entries all refer to the base article... --Whiteguru (talk) 10:15, 4 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) 19:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola Red Sparks[edit]

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

I just removed a telephone number from this article. If it doesn't qualify as promotional (which, by virtue of the phone number, it might be) then I'd like to nominate it as non-notable. The only reference provided lacks independence from the subject. If there are suitable sources in Japanese or English, let them come forth. The simple fact of being funded by Coca Cola does not confer notability. A loose necktie (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was a notable rugby union team that played in the Top League and Top Challenge League Japanese leagues. They had professional players on their books at the time and there is certain to be coverage of them team playing in these competitions. Japanese rugby teams quite often are company teams (this may change with the league changing this year). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Can we get at least one independent source to help verify this? A loose necktie (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've including a couple of sources in the article. There will be far more available in a Japanese language source. It also passes a number of the guides listed at WP:RU/N#Clubs having played in the top division, been a founding member of the division, and provided multiple World Cup players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on added sourcing. More from Japanese references would be helpful. But I think that being at top club level and based on the few sources, it just barely meets WP:GNG per WP:NTEAM. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see few sources like [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], it should make them qualify for GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on additional sourcing. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:17, 4 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Going with the merges here. (p.s. Keep it civil, folks.) Missvain (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senyaka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable sources, only some junk listicles. TTN (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Herostratus below, or Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. BOZ (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Herostratus (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, article meets WP:GNG pretty handily. Here is an article with extensive coverage. Here is an article with extensive coverage. Here is an article with extensive coverage. Here is a paragraph.

Additionally there are a short mentions, but which may provide an additional fact or two,[12][13][14][15]. Then, going into books, there is The Marvel Encyclopedia, The Marvel Book, Ultimate Marvel, Marvel Universe, History of the Marvel Universe, maybe others. I don't have these books, but you'd have to assume that there's some coverage in some of them; it'd be pretty extraordinary if there wasn't. Here and here you've got articles with extensive coverage from Sri Lanka, which extends coverage internationally (the entity is Sri Lankan). The Grand Comics Database includes the entity; these are just lists I think but does list the writers and artists if not more. There's a toy(s) of the entity and card game cards, which doesn't really jibe with the subject being a very obscure nonentity. Here is wiki article with extensive coverage. Not suggesting it's usable, but as matter of notability (I mean in real life) it is further marker of general specialist and/or public interest in the entity sufficient that people are writing about it.

Some of the sources are reliable in and of themselves. Grand Comics Database has a fact-checking operation it looks like and an error-reporting one too. We have a citing template {{Grand Comics Database}} which why would we have that if it wasn't considered reliable. Some of the others look OK too, although vetting the reliably of sources is complicated and and is really hard if you don't have details on their fact-checking operation is, and it's something that could be looked at in more detail. But if nobody has the interest in doing that: these look like acceptable refs.

Our guidelines as written don't require the sources establishing notability to be themselves notable I think, just reliable. However, it's sensible to consider that. So we know that Grand Comics Database has an article here, and so does Comic Book Resources. If they were printing their stuff with spirit masters they probably wouldn't. Comic Vine doesn't have an article, but it has a section in one. They seem to be a presence on the field, are able to support a small staff, and were bought by ViacomCBS recently which I don't think ViacomCBS buys up nonentities. Read the articles and decide for yourself.

The heck you want? A cover article about Senyaka in The Atlantic? If you all wanted to be of the mind "Well OK it meets the WP:GNG, since the material at Uncanny X-Men.net and Comic Vine alone does that easily without even considering all the other stuff, but it should be deleted anyway, because ___________." Make your case. But it's a different case than nominator made. Isn't it. There's a lot more to unpack here, a lot more, but for a start, nominator has nominated hundreds of articles and knows WP:BEFORE quite well, so when he says he's vetted the article and found that it doesn't meet the GNG he's.... well, he's... he's being not accurate. I call upon the closer to consider this. Herostratus (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've literally cited several other wikis as "articles." I get your whole thing is IAR inclusionism with complete disregard of all policies and guidelines, but that's just silly. TTN (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right, as regards Comics Vine section, it says it is a wiki, I missed that, sorry, and thank you for finding that. OK, that matters, but setting that one aside for the moment, we still have Uncanny X-Men.net and Writeups.org, and that's enough to meet the GNG, again that's without counting the CBR bit or anything else. None of these are wikis. It's less of a slam-dunk, true.

Also, I'm really not some kind of montebank. Last time I analyzed my stats I was just slightly more inclusionist than average, I vote to delete articles more than not, have closed more AfDs as delete than not, and have nominated a few. Most articles that come to AfD should be deleted. What I don't like to see is salvagable articles being deleted, and what I particularly don't like to see is salvagable articles being nominated because of the subject. I mean you do know that your editing record is public. I don't really have an opinion on comics and seldom read them or work on them here, but at the same time they're a legit part of the world now. They just are, and it doesn't matter how much anybody doesn't like it. Those people can yell at the maid about it or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"uncannyxmen.net | An X-Men Resource, for the fans, by the fans". Fan sites are not very reliable... when those are the 'best' sources, it's a clear indication the topic belongs on a fanpedia at Fandom, not on Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"for the fans, by the fans"... well who do expect to write and read it? Interpretive dancers? Welders? Evan Steward (the author) is an expert in the field, clearly has the source material right in front of him, is clearly skilled and diligent, and is writing for a high-quality site that that's 20 years old and has several people involved (I don't know the internal workings, but it's a multi-person website at the least). These are OK sources, why are trying to set a higher standard for sources on this particular subject than others? Oh wait. Herostratus (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S as no coverage for unique page. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S given coverage is limited to plot summaries on fansite or otherwise not-independent media ("The Marvel Encyclopedia" and like are licenced plot summaries for fans and are not sufficient for establishing notability as they are just companion works for the comics and such). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi User:Piotrus. Say, what brings you here? It's not a vote you know. Closers are able to recognize tag-teaming.

"licenced plot summaries". Licensed by whom from whom. Are you trying to say "official"? Is that a bad thing now? There are a lot of books on the general subject and it's hard to keep track of which is which, but if you're talking about this Marvel Encyclopedia, do you mean the one that was "produced by Marvel staff" or the one that was "written by former Marvel editor Tom DeFalco"? It's hard to keep track of which high-selling works written by experts in the field and published by large respected houses you guys are deprecating today.

"for fans"... what the heck to do you expect the audience for these works to be? People who aren't interested in the subject? That would be a poor business model n'est-ce pas? Isn't it kind of... I don't know, madness?... to criticize publications because they are written for people who want to read them? Advances in Radio Science is written for fans of radio science. History of Geo- and Space Sciences is written for fans of Geo- and Space Sciences. The first one has no refs and second one refs to itself and a bare list of cites. This is common for these articles. Why don't you go attack those articles instead? Gee one might suspect that you guys's relentless crusade is predicated on class bigotry. "Fans..." "fansites..." "fancruft".. .Why not just say "This article is about the sort of the stuff the maid reads, delete" be done with it? Herostratus (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HerostratusPlease WP:REFACTOR and apologize for your AGF-failing and unfounded claim that I am involved in some tag teaming here. TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say... shared community of single-purpose interest. I didn't say you are tag-teaming. Who knows? It's impossible to prove either way. Maybe you're just individually looking for places to pounce on your own dime. Probably are. The effect is the same tho. I just said "Closers are able to recognize tag-teaming.". If you're not tag-teaming you have nothing to worry about, right? Closers know what's what, and it's up to the closer to draw her own conclusions, that's all. Herostratus (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S - The vast majority of the sources suggested above are either from unreliable sources, or are not secondary. The few that aren't are very brief mentions. Since the current entry at the character list is just a link to this article, a merge adding the basic info is about all that is warranted. Rorshacma (talk) 19:40, 7 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 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Frydrych[edit]

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

Promotional article on an artist who does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria. Poor or dead sourcing; exhibits & collections fail verification. Netherzone (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think we can safely discount any publication (superyachts.com) that writes "Often referred to as a modern day Leonardo Da Vinci, Frydrych’s diverse interests include mathematics, sculpture, design and horology". Art-views as a source isn't much better: "Made of the same optical glass used on the Hubble telescope" and they can't spell micron (microne) and visible (visable). The Art Collector has this to offer: "The works are akin to a Dali or Duchamp: both pioneering within the status quo of the arts and also an examination of, and into, human intelligence". TL magazine (which is an outlet of Lise Coirier's consultancy, promateria, which operates a gallery in Brussels that has exhibited Frydrych's work) is more of the same: "Aside from putting his heart and soul into cutting and perfecting glassworks for others, he has managed to blaze his own artistic trail over the years and has now created a name for himself amongst the great Czech glass artists that came before him — overcoming and defying what was seized from him all those years before". None of this is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. It, promotion, PR, press releases.. Precisely the kind of stuff we should never use. Vexations (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely agree with the nomination and analysis above. Also, consider this: there are three articles about glass artists Jan Frydrych, Jaroslav Prošek (deleted after AfD), and Vlastimil Beránek (active AfD) which appear to be related and promotional:

All articles cite promotional-sounding sources Crystal Caviar, The Art Collector, and Superyachts.com.
All articles were created or significantly expanded by Kristýna WIKI who never contributed to any other articles, so is possibly WP:SPA.
Blackpebblemedia (soft-blocked for user name, claimed to be a friend of Vlastimil Beránek) and Paulbarronmedia contributed to these three pages and to nothing else.

Anton.bersh (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some of the references are repeated; all are simply mentions and as such, not reliable sources per GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:20, 4 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 21:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhushan Shimpi[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:RS nor any significant roles in notable productions. Looks like a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep* The Times of India's article is mentioned, makes it notable and passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darshanpatil5567 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a passing mention of him; it completely fails to establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails all notability criteria, passing mentions. And lets not even talk about the photo that is blatantly a selfie in a mirror, but the OP claims is own work. Canterbury Tail talk 21:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Does not meet NACTOR or GNG. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as per above) Clearly, does not meet NACTOR or GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT Aishaa14 (talk) 15:59, 5 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. Being WP:BOLD and closing this one early via WP:SNOW based on subject clearly failing WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Missvain (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Santosh Patil[edit]

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

Declined 4 times at Draft:Vikas Santosh Patil and now moved over to mainspace with no improvement. Clearly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and WP:COI is also present. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator.
- - Creating an article in article space after it is declined in draft space is an attempt to game the system.
  - Does not satisfy general notability or political notability.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Councilors are not included in WP:NPOL unless they are mayors of major cities. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dos not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, just not in any way notable. Canterbury Tail talk 21:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. COI by original editor that hasn't cleared, and that editor is now banned for disruptive editing. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A10. This article was created on 31 May. Vikas Patil, about the same person and also at AfD, was created on 27 May. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. COI issues and fails WP:NPOV. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:08, 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 23:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hostyle Gospel (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Nothing to disambiguate here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not even WP:TWODABS, so a hatnote for a similar spelling is quite sufficient. (This should have been bundled with the other dab page.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wandile Sihlobo[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, not enough on his book for him to meet WP:NAUTHOR, and with a high citation count in the single digits and an h-index of 4, doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found [16] a single in-depth profile for GNG but it does not seem to be from a reputable source. Apart from that, he clearly fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 15:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPROF, sources aren’t in-depth either and don’t meet WP:GNG. -Xclusivzik (talk) 00:37, 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 Amphibia (TV series)#Season 2 (2020–21). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True Colors (Amphibia)[edit]

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

Non-notable TV episode; long plot summary could cause copyright issues and/or violate WP:PLOT Wizzito (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Wizzito (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Wizzito (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Amphibia (TV series)#Season 2 (2020–21) - No secondary sources and possible copyright violation, the episode is just not ready to be on its own Wikipage yet. kpgamingz (rant me) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amphibia (TV series)#Season 2 (2020–21), the only coverage of this episode available is from unreliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Despite personally liking the episode, I was surprised to see it had its own article, and after seeing the article, I feel that it was a mistake to give it one. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Owl House's season finale has an article, why shouldn't this? Elliottharvickfan94 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the season finale of the Owl House is covered in reliable sources, but this episode is really not at all. (But, on the finale of the Owl House's article, there is a template stating that it might not be notable, so maybe that article shouldn't exist in the first place as well) Wizzito (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kpgamingz (rant me) 14:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is better than just deleting the article altogether. And, you can move it into a draft to develop it further with more reliable sources and not an excessive plot section.~~That's straight up kinda copied from Amphibia (TV series)#ep40~~ – ChannelSpider (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of episodes. No argument has been presented that GNG or such is met here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 7 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. Being WP:BOLD and closing this one early per WP:SNOW. Missvain (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delivering negative news[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic content created by a persistently disruptive editor. J. M. (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an advice column Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't an encylopedia article, it is howto content. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here to form the basis of an article. Mccapra (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not encyclopedic material. — Goszei (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to give the article creator this news but...delete as not really an encyclopedic topic. I hope you can create a better article in the future. Nate • (chatter) 02:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Written too poorly. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a instruction manual, however similar to Fake news, Negative news might be worth creating, I personally do not know enough to start the topic, but the psychology behind it exists ("psychology behind negative news), although I admit I found pretty slim sources.TataofTata (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 07:34, 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emiland[edit]

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

Fails our notability guideline. Sources are puff pieces or company statements. Claims in article text are hard to decipher, claim of having 17000 employees (for a fashion brand with 10 shops?) seems unlikely. Searching for other usable sources produced no good results. Fram (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ahhh, the fashionistas of Baku... The Azerbaijani article is similarly undersourced and over-tagged. There's no indication of notability, even in Baku. Fails WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and making the uniforms for the security guards at Eurovision must be the most ludicrous claim of notability I’ve ever read. Mccapra (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and written like an advertisement. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:23, 4 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 List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Larsson (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and if the article is correct, the WP:NFOOTY presumption about playing in only one match. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We're not by any chance talking about Rekkles here, are we? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Larsson subject to this AfD played in 1999 whereas Rekkles was born in 1996. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He might have been an early developer. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the one appearance is verified here, but there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested below. Giant Snowman 10:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Fails GNG. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) @GiantSnowman:, @Alexandermcnabb:,@Grandruskiy48:, regards Govvy (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Govvy. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) as a valid and acceptable ATD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 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 redirect to National Federation of State Poetry Societies. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota State Poetry Society[edit]

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

I PRODded with the note that there's Enough to avoid a speedy, but a BEFORE turned up only this, which isn't independent. Article was dePRODded by creator who said, Notability doesn't rest with only this state chapter but with the national network of poetry societies made up of various individual state societies. This state organization article is a stub, available for expansion, where anyone in the state organization can add their unique contribution to the whole.

While there's no reason required for dePROD, the reason indicates the creator doesn't particularly understand the reasons for the PROD. Pkeets did add material, unfortunately none of which establishes notability as they're simply membership benefits.

There is no significant, independent, in depth coverage to meet WP:ORG for this state chapter. I would probably just have redirected it to the National Federation, but since the PROD was declined and the creator argued against a merge for another chapter, we're here. Star Mississippi 12:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 12:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 12:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 12:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an advert for a non notable society, fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I know OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument, but I was going to propose a merge to National Federation of State Poetry Societies when I noticed that all the others are blue-linked! So it's keep this one or nuke the lot? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alexandermcnabb:, DGG proposed a merge for one of them, which the creator is contesting, so I'm not sure that's going to work. They may need to all be evaluated on merit. Star Mississippi 00:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Federation of State Poetry Societies – this is a textbook case of WP:BRANCH. I'm not finding any coverage from outside North Dakota (or, frankly, any coverage at all), so a redirect to the national society would be appropriate. (There's nothing worth merging, in my view.) I imagine the same would likely be true for the other state-level societies, given the rather strict WP:NORG standard. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Wingwatchers (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with Star Mississippi, not sure who's going to take on the evaluation of 'em all! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:50, 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uberbyte[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage other than this album review. The article has been unsourced (other than to the band's website) and tagged for notability since its creation in 2012. Lennart97 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. starship .paint (exalt) 11:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having just spent some quality time on Google, I have enjoyed their music but become convinced they fail WP:BAND. Shame, they're quite fun... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Current sources don't demonstrate notability. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:47, 4 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East German language[edit]

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

Declined speedy G1, this strangely worded piece of SYNTH/OR attempts to create some distinction between the vocabularies of post-reunification East Germany and fails to do that or much else. IMHO, it needs to go. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / TNT - I've added the substantial bibliography from the linked de-Wiki article, showing that DDR German is a bona fide and notable subject. However, the en-Wiki article in its present state is indeed very poor, and needs re-writing / translating from de-Wiki from the ground up (quite a task). Ingratis (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we can agree draftify, I'll withdraw in a flash - but I'd worry it would end up back in mainspace with no substantive improvement. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No-one will work on it as a draft. Would you accept it as a very basic stub supported by the bibliography, since there is no doubt (in my mind) about the notability of the subject? Ingratis (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it's not really about what I'd accept as much as what makes best sense. I wouldn't argue against notability of the subject (is it THIS page title, though?) and/or topic - but as you have agreed, the page itself as it stands is a mess. Are we served by a stub that notes East German vocabulary has changed as a result of Unification? Or are we best leaving it to de-wiki for now and waiting until someone creates a page with at least basic information in en-wiki? A soft deletion, for instance, would allow for that in the proper time (ie: When an editor comes a long who can and will take it on!). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - What makes best sense is an article, even if only a stub, on the German of East Germany (pre- and post-Unification), which en-Wiki doesn't have. We're clearly agreed that this page (and probably page title) isn't it, but I'm inclined to think that it's better to try to turn this into it now that something has appeared rather than shunting it off to one side in the hope that one day it may come back. In such circumstances I would usually just translate the German article myself before commenting but can't just now. If I can do a replacement stub I will, but fingers crossed someone else with a bit more time will get to it first. Ingratis (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Added some text + refs. It could be moved to DDR German. Ingratis (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The [German WP page] and the refs on the page... a couple of which I have added ... seem to me a clear indication of notability. With Chapter 5 German in East Germany in Russ, C. (2002). The German language today: A linguistic introduction. Routledge - alone having enough information for a short article. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Withdraw as per improvements made by Ingratis. Page at time of nomination was a nonsensical mess, is now a 'thing'. Page move to DDR German also seems to make sense to me? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:57, 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 12:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Oghinan[edit]

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

Non-notable designer. Sources cited are primary, apart from the one Issuu article which is not enough to establish notability, and a search finds only social media accounts. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in multiple reliable sources which are independent of them. GNG fail. TheSokks_(talk) 08:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources cited are mostly to social media posts and the others are primary coverage. Kaspadoo (talk) 12:29, 7 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. None of the sourcing presented to me shows me this subject meets WP:GNG. Sourcing appears to be primarily localized and often passing. Regional paper is one thing, but, it seems to be the only paper writing about the school. I'm siding with the !deletes. Missvain (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert-Schweitzer-Gymnasium Gundelfingen[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL as secondary schools are no longer given auto notability (see this RFC) Was deproded with the explanation "European secondary schools are generally notable". There is no policy that I am aware of that makes European schools more notable than schools elsewhere. Rusf10 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deprod as for GNG you have to prove potential coverage in written sources, using the Wikipedia definition of 'notable'. As a school in the EU, and more particularly Germany, funding depends on the school publishing detailed reports and accounts. They are scrutinised by the press and occur with an appraisal by officers and appear in council minute. This is the strong secondary source we require. "European secondary schools are generally notable". There is no policy however it is a statement of fact. Now finding it on line or on paper can be a nightmare. ClemRutter (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With one Google, in this case there are parallel references: The Gymnasium helpfully publishes its history:"ASG | Gundelfingen". www.asg-gundelfingen.de. Retrieved 15 May 2021.. (This is a primary source with links). In 2016 there are three references to articles in the Badische-Zeitung: here is one involving regional politicians and pupils:Zeitung, Badische. "Sich für eigene Interessen einsetzen - Gundelfingen - Badische Zeitung". www.badische-zeitung.de (in German). Retrieved 15 May 2021..

The article is a stub and inaccurate and needs to be rewritten. It opened in 1973, the stub was created in 2007. ClemRutter (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me. You're using the school's own website (see WP:INDEPENDENT) and a local newspaper article (see WP:AUD) to establish notability. With those two sources, we're nowhere near passing WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a little research- Badische Zeitung is a major regional paper. Please read my comments thoroughly- and follow the references I give you and note when I label something primary. I bolded the word three and gave the full reference to one. I am tempted to do a little more googling, to show you what I mean about local government references - the first one to pop up is "Neue Fachräume ASG Gundelfingen - Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald". www.breisgau-hochschwarzwald.de. Retrieved 15 May 2021. which gives me verification of the location Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, but alone is a GNG valid reference. So are you prepared to put some work in to make this well referenced stub into an article that follows WP:SCH/AG? All it takes is time! ClemRutter (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure there are a few sources that confirm the school exists. Wikipedia isn't simply an encyclopedia of verifiable subjects though. It's one of notable subjects. In this particular case all that exits is a few trivial, primary sources and one that seems on hand to be usable, but isn't enough on it's own without other non-primary, in-depth sources to back it up. So at this point there's nothing to make this notable. I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep if someone can come up with WP:THREE (or really two at this point}} usable sources though. Just an FYI, that doesn't mean ones from the government as they aren't independent from the subject of the article IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources available to meet WP:GNG, as with most other secondary schools in Europe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 Hi. Good to see you on board- that link to WP:THREE is really useful. Firstly can I remind everyone- this is not my article, it is appalling and doesn't even start to address the points in WP:WPSCH/AG- I patrol this list on behalf of WP Schools, and jump in when I see broad egregious generalisations and misapprehensions. It certainly is not my role to rewrite the article, though in this case it is an interesting and easy task. Under lock down I am suffering from a severe attack of Wanderlust. So the issue in hand. This has been rehearsed many times before: I can see three problems-

firstly 'notable' has two meanings: ' registered in a form we can verify ' and then ' exceptional or different '. The first is provable while the second is totally subjective. WP:N describes the former use. Section WP:NRV explains sigcoverage in terms of description or recognition. There are references to examining what the article could become, not just its existing state.
Secondly. The assumption that 'government' is one thing. Too simple it is multilayered. In the German context the Gemeinde are independent of the Kreis, which are independent of the Lande, which are independent of the country. One building may be funded as a partnership of two or more layers, Most funding that comes from the top, is channeled through the Kreis- which acts as a postbox and may be independently highly critical of the project.
Thirdly we don't have a watertight definition of a school. To some it is building, to some it is a history, to some it is a cost-centre, and to some it a list of sports fixtures and then again it is about the pedagogy and the educational outcomes.

Looking again at the definitions. WP:AUD makes it clear that regional newspapers are encouraged.

WP:ORG only applies to profit making schools. WP:ORG is a part of the WP:N page and has been much discussed and viewed in it entirity offers a few surprises. WP:WPSCHOOL

Going back to the WP:THREE challenge. As I have said there is the primary source, and the one I have given

Then school visit to the Holocaust Memorial

Hosting Syrian Refugee children

School protest at ending of Refugee Hosting

Fundraising concerts

[This pdf https://www.breisgau-hochschwarzwald.de/pb/site/Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald/get/params_E-1908479547_Dattachment/956309/Infobrosch%C3%BCre%20Allgemeinbildende%20Gymnasien%20im%20Landkreis%2003.2015.pdf] Kreis also describe the Lande.

And an article about the Kreis with a significant description of the Gymnasium [https://doczz.net/doc/5785187/infobrosch%C3%BCre-gymnasien-im-landkreis Gymnasium in the Kreis.

I leave it there tonight, but this are does need to be properly documented. Have you any thoughts? As for this stub, I am inclined to encourage a new article on the Allgemeine Gymnasium in Breisgau, to act as container, and create six new redirects to that article, one for each of Gymnasiums. Then turn this into a redirect. We probably need a disamb page too, as there are lots of Albert-Schweitzer-Gymnasium around. Apologies for the spelling errors- as German mutates and capitalises all nouns- it is a compromise- my fingers will type in one language while my head remains in the other. ClemRutter (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts on my end, to me a large part of WP:THREE that they should be quality sources and just trivial cruft. There is also the requirement that any source address the subject directly and in-depth. Which I think goes along with the whole "quality over quantity" thing that I think is the point in WP:THREE.

So, given that, I don't think things like articles about "the school" visiting a holocaust memorial really cuts it. Especially in this case because despite the name of the article (which is massively miss-leading), it was only eleventh graders and they did an online tour. Plus the whole second half the article is about life Jews after WW2. Which really isn't about the school. I'd say maybe it would pass with better sources if the article was fully about the school, the whole school actually went, and it wasn't just a run of the mill online tour that literally anyone of us could do right now on our computers. Ultimately though, what's notable about a class visiting a website of a museum? Yes, I'm aware there's the whole "you write seminar papers and finally take an oral exam, which is counted towards the Abitur exam", but students doing exams on what they learn is extremely WP:MILL. I don't think the other sources you provided are any better. School fundraise concerts.

Your idea about the Gymnasium and redirecting things sounds somewhat solid though. I'm usually fine with any alternative to deletion as long as someone is willing to do it and it's not just maintaining the status quo. In this case, I don't think an article about school fundraising drives or some students visiting a website would really cut it. That goes for however you want to define the term "school." --Adamant1 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have to stay on focus here. The test is whether the sources exist- were they substantial. Arguing about quality is for a GAN. All your concerns can be exercised there! ClemRutter (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are substantial or not has to do with quality does it not? Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not pass WP:SCHOOL nor WP:GNG, no RS and no real content for an article here. --hroest 19:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an institution, article proposes no grounds for notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alexandermcnabb thanks for coming on board- but what a palaver. We have two schools on the same site on the outskirts Freiburg im Breisgau both of which are inherently interesting, and people are getting heavy without understanding the area or the references and the experiments being made. As I have probably said elsewhere, when I am doing one of these AFD reviews I try to resist the temptation of adding to or writing the article in question.

To try and lighten the mood I googled ' Cuckoo Clocks in Titisee ' (15 mile up the road) then 'Cuckoo Clocks in Grundelfinger' . That gave many interesting descriptions and a map reference (48°02′28″N 7°52′16″E / 48.04106°N 7.87110°E)showing the joint campus with Gemeinschaftscule Gundelfingen- but it is more than that, en:Gemeinschaftsschule hasn't been written de:Gemeinschaftsschule explains the relationship between the GMS and the GYM, a Baden-Würtemburg peculiarity. In Manchester terms it probably is an extended elementary school, with selection at several ages. Both schools need an article. now a change of terms for Google and there are loads more badische-zeitung references on the rebuild of the Gundelfinger Schulzentrum.

Much though Titisee and the Schwarzwald are physically lovely, a visit to a Holocaust Museum with a class of kids- is a notable potentially brave act. ClemRutter (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is visiting a website as part of a school assignment, even if it's about the holocaust, at all "potentially brave" or even notable? I've heard some pretty hyperbolic excuses to keep articles, but that one really tops them. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get a barnstar for that? I'd love to meet up and share a few beers. There are certain things that I won't put on paper- but will discuss in person. I guess you have to know the location. I guess you have had to organised school exchanges and have some knowledge of teenage and parental sensitivities in the region. Still we have moved on and the new searches on the new keywords have produced load of stuff on the schulzentrum- and a possible rename. We now have stuff on the school architect- and how they organise their Mittteler Reife and Abitur etc. But focus on the task -time for a judgement to be made- I've put the beer in the fridge.ClemRutter (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll have to take your word for it since I'm not that up on the culture of German schools. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Non notable institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Kolma8 (talk) 19:01, 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 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Girls' Youth Pan-American Volleyball Cup squads[edit]

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

Squads for a U-18 tournament sourced only to the tournament website, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable names. I also question the notability of the tournament itself. Ajf773 (talk) 10:18, 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)} 10:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no navigational purpose to this article nor is there any evidence that this topic is covered by independent sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above can't see any navigational purpose to this article nor is there any evidence that this topic is covered by independent sources. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2019 Girls' Youth Pan-American Volleyball Cup#Squads if that article is even considered notable (as per Ajf773's comment). I don't think it would be disruptive to that article seen as it's already mainly a list. - Mullafacation {talk page|user page} 10:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every single name is a red-link and can all be traced back to a single source. I don't see the importance to name everyone who participated. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 6 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 12:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Process Automation[edit]

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

An unsourced and promotional stub on a company that fails NCORP. I wanted to CSD but the article was created way back in 2007. M4DU7 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches find routine listings of this and associated Finance, Devices and Marketing company entities, but not the coverage needed to support the claims in the article or to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:21, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunaini Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO.WP:GNG may apply because her grandmother was a famous, notable singer, All sources seem to be just reinforcing "granddaughter of X is also a singer", rather than talking about the granddaughter in particular. I don't think one gets an article just because they are related to someone famous. Daiyusha (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notabilty can't be inherited. No significant coverage about her and her own work that's beyond the notable relatives. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability, it fails WP:MUSICBIO Notability cant be inherited Samat lib (talk) 19:19, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frosted Ambassador[edit]

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

Irrespective of whether this is the secret brainchild of a notable musician, sources do not exist to render this project notable. BD2412 T 04:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impossible to find. It could be something that never took off from the very beggining henceforth the lack of sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this is a thing. No evidence this is a notable thing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. does not meet GNG. At all. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I managed to find some songs from this project at Apple Music [17] so it does exist. This item also has a sort-of review at AllMusic [18] written by a usually reliable staff member, but I suspect that the guy never actually heard the album and only reported its bizarre origin story, which in turn was probably meant as an inside joke for fans of the musicians involved. The retail sphere adds confusion about whether it was released by a band also called Frosted Ambassador or if it was under the name Eric Harris. Only of interest to a small esoteric community, with no reliable or significant media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:53, 5 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 00:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Kirillova[edit]

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

I've checked ITF Tennis and Core Tennis and can't see any WTA main draw appearances, any significant titles or any senior grand slam appearances for either singles or doubles. I also can't see any Fed Cup appearances nor did her junior career ever reach the level of being top 3 or winning a junior grand slam tournament. I am, therefore, concerned that WP:NTENNIS is still failed, as it was before. I also can't find anything that could be considered as significant media coverage, addressing Kirillova in depth, which was also an issue that caused this article to be deleted before.

I will happily withdraw if evidence is presented that refutes my above argument. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. Keep As far as I know I assume it meets the requirements for playing junior fed cup in juniors.I found an article in the assets.usta.com and also one in the web.archive.org.

It's not nice to have my article deleted or nominated. While creating articles, I work like other wikipedia users. I find resources for the articles I have created. User:Vecihi91^{User talk:Vecihi91} 20:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a member of WP:TENNIS will correct me here but I don't think that playing in the Junior Fed Cup means that you meet WP:NTENNIS. It says Junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won at least a junior Grand Slam title, have been in the top-3 of the junior ITF world rankings, or can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. and Kirillova's junior career meets none of those. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note that I have asked WT:TENNIS to clarify whether Junior Fed Cup counts towards NTENNIS as that seems to be the sole claim to notability for this person. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She does not meet ANY Project Tennis Guideline. Junior Fed Cup has no presumption of notability. Now, her team did win the Junior Fed Cup title so it is quite possible there could be GNG with her, but it will have to be proved by sourcing. What's interesting is the person who created this article also created an article this links to... 2009 Junior Fed Cup Final and dozens more like it, which also are likely to be non-notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck(click) - I agree that many of the Fed Cup final articles are problematic. A few are now at AfD and PROD as a result. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, junior achievements are not notable. Geschichte (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, junior fed cup is not notable. Stryn (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not seeing coverage sufficient to meet GNG (which is the only relevant notability guideline). JoelleJay (talk) 23:24, 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhankar Tawde[edit]

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

Does not pass notability criteria. Creator of article immediately removed Notability tag. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass NACTOR or GNG. All films/shows except one are non-notable and WP:BOMBARDMENT of sources with little substance. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Indian actor. Article does not pass NACTOR or GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:30, 4 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) 19:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Kerma[edit]

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in Sept 2017. I can't find any reliable sources via G-search, G-news etc. The presence of external links (checked; not suitable to confer notability) makes this ineligible for sticky PROD. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any sources to satisfy WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found one review in German where she is mentioned for a paragraph or so. However, I found that she is in two middling-quality collections, thus the !vote. I also trimmed the article of unsoruced material. --- Possibly (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found another source in Modern Painters. Spring1999, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p115-116 via EBSCO in the Wikipedia Library. It's fairly extensive. Vexations (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I worked Vexations' source into the article. Along with the two collections, I think it's more than enough to pass WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going with keep. There will be a lot more sources in German. Also, we could make this article pass via WP:BASIC. The more I dig into sources on Google Books, she's exhibited at The Courtauld, for example. Also, newspapers.com shows a review of an exhibition in the Guardian - she is mentioned in various Guardian articles reviewing group shows, too. Missvain (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per discussion and improvements. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable as per the sources, Missvain point. Sonofstar (talk) 13:27, 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.