Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 03 May 05 >

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 merge to Canadian Unitarian Council. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Unitarian Universalist Women's Association[edit]

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

Deprodded without explanation by an IP. Fails WP:NORG; a BEFORE search yielded no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cabayi (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Fenwick[edit]

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

Looks to fail GNG. EpicPupper (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pages 164 to 173 of ISBN 9780198836605, an OUP book, seem fairly in-depth. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose as Grand Fenwick series and delete the trivia. The novels, the film adaptations, etc. are worth an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the author's article or repurpose as stated above if the series has enough potential as an article. The fictional location itself does not seem to have enough content at this time as a standalone topic. TTN (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uncle G has identified a good substantial source above and it is easy to find more such as this and that. The topic therefore passes WP:GNG and numerous policies indicate that deletion is not appropriate including WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree with KEEP. Four books and two movies surely qualifies as important enough. We have many articles of lesser themes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:6a01:ad31:7563:1ab1:35be:1251 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per rationale provided by Uncle G. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Borino[edit]

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

Unsourced, and appears to have been that way since it was created in 2006 (it was successfully PRODed months earlier). No evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO. EddieHugh (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article which simply reproduces information from the subject's own site, with no claim to notability. Searches find brief reviews of the subject's band ([1]) and passing mentions of his previous involvement in a "TNT Jazz Band" but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability according to the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated above. NOTE: We could possibly redirect to Airborne (band), of which Borino is a member. However, I checked them out and they have the same notability issues. Their article has a list of "Awards" but several of them are actually invitations to join committees. Interested voters might consider taking action at the band's article too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was unable to locate any in-depth coverage in sources independent of him; I agree with the points made above Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 A.S. Roma season[edit]

2021–22 A.S. Roma season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL season doesn't start until August; too early to create yet SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 20:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Soccer-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think CRYSTALBALL applies here when the new season is to start soon, particularly given today's announcement about the new manager... GiantSnowman 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until there is content to add to a season article. Until that point, there is no need for a placeholder article. There will be an article at this title, but there's no reason for it to exist in mainspace at this time. OK, not going to hold up a keep when consensus is otherwise clear, although I don't think it needs to be in mainspace yet. StarM 00:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This isn't a case of deleting, but of adding more information. José Mourinho had signed on starting with the 2021–22 season so a section can be added for that and explaining the move. The club is also confirmed to be in Serie A for next season. It's happening, that is for sure. If you want, you can add to the article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the announcement of José Mourinho as the new manager for this season and the amount of coverage already on that subject, this really is a no-brainer! Govvy (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This event is clearly notable and 99.999999999% to take place. In the event that COVID caused the entire season to be cancelled, which seems highly unlikely, we could revisit, but for now I see no reason to delete an article only to have to re-create it in a few weeks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at worst is a couple of weeks early. Given there's significant news coverage already about the upcoming season, seems rather a nit-picky nomination. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The level of competiton for 2021–22 has been established and there has been high-profile coverage of Mourinho's move to Roma. Eagleash (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not WP:TOOSOON, waste of time nom. SportingFlyer T·C 14:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Gyurov[edit]

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

17 minutes of professional football 10 years ago constitutes a very weak passing of WP:NFOOTBALL. It's worth noting that the footballer does not appear to have any active career; no record of him playing after 2016 anywhere.

A Bulgarian search yielded no significant coverage whatsoever. He is mentioned twice in passing in this Darik News article and has one passing mention in Sport VT. I'm not seeing any evidence of a WP:GNG pass for Gyurov. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 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. GiantSnowman 20:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think the minor references + the sporting databases + passing NFOOTY is good enough for me.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Rivers Primary School[edit]

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

Primary schools do not get auto-notability. No indication of why this is notable. Rusf10 (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's zero references in the article and all I could find about it in a BEFORE is some trivial name drops in school directories and articles about how things. Plus, a few local news pieces about it opening. None of that passes the notability standards of WP:GNG or WP:NORG though. So, unless someone can find WP:THREE in-depth usable sources that I might have missed (although I doubt I did) there's zero reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, can't find any news reliable news for this. RockOften (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Out of interest, how many of you commenting above are Zimbabwean? How many of you have experience of what is notable and what is not notable within Zimbabwe? Do you understand the way in which things are reported or discussed online, either in Zimbabwe, or in Africa generally - especially given the lack of digitisation in our nations? Or do you just judge by Western, colonial and imperialist standards? How much of your commentariat is simple racism against African institutions? "Here is an African institution", you might say, "which does not live up to our European and American levels of coverage on the internet. Therefore it does not fulfil the criteria we have invented and by which only our Western institutions can succeed". That is exactly the criteria that the colonialists used to prevent black Africans from voting before Independence. Mangwanani (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mangwanani, Get off it. The only person espousing a political agenda here is you. This discussion is about whether or not this article reaches Wikipedia notability standards. That's all. Your remarks are incredibly in bad faith, almost to the point of being sanctionable You've not made a single argument toward Wikipedia policy at all. So please, as succinctly as possible, explain how this article meets some Wikipedia notability standard. Importance=/= notability, and if you wish to argue that Wikipedia has bias in its notability standards, Village Pump is the place to do that. 174.212.228.209 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Playing the race card in an AfD, this is a new one. Your comments are disgusting.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not playing anything. I have simply posited a few questions. I note you have replied to none of them. This is very revealing of how dismissive you are of African achievements. Mangwanani (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the racism card in AfDs isn't new at all. It frequently comes up in AfDs about anything outside of a few narrow "Western" places. I've been accused of it more then a few times myself. Including being called anti-sematic once for nominating an article about a donut business in Israel, because of course I must hate Jews if I'm nominating an article about a donut chain with only a few locations and zero references. Unfortunately, there's nothing you can really do about it. Except ignore it. If you even point out that someone is accusing you of racism they and other people will just counter that your being bad faithed and taking the person out of context. So, it what it is.
In the meantime, I find it hilarious that people like Mangwanani project their judgement of us all being "Westerners" with zero experience of how things really work in "Africa." As if doing so isn't as racist as what their claiming or like "Africa" is a homogeneous place with the same low standards or ways of doing things everywhere. The soft bigotry of low expectations in action. Personally, I'd say there is no such thing as "African achievement" because people from Africa aren't a single group and it's rather insulting to act like they are. That's just my "Westerner" perspective though and I don't feel a need to discuss it beyond that. Less the usual riff raff come slithering out of the boards to decry my comment as bad faithed incivility. Lesson of the day everyone, it's fine to call people racists. It's not fine to point out how the person is calling others racists. And that's all I'm saying about it (please don't come for me!!! Please!!!!). --Adamant1 (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you still have not answered my question. Are you judging notability purely by Western standards of how much something appears on the internet? Because that it not a criterion for notability in Africa. For example, try and find a photograph online of the official State portrait of our illustrious former President, Robert Mugabe, who is now late. You will not find such a picture, except maybe one small one in low resolution. Yet this picture used to hang in every single public building in Zimbabwe. Does that mean this photograph is not "notable"? When you judge a fish by how well it can climb a tree, then it will surely always fail your tests. Mangwanani (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Flying Spaghetti Monster (he boiled for our sins. Prove he didn't). --Adamant1 (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note you have replied to none of them. That's right! I refuse to respond to hateful allegations of racism.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was but no allegation. I only asked the questions. I made no statement nor assertion. But I see from your Talk page that you have a record of maltreatment towards others. Come, come. Let this be a place of building and sharing humanity's knowledge, not deleting things out of spite because you see no importance of it. My friend, read this page for your enlightenment: Wikipedia:Chesterton's fence Mangwanani (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the thing to do in that case be to create an article for the choir then? Or are you expecting an article about the school to not have any verified, in-depth details about it except for a section on the choir? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Law[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Previously deleted Articuno appears (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Articuno appears (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the previously "WP:A7-d" article (in 2016) was about a different person of a similar name. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are articles about her in Scrum Magazine but I can't access them. They may well have significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Does fail WP:NRU but there is a lot of coverage, and I imagine some of the coverage in Scrum Magazine would constitute SIGCOV as they tend to do more than just match reports and announcements. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Has some coverage to qualify for GNG. Purosinaloense T/K 12:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment recent article (if it is the same person) compares her to a chess player in control of her team [1] Kaybeesquared (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the coverage in Scotsman and Six Nations Rugby is just about enough for WP:GNG in my opinion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would agree with the argument that she has received enough coverage to meet general notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luana D'Orazio[edit]

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

Although tragic, not really notable enough for Wikipedia. Could perhaps have a sentence or two on COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article had very strong media coverage and well constructed. It had a strong impact on Italian public opinion for the young victim, a debut actress and model, a worker and a mother in an Italy heavily affected by the COVID-19 pandemic that tries to restart its artisan companies. Peter39c (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG as she is not notable enough for an article. She had all of one uncredited role in her acting career and her death is indeed tragic but does not establish notability. Removed the "Aftermath" section that was nothing but soapbox content. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 21:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Death, while tragic, is not enough for an article on Wikipedia. One uncredited role is not significant coverage. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No personal evidence Telex80 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I´m sorry but also vote for Delete, as she had just one film made.--Bodhi-Baum (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This poor girl only made the headlines because of the manner of her death, and has exactly zero notability. • Huferpad talk 10:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous votes - DrachenFyre (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with everything that has been said so far. Despite the extremely tragic death, the page doesn't satisfy the encyclopedicity criteria. AleCapHollywood (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep, I'm afraid it's an open and shut case. Deb (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a notable person. The circumstances surrounding her death may be controversial, but that does not justify an article about the person, who had a minor part in one movie. Ref (chew)(do) 09:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdraw. (non-admin closure) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Célestin Mouyabi[edit]

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

Not notable (only includes 2 sources) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Playing for the national team meets the WP:GNG criteria. Number of refs is a) not a reason for deletion and b) in this specific case 2 refs for a stub article is the going rate. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First the nom's rationale isn't a reason for deletion. How are they non-notable? Why does only 2 sources = deletion? Secondly, the person meets WP:NFOOTY having played for the national team. And thirdly, a quick WP:BEFORE finds stuff like this which states he was also the team captain and later became the national coach. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 01:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Kasperovich[edit]

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

This is a directory entry on a gymnast who competed, but did not medal, in two Oliympic Games. It's a re-creation of a directory entry originally created by banned creator of directory entries, user:User:Sander.v.Ginkel. Google "Dmitry Kasperovich" gymnast finds 96 results, all directories. The only source is a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. A preference for completeness among devotees of a particular sporting event cannot overcome WP:NOT and WP:GNG Guy (help! - typo?) 18:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Olympians are notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, y'all need to look a little frickin' harder. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jonel, no, there is no such thing as inherent notability. Find me the sources for Bill Thornton, multi-olympiad wheelchair basketball and swimming medallist. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now where have we heard Thornton's name before? Oh yes someone Guy knows. But he doesn't have an article. Shame. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are some questions about some of the sources, post expansion. Please see the article's talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One would need to search in Russian: This is a full-scale source covering the whole career; there is plenty of news coverage (example 1, example 2).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a bit of info based on this source.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Clearly notable, no longer a "directory" either. Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madurawala Maha Vidyalaya[edit]

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

Non-notable school, article cites no meaningful sources, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:NSCHOOL, the only credible source confirms the school exists not that it is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability is not established, fails WP:GNG. SunDawn (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abinet Agonafir[edit]

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

Subject of the article is a singer that satisfies no criterion from WP:SINGER and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a colossal GNG fail. A before search turns up nothing of substance. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what does GNG stand for? As for the article, he's quite well known Ethiopian artist, but as is the case with many Ethiopian artists, there are not many articles in English about them. The demand from abroad comes mostly from the Ethiopian diaspora purchasing their music or visiting concerts.Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dawit S Gondaria, GNG refers to our general notability guideline. AngryHarpy‍talk 05:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AngryHarpy:, Thanks, i expanded the article with the addition of a source, a website in his name https://abinetabagonafir.com/music/ it looks more like a tribute website rather than a official one, so i don't know what Wikipedia policy is towards it. Many Ethiopian artists don't have a website, it's a gray area where savy young opportunist make websites to sell merchandise of a well known, but not recently active artists. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawit S Gondaria: sources do not necessarily have to be in English, but they do have to exist. Indeed, the Wikipedia article should be written to summarize what the best available sources say about the subject. If he is as well-known as you say, then it should be possible to find plenty of coverage about him in newspapers, magazines, etc.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawit S Gondaria, the source you provided above, this one is not a reliable source as it appears to user-generated. See WP:RS. I’m afraid the subject of your article may not be notable just yet. Celestina007 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, sources used in the article are mostly self-published or user-generated. The recordings of the subject have not charted on national music charts, or received certifications or accolades. --Ashleyyoursmile! 15:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007 & Gronk Oz i searched via Bing and the same website did came up as official website >> https://abinetabagonafir.com/ you can book him, and if you scroll below you can find links to his official social media instagram, youtube, facebook, telegram. Seems legit to me. But if that's not enough go ahead and delete it. It will one day probably pop up as is with many other Ethiopian pages. The problem is Ethiopia is 50 years behind in digital environment, most still buy newspaper or magazines, and don't digitize articles, even the most renowned artists like Bahru Kegne(Ethiopian stature equivelant to American Louis Jordan) or Kassa Tessema have very little exposure on search engines, and therefore have no pages. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawit S Gondaria: sources do not have to be online. If there are newspaper articles about him, that is a good start - whether they are digitized or not. But his social media don't contribute to notability: anybody can create those and say anything. Wikipedia is interested in what other, independent sources have said about him. It does not need to be in English, and it does not need to be online.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gronk Oz: Okay that's good to know, because there a lot of non-english/Amharic sources about Ethiopian artists. Question, how do you provide reference/confirm verifiability to a source when asked for? Do i then just upload the non-English article/text on wikipedia? I do have some about other artists. Unfortunately I don't have the specific magazine for Abinet Agonafir at hand. I'm going to reach out to him on his social media and email, and ask if he can direct us to a independent website that can confirm his accolades/achievements on national charts, If that's not a issue per Wikipedia policies? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawit S Gondaria: There is a description of how to cite non-English sources at WP:NONENG. Basically, the most important thing is just to put the details of where you found the information. If it is a newspaper article, provide the author, date, article title, page number, and the work (the name of the newspaper). I like to use the {{cite news}} template, but if you prefer you can just type out the details.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @Gronk Oz: for your guidance on this matter. As for Abinet Agonafir page, i have reached out to him via social media(facebook & instagram messages), i will also be sending him a email. Don't know how long it takes for him to reply, if he does reply. What to do with this page? Delete it and create the page again when independent sources are available? Or wait for reply? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawit S Gondaria: That will depend on the outcome of this Deletion discussion. The Administrators might allow some time to improve the article before deciding. Even if they do delete it, you can request to have a copy put into your user space so you can work on improving it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gronk Oz: Oke, while i'm waiting for a reply from Abinet Agonafir. I also requested assistance @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article subject passes WP:GNG, even if not by much and even if they don't meet WP:NHOCKEY. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ève Gascon[edit]

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

Although the criteria for WP:NHOCKEY are more vague for women than they are for men, she still fails. Particularly, point #6 specifies that only playing on a senior national team for the World Championship qualifies for notability, and she only played on a U18 team. Give her a few years. Kncny11 (shoot) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 (shoot) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 (shoot) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 (shoot) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 (shoot) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. Regardless of the weirdly specific and arbitrary per-sport guidelines, she has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. These are well past the WP:ROUTINE coverage one might expect for the average athlete. Examples already in the article include Hockey News Canada ("The Masked History Maker") and Le Journal de Quebec ("Une gardienne en renfort"). These are both profiles of the subject, demonstrating that she passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: As it happens, the NHOCKEY guidelines are the result of painful years of Wikilawyers gaming the initial common sense rules; the one I figure pburka's complaining about comes from that there are "world championship" competitions involving 14 year olds and fringe nations that will never, ever come anywhere near close to a genuine world championship. It is no more "arbitrary" than every other single notability guideline or criterion on Wikipedia. Further, pburka's analysis is off: of the two sources cited above, hockeycanada.ca is the umbrella organization governing the teenage national team for which the subject played (and is thus a primary source), while the other is an interview of the subject, and therefore cannot be used to support the subject's notability.

    That being said, there are two reliable, independent, third-party sources in the article giving substantive coverage (La Presse and Radio-Canada), just barely enough to squeak by. Ravenswing 02:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about Hockey Canada. I had misidentified the source as The Hockey News, an independent news source, but I was mistaken. pburka (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although I agree with Ravenswing' "weak" categorization. When I reviewed the article, I felt there was barely enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, without having to go into the NHOCKEY SNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Arora[edit]

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

Fails WP:Author and WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR, she has created [...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work [has] been the primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews: The New Indian Express (12 December 2017), The Better India (2 September 2015), Deccan Chronicle (31 January 2018). Beccaynr (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, agreed on Deccan. The New Indian Express is taking to Edex Live (part of NEI but not NEI [2] which is more of a profiling and not exactly discussing her work - and hence won't exactly be considered an independent source. The Better India is hardly reliable. I don't think this is enough. There is basically no reception of her work. The fact that she wrote the book and it exists is surely not enough. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for following up - I was concerned that my comment was less than clear. As an initial matter, The Better India appears to be sufficiently reliable to support WP:BASIC notability, and the article is focused on her as an author and discusses two of her works, but it may be a stretch to fully support WP:AUTHOR. However, I think the NEI/Edexlive source is more focused on her books and seems like an 'independent periodical article' about her 'collective body of work,' because it includes a discussion of reactions to Lemon Girl, her next book You Came like Hope, and a brief mention of her upcoming work, and also offers support for WP:BASIC by providing in-depth reporting about her. I also added this review to the article, but I think the combination of the news sources that discuss Aurora and her work collectively are sufficient to establish her notability, at minimum per WP:BASIC and particularly due to the depth and focus of the reporting. Beccaynr (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey, thanks for a detailed response. First of all, I appreciate you are defending the article in good faith! review This seems to be a blog and hence should not count to anything at all. NEI/Edexlive - I would have considered it wholly independent if it was not in a Q&A format. I won't rule it out completely but I would find it difficult to contribute to WP:Author. On The Better India, I didn't find anything on WP:RSP on TBI but the intro itself says 'positive stories' - I am unsure if they would criticize work of an artist like or neutrally report. Subject is a survivor - and she has written books that she published herself. Self-published work, first of all, is not considered notable in its own accord (some exceptions may exist) as per WP:NBOOK. WP:Basic requires the coverage to be independent of the subject. I am not convinced that it is. And even if it is, we would certainly need more, won't we? My challenge is this: anyone writing multiple books and publishing them on Amazon (which ain't difficult at all now) and generate some coverage that the subject is involved in - should not be presumed notable. I would have changed my mind if there were multiple independent detailed reviews of her work at reliable publications. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey, I have been going through everything again to ensure that I am not sending a valid article to nomination. I think our argument to notability hinges primarily on three sources. TBI article [3] also has her email id in the end and has details of her entire childhood. I don't think it can be considered an independent source. It also says 'Both her novels have garnered positive reviews from readers as well as critics.' I have not found any reviews from critics (hence my question of reliability of what is written at TBI). This being out, we are left with two. NEI/EDI [4] - again, partially independent. The 'discussion' about her books are basically few lines about the plot. I won't call it a discussion at all honestly. AND, I couldn't help but notice that 'Following her second book, Lemon Girl, which was about rape and victim-blaming, and quintessentially feminist, the trolls relentlessly sent her newspaper clippings of incidents where the opposite has been proven too.' This paragraph is absolutely same in NEI and DC article! Along with this 'The author confesses that while it was easier to write this book, it was far harder for her to imagine.' Now it looks like the two are intellectually connected and she might have just given content from her own side that was repurposed for two different articles. I have also added evidence of self-publishing at talk page. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBI appears to be independent due to the reporting on her life, medical condition, and advocacy, as well her career and books. The inclusion of her email address does not appear to impair its independence, including because of the context in which it is presented, i.e. her advocacy. I also think that despite its 'positivity,' it still supports WP:BASIC notability, because there are other sources that feature 'positive' stories, such as Forbes, that can support the notability of a subject. It also seems possible that the reference to 'critics,' in the context of other reporting, refers to the 'trolling' she experienced after Lemon Girls, but I do not think a vague reference to reviews impairs the support otherwise provided for her notability, especially given the variety of blog reviews that exist. Also, The NEI and DC articles are written by different authors, and while some content is similar, it is not exactly the same:
content comparison

NEI: "Following her second book, Lemon Girl, which was about rape and victim-blaming, and quintessentially feminist, the trolls relentlessly sent her newspaper clippings of incidents where the opposite has been proven too."
DC: "Following Jyoti Arora’s second book, the ‘quintessentially feminist’ Lemon Girl, which was on rape and victim-blaming, the author was floored with Twitter trolls who relentlessly sent her newspaper clippings of incidents where the opposite has been proven too."
NEI: "And though writing her second book came easier to her, this one was harder to imagine. Arora also confesses that being a "slow writer" was one of the reasons it took her three years to complete her latest."
DC: "The author confesses that while it was easier to write this book, it was far harder for her to imagine."

    • I also think the key for supporting WP:BASIC notability is the additional content in the articles that provide context and commentary, because If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I have also added information on the Talk page about how You Came like Hope is not self-published (although WP:AUTHOR does not appear to require this to support BLP notability). Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, Yes, I saw that and strikedthrough my comment on vanity press (First time I have done it and had to find out how to!). I also agree that WP:Author is not required and is an additional criteria. I still feel it doesn't meet WP:Basic, specially after the analysis since none of three sources are independent. Also, thanks for the comparison - they are not verbatim same but say the same thing essentially. It seems to be repurposed content of provided material. No two journalist will use the terms like 'quintessentially feminist' in their own intellectually independent pieces. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted in the table above, the two journalists did not use the term in the same manner - one used it to describe one of her books, and one put the phrase in quotes, so it appears to be independent usages of the phrase. It also apparently is how the book is known, so it does not appear to detract from the independence of writers to describe it as such; when writers describe a book by its genre, it does not impair their independence, and in this instance, the writers are not using the same term in the same way. Beccaynr (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, those two sources are definitely not independent – they are based on the same press release. That there has been minimal rephrasing does not change the fact that it is the same source, and a primary source at that. (The same PR has also been published by Asian Age.) I am going to remove the Deccan Chronicle version of the PR. I'm not sure what "when writers describe a book by its genre, it does not impair their independence" means. "Quintessentially feminist" is not a genre, it is a marketing phrase, which is presumably taken from the book's cover blurbs. --bonadea contributions talk 16:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    bonadea, do you have any evidence of this so-called press release? Beccaynr (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "So-called"? It is a press release, as shown above. The evidence is in your own content comparison post, and in the post of mine that you responded to. The same text has been published in at least three different newspapers – this is churnalism, a very common phenomenon, and one we have to be aware of. --bonadea contributions talk 16:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From my view, the content comparison chart shows the articles are different. The Asian Age and DC articles are the same, so only one is included in the article. But the Edexlive is obviously a different article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a matter of points of view – it is an undeniable fact that the two sources are the same. I'm not going to edit war over it as the article will be deleted anyway, but for the future it is imprtant that you realise that a press release that is slightly rephrased and re-published is the same source. In other contexts, it would have been plagiarism, but churnalism does not operate by those rules. --bonadea contributions talk 16:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as shown above WP:NAUTHOR is not met, and neither is WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in multiple independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC and Beccaynr's sources. I agree that the sources might not be of the highest quality, and its quite likely that the writers used some common source material, but calling them press releases without evidence is incorrect. The three sources presented each have credited authors, and unless there's evidence that these publishers have a reputation for unreliability or plagiarism we should assume they're legitimate. pburka (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey pburka, thanks for your response here. WP:BASIC would still need sources to be independent. While they might not be what a standard press release looks like, they are certainly influenced by a common source provided by the subject as demonstrated by bonadea. Having a credited author shouldn't automatically make a source independent. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen no evidence that Arora wrote any of the news reports herself, nor that they're based on something she wrote. It's pure speculation. pburka (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we already know that the Deccan Chronicle source is a press release. Compare that source with this from the Asian Age (which is not in the article). There is nothing immoral or sneaky about publishing a press release, and no reason not to acknowledge the fact that that source is a PR. The Indian Express source here is much less clear-cut: a little less than half of the text is also present in the Deccan Chronicle article (and there is no question about that part of the text having a common origin), which means that a little more than half of it is not from there. But that 55% (or however much it is) mainly consists of direct quotes from the author, which means that it is still a a primary source, and so it cannot be used to determine notability. I hope this makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeatedly saying that something is a press release doesn't make it so. All we know with certainty is that the articles have some similar phrases. Unless you can cite the press release, or a journalist cites it, you're speculating. pburka (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Deccan Chronicle and Asian Age articles are reprints of the same article, by the same author, which does not make it a press release, because scrolling down on the website, it is clear that Deccan and Asian Age have the same publisher. Beccaynr (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by User:Beccaynr showing that she meet WP:BASIC. VocalIndia (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: As a creator of this article I refrained from voting. But it has been relisted. This article clearly passes WP:GNG. Editors need to understand that sources vary from region to region, country to country. Sources in this one might not be of high esteem as The New York Times but they are certainly from established media in India. Dial911 (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is surely turning interesting and becoming a very good medium to learn (at least for me). One thing I am pretty sure is that it doesn't have enough for WP:GNG. I believe that Beccaynr would also agree on that and what we are evaluating is if it qualifies for WP:Basic. Even if we evaluate for WP:BASIC, we need multiple. From what I remembered from a discussion with Celestina007 is that if for GNG we would need at least three, for WP:BASIC it should be at least more than that. For now, even for Basic, if we only consider reliable sources, we have [5], [6], [7] and the asian age reprint. I had problems with TBI source as well but even if we count that in, we only have 3-4 sources which is not enough for WP:BASIC. If 3-4 non WP:SIGCOV coverages are enough, WP:GNG has no sense any more in a way. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nomadicghumakkad I think reading WP:NPF and WP:NTEMP would clarify. Having 3-4 sources is enough for the amount of content this article has. The goal of encyclopedia is to contain information about people and things that might be useful for the readers/users. Unless a BLP is poorly sourced or infringes copyright, I don't see any reason to get it deleted. Everything else like tone, inline citations and a whole lot of other things can be fixed, and it aligns with Alternatives to Deletion policy. Ask yourself if the sources given are poor. But if you think sources are not that high quality but also not poor, then take it easy. Dial911 (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Dial911, I read both but don't see their context here. Oppositely, WP:NPF says that only use high quality sources and we are all of a consensus that the sources are pretty average. I have no questions or concerns on WP:NTEMP. What I rather believe is that any BLP should be sourced with high quality sources - otherwise, with the ease online news websites are selling themselves off, Wikipedia will be another yellow pages. Sorry for having a difference in opinion here but my concerns are in good faith. I don't think 3-4 sources that have a lot of content inside double quotes is enough for WP:BASIC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nomadicghumakkad In the end it all comes down to how an editor perceive things. For me, the 3 sources The Edex Live + TBI + Deccan Chronicle are enough to establish notability NTEMP of this NPF individual. Dial911 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* Absolutely agreed on this Dial911. We are simply having a different perception here and we both have complete rights to. I also want to take a moment to appreciate the civility all of us have shown here and presented our opinions with logical reasoning. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, with +1 for civility. WP:NPF also links to WP:LOWPROFILE, and based on the interviews she has given, the books she has written, her blogging, and her writing in The Quint, which is linked in the article, she does not appear to fit the criteria of "low-profile." Beccaynr (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jyoti Arora is featured in many Indian renowned newspapers and she is the author of "Lemon Girl", "Dream's Sake" and some other good books. Deletion is not improvement. This article can have many improvement opportunities. Mommmyy (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided by Beccaynr indicate that WP:NAUTHOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has coverages from independent sources and it seems like passingWP:GNG. (Ashique2020 (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasi Laulile[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Looks like one of those players who teetered at the edge of his break a few times but never quite made it. Kncny11 (shoot) 17:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here is what I've found: two things that could be "significant" coverage: this from the Salt Lake Tribune, and this from the Herald Extra; a paragraph on him in this; some in this; and then routine coverage here, here, here, and here. Not enough to meet GNG though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My searches at Newspapers.com also failed to turn up SIGCOV required to pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen the sources that BeanieFan11 located. Those make it a closer call, but a review of his collegiate record (27 games, 48 total tackles, and one interception in three years with BYU) do not persuade me to change my vote at this time. Cbl62 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alemba[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me to press releases and user generated sources which aren’t considered reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Celestina - this article was posted today and we intend to flesh it out with notable and reliable links. In addition, there are clear links to Infra Corporation, EMC and VMware all of whom have extant Wiki articles. The story of this software is interesting but incomplete without the Alemba chapter. Many thanks.
  • Comment — @Synuge, hello, although you have declared the conflict of interest it does not translate to auto acceptance for your article into mainspace for being honest, I did however find your comment above strange, you used the plural “we” as opposed to the singular “I” it might interest you to know that an editor is not supposed to share their account with anyone so if multiple people are editing via this account you may want to put an end to that now. Furthermore you seem not to understand NCORP works. Organization need to satisfy WP:NCORP for they to be retained on mainspace. We need reliable sources and unfortunately the organization doesn’t seem to be mainspace worthy. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — @Celestina007, (1) Conflict of interest-> autoacceptance. Agreed. (2) Only me using this account. Others will come in using their own accounts. Believe one change has been added already by Martin to add an award given by a company already on Wikipedia. (3) We will continue working to add more content to satisfy the "worthiness" test. Thanks for your guidance.
  • Delete. I'm afraid that none of the 6 sources are valid for WP:N. [1] is a press release and it doesn't mention the subject. [2] confirms a commercial relationship between company A and company B, but it doesn't mean that company B is notable. [3] is a sponsored publication. The "about" section mentions that the customers are charged for such publications. [4] belongs to the company domain. [5] and [6] have the same problems as [3] and [2] respectively. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, with the recommendation that the article be renamed "Narcondam shrew." A WP:BOLD non-admin closure, to be certain, but it is unlikely there would be consensus for its deletion. (non-admin closure) Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norcondam Shrew[edit]

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

It appears that Wikipedia is being used to publish original research - WP:OR. One reference is to a nonreviewed research paper. The other is to a very recently published paper, apparently written by an author of the article. At best, the article is WP:TOOSOON. Geoff | Who, me? 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax and District Association Football League[edit]

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

Yet another low-level subcounty league with only very trivial coverage in local papers. Does not meet WP:FOOTYN's presumption of notability and no evidence of WP:GNG. Online, I found two passing mentions here and here, both in the same local paper. Neither of the articles discuss the league in any depth.

Nothing found in ProQuest about the league nor in Google Books. A British newspaper archive search only yields trivial and infrequent coverage despite the league having a history of over 120 years. Coverage barely takes up more than a small fraction of a column in local publications like Halifax Evening Courier and Todmorden Advertiser and is trivial in nature; results listings, league tables, brief reports on AGMs. I also searched "Halifax and District AFL" and "Halifax and District Association Football League" and found nothing better. Similar case to Guildford and Woking Alliance League. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. I am local-ish (with family even more so) and I have never heard of the league or any of the clubs. GiantSnowman 16:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, no evidence for WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arguments topic meets NPOL are weak, GNG not shown to be met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaick C. Thomas[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Being the president of the state committee of the student wing of a political party is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL. - TheWikiholic (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The subject is a "major local political figure who have received significant press coverage." The coverages are independent and from reliable sources.

Putting it in context, he was the former All India Vice president of Students' Federation of India, one of the largest student organisation in India (also, the former state president of the Kerala SFI unit). He also contested twice in Kerala state Assembly election against the former chief minister of Kerala, oommen chandy (Chandy is winning the constituency from 1970- till date). But he has secured substantial vote share as well. From the kind of media coverage he has received over the period of time itself, he clearly passes WP:NPOL. (Ashique2020 (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC))— Note to closing admin: Ashique2020 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Student organizations are not at the level of NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 03:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : He is not merely a student leader. He is a notable student leader turned politician, who contested twice in Kerala Legislative Assembly Election, representing a national political party CPI(M). (Sanwar nath (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
People do not get Wikipedia articles for being candidates in elections they didn't win, so contesting state legislative assembly elections has absolutely nothing to do with making him notable. Bearcat (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see anything that meets WP:NPOL, yes some people like him, yes there are multiple trivial mentions. Jeepday (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL. Contesting elections and being member of a political organization and holding party posts does not make one notable. Run n Fly (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In legislative seats like Puthupally [one party-dominant seats], where only one candidate has won from 1970, because someone could not win an election should't be the sole criteria to judge about the notability of local politician. Unlike the student leaders in metropolitan cities or elite universities like [eg. JNU in India], those in state universities are definitely at a disadvantage in the so-called mainstream media's "attention economy." Therefore, i think, counting the media coverage of a person in regional media's is important. This is just my personal view. I respect the opinions of other editors regarding the procedural arguments regarding NPOL. I am really confused about how to place activists from margin's. (Ashique2020 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Before asking how you can get a person into Wikipedia without meeting our notability standards, first try explaining why the person needs to be in Wikipedia at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. K. Sekhar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. - TheWikiholic (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article when I was pretty new to Wikipedia. Saw the obituary in news and added a page. Should have been flagged for quick deletion then itself. Agree for deletion now. asdofindia (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, fails WP:POLITICIAN. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. State-level vice-president of a political party is not an "inherently" notable office, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Territories claimed by the Philippines. Anyone can include whatever content to the target article if ever. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Philippines[edit]

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

As per WP:SYNTH, there is no such concept as "Greater Philippines" which include Guam, the Northern Marianas, or at least it is a fringe theory that was never picked up by reliable sources. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus on notability after weighing the arguments. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Unger[edit]

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

CV page created back in 2012 when the notability bar was not as high as it is now. There is little significant coverage outside of sources closely associated with the subject and there is nothing suggesting that they meet wp:anybio. Ch1p the chop (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A glance at subject's references, including articles about him on the front pages of Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Billboard, Screen Daily, etc, as well as his IMDb page would immediately confirm that he a major entertainment industry figure. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject seems notable, but it required clean up badly. I have cleaned up some, more clean ups are welcome. The article is written from a very promotional perspective. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Danger[edit]

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

Band that never received any meaningful coverage or reviews from the typical major media outlets. They've played with some notable bands but that doesn't confer notability itself. Never charted and seems to be a typical garage band that hit a stage a few times. TAXIDICAE💰 12:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Though this "garage" band has not received widespread mainstream success like its counterparts of the time, success in record sales and/or coverage does not solely determine notability. The nearly three dozen references in the article put up a red flag for me for outright deletion. That being said, I am open to the possibility of deletion should the nominator present a more detailed argument, specifically regarding notability. — Paper Luigi T • C 17:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources are in depth coverage, which is required. They're all either non-RS, or not independent. TAXIDICAE💰 17:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As far as I can see, there is not a single reference from a reliable, secondary source in the article. The multitude of references listed are just things like user reviews, track listings, sales pages, etc. Not a single one of them is actual coverage that would pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Searching for any additional references that includes actual coverage from a reliable source turns up nothing. Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of significant, independent coverage is the key point. I agree that notability is not connected to success, but it is connected to the availability of suitable sources. That is what we're lacking here. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Freese[edit]

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

Virtually unsourced BLP dating back to 2007 (!), with likely COI editing by mystery IP editors. I tried searching for sources, but only found a couple of old articles in local papers, nothing even approaching sigcov. I did think of cutting down the content to only that which can be supported by such sources, but fundamentally the problem remains that having worked for Disney for 40 years and playing an instrument simply doesn't suffice for an article. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as enough substantial reliable sources coverage has been identified in this discussion to show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giordano Vanin[edit]

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

Only played in lower division Italian leagues, Livingston stint was six days long, Olbia was Serie C2 in 2005-06. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: contrary to what is asserted in prose (Olbia being a 3rd-division team), he at most played in the Italian 4th division. Also, fails GNG. Nehme1499 15:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not seem to have played at a high enough level anywhere in his career. His very short stay at Livingston did attract some coverage had the time, but this is not enough to make him notable enough for an article. Dunarc (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Vandever[edit]

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

Non-notable college football player, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Teen Titans enemies. ✗plicit 13:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Chaos (DC Comics)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There does not appear to be any particular real world coverage of the character. Mentions are limited to trivial listicles. TTN (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is currently nothing but in-universe plot summaries, sourced only to primary & officially licensed sources. I checked for anything additional, both under the "Lord Chaos" and "Robert Long" names, and came up with nothing in-depth. It could potentially be redirected to List of Teen Titans enemies, where he is already listed (though without a single reliable source there, either), but nothing should be merged as there is no reliably sourced content. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Teen Titans enemies: There are problems with that article as well, but Robert Long got to be the starring villain of an arc in 1991, so redirects are cheap, and he's a plausible enough search term. Considering he hasn't shown up anywhere in almost 20 years, however, I don't think he's enough of a standout to merit his own article. Kncny11 (shoot) 17:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Teen Titans enemies any relevant information can be covered in that article. Rhino131 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Teen Titans enemies, no evidence he meets WP:NFICTION/GNG requirements for a stand-alone article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please discuss renaming, mergers, etc on talk page. Missvain (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Foutouri attack[edit]

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

A sentence or two on Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) would suffice, like every other event on the timeline. Although absolutely dreadful, we cannot create a page for every attack that occurs as part of the insurgency. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In fact we don't create a page for every single attack which is part of an insurgency. However this is the deadliest attack in Burkina Faso since the 2016 Ouagadougou attacks, so is a notable event. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Possibly rename to 2021 Kodyel attack (this is the specific village in the district). Large scale attack with many civilian casualties, and unlike most other event in the insurgency this is covered by international news in an extensive fashion.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kodyel massacre - this is notable enough for an article. No-one's saying that every insurgent attack should have an article, but this one has a death toll of about 30. Without realising this article exists, I created Kodyel massacre minutes later, which I believe is a better title. Jim Michael (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be a reverse merge to here (assuming it survives CSD A10 on it), and then a move to there. But in any case this is the same event.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same event, but performing the merge quickly will prevent the article I created from being deleted. It has some info that's not in here, so merging before either is deleted will give the article a much better chance of surviving long-term. Jim Michael (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: Definitely a reverse merge; yours should be merged into the target.

Keep: As much that I agree with you that not every attack should have an article, this one is significant considering that this is the deadliest attack in Burkina Faso because od the insurgency since the 2016 Ouagadougou ones. • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 17:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cats (band)[edit]

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

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:BAND. References as they stand are to primary sources such as Facebook or to blogs (one of which has more porn pop-up ads that I'd normally expect for a WP reference). nearlyevil665 12:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 12:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 13:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Google search does not turn up reliable sources that are independent of the subject and talk about the subject in depth. The only hits on Google are from self-published and user-generated sites such are Facebook and Spotify, or retailers such as Amazon. The recordings have not charted on national music charts or have received any certifications or accolades. The corresponding article on the Persian Wikipedia also lacks reliable sources. The content has been substantially supported from their website. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the users above. No evidence that this band meets our requirements for notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gagandeep Reehal[edit]

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

probably WP:TOOSOON, as of yet not a notable author, there's no real in depth coverage outside of the dqindia story which is partially an interview. Minus Zero may be notable soon but that doesn't extend to Reehal. Grogudicae👽 11:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved back to draftspace. It can be improved over a period of time until notability is properly verified.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrexcoder (talk • contribs) 08:35, May 4, 2021 (UTC)

The article has been moved back to mainspace. Please leave it there until the discussion concludes.--Auric talk 22:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to clarify, Gagandeep Reehal is not included on Wikipedia as a notable author. His books are a secondary addition to his bio. The notability is due to his R&D in his company, Minus Zero, in making India's first fully Self Driving Vehicle. They have succeeded in retrofitting a e-rickshaw into fully autonomous vehicle in span of 4 months, which is a notable achievement in the Self Driving Tech industry. This achievement have been covered by major news and media houses. And proper sources have been cited at every point. Mrexcoder
Delete WP:TOSOON; maybe if company becomes more notable, but insufficient reliable third-party coverage now. Minus Zero seems like it's a bit closer to meeting notability than Reehal; if the company article were to be accepted, it would be sufficient to mention Rehhal there and have this page redirect there.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOSOON; the point raised is valid. But since the autonomous vehicle industry is progressing at a rapid pace, there are chances that subject might become notable in feasible time period, so article can improved upon by the creator in draft space and submitted for review when it meets appropriate notability guidelines. Mrexcoder (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOSOON; I agree with Ohnoitsjamie. QuantumRealm (meow • telescope) 20:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merve Akıl[edit]

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

A very similar case to Büşra Demirörs. No inherent notability from career to date and no ongoing career either so we need to look at WP:GNG alone.

The only sources cited are the Turkish Football Federation profile page and TSG 05 Bamberg's website, neither of which provide significant coverage nor are they independent of the subject. Google searches turn up no useful results at all and a Turkish source search only yields Wikipedia mirrors, stats websites and results about namesakes. No evidence at all of WP:GNG actually being satisfied. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer. Fails to satisfy inclusion criteria as mentioned before. Ahmetlii (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contextual awareness 101: This athlete played in the top league in Turkey where an estimated 90% of the population speaks Turkish. Where are you based Spiderone? Hmlarson (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any significant coverage from reliable Turkish sources about Akıl? Nehme1499 21:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many, many Turkish female footballers that pass GNG but I can't see any evidence that Akıl is in that category. I am more than happy to be proved wrong. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Ahmed Khan[edit]

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

Nonnotable tv actor with no lead role in notable TV Shows. Fail to pass WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: That there is no lead role this person has played is pretty indicative of the lack of significant coverage about the person. Fails WP:BIO. JavaHurricane 06:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: played only supporting roles. The topic's notability is very weak at this time to pass WP:GNG. Kaspadoo (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Merge discussion can take place elsewhere. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental data rescue[edit]

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

There seems to be an International Environmental Data Rescue Organization, but beyond that I don't see this term being used anywhere. Rusf10 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Data rescue. They are really about the same thing, data rescue is mainly for climate data preservation and collection. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sungodtemple, maybe but I would prefer to keep and then put up some merge banners and see what involved editors have to say. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Utah VHF Society[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Only cited reference is to the org's registration in the state database. No WP:SIGCOV in any reliable sources can be found. Phuzion (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Phuzion (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this organisation. Ajf773 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major William Bertram Bell[edit]

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

A very nice man by all accounts and a long, rich and varied life, but fails WP:GNG as not notable by WP standards. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG are not met. The specific claims to notability seem include being a Major in the British Army (which falls significantly below the [granted deprecated] WP:NSOLDIER guidelines), being a British peer (which doesn't confer notability per WP:PEER#Notability), being married to someone who owned a big house (which doesn't confer notability and wouldn't be WP:INHERITED anyway), and being involved in some charitable organisations (which also isn't notable). There is no evidence of the level of biographical coverage needed to meet GNG/SIGCOV. Frankly this just stands as yet another on the increasing pile of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTGENEALOGY articles created by this user's cabal of socks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not rise to notability for a stand alone article. It reads like an obituary and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold (video game)[edit]

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

This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write a dedicated encyclopedia article on the topic without resorting to original research. Remove the interviews and primary/affiliated sources from the current article and all that's left are passing invocations[14][15]—no extended analysis with which we can write about the game itself.

For additional, uncited coverage: The topic had no substantive analytical coverage either from the decade since our last discussion or those preceding in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. The sourcing questions of 2009 are long resolved now: As a rule, we don't cite WordPress blogs. We don't use expert blogs as indication of wider notability. We use sources that show editorial distance and pedigree. This article is a case study of how an article languishes when we can cite no such source about the actual gameplay, development, reception, or legacy of a topic: Reliable, secondary sources haven't provided enough content with which our encyclopedia can do the topic justice.

For alternatives to deletion: There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as our List of MUDs only lists games with their own articles. czar 06:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 06:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is an Engadget article on the game[16].SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. One reliable source is not sufficient coverage. The various blogs and self-published articles currently used in the article are not reliable, for that matter. IceWelder [✉] 00:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Anderson (photographer)[edit]

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

Cameraman. Doesn't pass independent GNG. Pipsally (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has no inline citations either, which is required for BLPs. --pandakekok9 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here's his website, while it was still up; but its content is not encouraging. I've no enthusiasm for my delete "!vote", because I think that nature photographers get a bum deal; but however unjust the lack of coverage may be, a WP article can't make up for the lack. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She (Yvonne Ohene Djan)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines, both the article itself and the links it relies on for sources read like marketing materials Dexxtrall (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Yvonne Ohene Djan is a notable entertainer in Ghana and is quite popular. The sources are not marketing materials Mellowdeaous (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article as it stands is appalling (certainly the current promotional tone of the article does not help its case), but it appears that there may be a salvageable article from previous coverage [17], and [18]. Nevertheless, this would probably be marginal per wp:CELEBRITY. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 23:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article stands a chance of being improved based on the few references within the article, from the above comment, she does seem to be a WP:CELEBRITY, the article must be improved. Ampimd (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Notability" seems to be derived from singing some backing vocals but notability cannot be achieved by association. Producing (whayever that actually means) ONE film is not a ground for notability either. Emeraude (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Emeraude From the article the article seeks to highlight on her being the backing vocalist for several hit songs and top Ghanaian international musician, which is relevant to know. The notability is derived from singing backing vocals but not to just some songs, but considering the article and its scope, it seeks to highlight hit songs and top international musicians. That too me seems relevant, unless it isnt Ampimd (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude Just a simple googling of her name will show you that she is a celebrity who has achieved notable success in her field and all the source given are quality sources. Yes she has produced only one but the movie was recognized in Ghana and was one best movies that year Mellowdeaous (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: After doing an extensive search on the subject, I believe it would be worth keeping the article and getting more reliable sources to back sections of the article, Her notability as stated above is in serving as the vocalist and composer to top Ghanaian musicians and to several hit songs in Ghana which went beyond Ghana, West Africa and even beyond. Considering songs related to Daddy Lumba, there would be a disconnect taking down the article when more sources are being added and drawings a better connection to those songs stated in the article. Ampimd (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from serving as the number one backing vocalist to top musicians in Ghana, SHE (Yvonne Ohene Djan) has a song of her own, titled "Dream Lover" [2] [3] Mellowdeaous (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep From the references listed, and the little research done on the article, the subject fits the notability guideline and can be considered as a celebrity. It appears the subject is a famous backing vocalist for many top musicians in Ghana. However, I think the article leaves much to be desired. Applehead1000 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of the sourcing would be valuable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle (talk) No, I have not been paid to write. I only wrote the article because her contribution to the Ghana music industry is huge. Thank you.Mellowdeaous (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellowdeaous: I'm curious as to how you got your hands on this photo then and uploaded it as an "own work"? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle (talk) I'm sorry, it is not my own work. The photo is from her Instagram account. Whenever I try to upload photos it doesn't work but when I choose this option it works that is why I did that. Mellowdeaous (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellowdeaous: Please do not do that in the future. That's a copyright violation which is deeply frowned upon. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle (talk) Okay, I hear. I'm relatively new in wikipedia editing. I'm still learning. Won't do that again. Thank you!Mellowdeaous (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not the right place to ask this, but given Mellowdeaous admits that this image is a breach of copyright, is that also the case for this image the uploaded and claimed as their own work? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Akua-serwaa-new.jpg @Indy beetle Dexxtrall (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not for me to say, but I suspect all of their Commons contributions of Ghanaian musicians are copyvio problems. They should be forgiven for this misstep but the files probably have to go. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the references and simple google searches, the subject easily meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO . Mellowdeaous (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Call Me by Your Name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Perlman[edit]

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

The character fails WP:GNG. In reading through sources listed, and searching for new sources, almost none of them address Elio, rather than the film or Chalamet's performance in the film (very few listed sources discuss the book). The few sources that do address the character either aren't independent, or don't meet SIGCOV.

This page should best be merged into the film and book, with some text being most suited to merge into Chalamet's page. (I suspect though, that very little information from this page that is worth keeping will be missing from other articles.) Redirect to the book seems most appropriate, although a case could be made for a redirect to the film, being presumably the more popular of the two. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Call Me by Your Name. Reception looks nice at first glance, but it is made up of mentions in passing and reception for the actor, not character. Does not seem to meet WP:NFICTION. Fancruft... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Piotrus, nothing to disagree with your conclusion, but it seems WP:NFICTION is an essay, and the relevant guideline is WP:GNG? Clearly there are some debates going on about deletion of fictional elements, and I don’t really have a dog in that fight, but it seems a little odd to cite policy that provides no guidance. — HTGS (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HTGS, Right, but NFICTION is a useful reminder that "no, we don't have a special rules giving fictional topics an easier time". Hence, a reminder - and it does clearly direct everyone to GNG anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, the character isn't notable independent of the book/film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect unless more substantial sources can be found. As of now, it should remain part of the parent topic. TTN (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulmajeed Al Abbas[edit]

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

Abdulmajeed Al Abbas does not satisfy association football notability guidelines. The subject has not played for a team at the highest level in Saudi Arabia. This draft also does not describe significant coverage that would satisfy general notability. This article was already move from article space to draft space once by User:Spiderone, and has been moved back to article space, so that any further draftification can only be done on the AFD close. Moving this article back to draft space a second time would be edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as does not pass WP:NFOOTY currently; has played for parent club (which is an FPL club) in cup competiton but not against FPL opposition, so could achieve notability in (near) future. No prejudice against draftifying as an alternative, or re-creation as and when appropriate. Eagleash (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is, at best, a massive WP:TOOSOON. His only game for Al-Nassr was against a 3rd tier side so does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. No significant coverage cited and searching his name in Arabic comes up with nothing outside a squad list mention, Kooora, Soccerway and his clubs' own websites. The draft can be retained if people wish for it to be but this doesn't meet our agreed minimum inclusion criteria and I see no reason for us to ignore notability guidelines in this case. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone reviewed the Arabic-language sources in the article? SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is my assessment of the sources available:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.kooora.com/?player=126372 Yes Yes No Kooora is a stats website like Soccerway, no significant coverage ✘ No
https://ar.soccerway.com/matches/2019/11/09/saudi-arabia/champions-cup/afief/al-nasr-riyadh/3178028/ Yes Yes No Soccerway match stats report ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200206101732/https://arriyadiyah.com/676957 Yes ? No Just a routine announcement about signing a contract. Mentioned once along with seven other players. No actual significant coverage of the player that is the subject of this AfD. ✘ No
https://twitter.com/ALJABALAIN79/status/1318180841227517953 ? ? No A one-sentence transfer announcement on Twitter. ✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/abdulmajeed-abbas/647448/ Yes Yes No A Soccerway profile with barely any info let alone any significant coverage. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist (Smila, Ukraine)[edit]

Church of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist (Smila, Ukraine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Modern church (2008) which does not seem to have anything going for it in terms of historical or cultural significance, or any kind of solid coverage indicative of such. Not seeing a basis for an article here.

(where do we sort buildings / churches? Feel free to move this to a better AfD category)

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second ref is an unadorned press release. Third ref is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL public notice - "a new public building has been opened". Both of these are very much trivial coverage and do nothing for notability. - First ref has more potential as a feature on the origin of the church. So, one good source so far by my count. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough the second and third are not earth-shattering. But they appear to be legitimate local news, produced by real writers and studios. Second one is a video news item at an event. Smila has a church that was built by its priest over many years. An unusual feat of vernacular architecture these days. Is that encyclopedic? —Michael Z. 02:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes, IF it receives the requisite amount of coverage. Don't think a single item of usable length would normally be considered sufficient. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it does have some significant reliable sources coverage but the main reason is that the remains of a notable holy martyr Vladimir Bogoyavlensky have been interred here which gives the church historic significance in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG as it does have some significant reliable sources as per above. Articuno appears (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two short local pieces and a press release are not significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This source here is a full article with significant coverage imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! 04:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Cheshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nafees Din[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 05:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 05:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N. Arun[edit]

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

Article about a local politician not meeting the criteria of WP:NPOL as his career consists mostly of student politics or local in a sub-region. His acting career does not meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR the one referenced used to support the actor claim looks to be a press release. The rest either barely mention him or don't at all. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. People do not get articles just for being active in student politics, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheWikiholic (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds Wayside Campground (neé Reynolds, Mendocino County, California)[edit]

Advanced search for: 
"Reynolds Wayside Campground"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library


Reynolds Wayside Campground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another one where a common last name makes searching difficult, but I got lucky and stumbled across a state senate bill to "acquire the area west of the proposed U.S. 101 highway known as Reynolds Redwood Flat for the state park system." I also found another legislative report stating that "The Public Works Board recently purchased Reynolds Redwood Flat, famed resort in northern Mendocino County." This is consistent with the topos, which show a very tight cluster of buildings which disappears when the highway gets put through. The aerials are largely useless except to show how far out of step the topos are compared to the situation on the ground, but I did also discover that the state park is still there, although reduced in size after the interchange expanded. So, not a settlement, period, and in spite of the legislature I don't see any other evidence for the resort's fame. Mangoe (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 05:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew that I had seen this before. I was poring over the search function only to find that it was on my own talk page. See User talk:Uncle G#Reynolds, Mendocino County, California where I found the names to look for and some dates. Uncle G (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's an updated version of Palmer's History of Mendocino County, California, not out of copyright so you won't find it in the Internet Archive like the others, that has Reynolds and the memorial park up to 1967, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Reynolds Wayside Campground, a redlink at List of California state parks. This is the second Mendocino County "former settlement" to be a state park site, after this stub at "Lane Redwood Flat, California" that I was able to expand into the current content at Smithe Redwoods State Natural Reserve. I'll see what I can do here. Hog Farm Talk 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uncle G and Mangoe: - I have completely rewritten this to be about the redwood resort here and the current state park stuff, which has had some interesting stuff. I think this is now solidly at a Keep, but would like permission to move this page to Reynolds Wayside Campground, which is the best title. This place was never known simply as Reynolds that I found, so the currently title should not stand. Hog Farm Talk 16:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's possible to do uncontroversial renames of articles being discussed at AFD, as long as one fixes up the discussion page mechanisms at the same time. Of course, that's the tricky part. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frank W. Reynolds was a former county assessor and lumberman, you will find, and represented lumber trade interests on the board. Uncle G (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. Clearly notable. BD2412 T 03:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewritgt, seems a notable place Eddie891 Talk Work 23:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ananya Sen[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players 3 FC matches but all for university sides, not really seeing anything that would constitute significant coverage. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly done to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Happy for a redirect here, though with category retention to aid with a personal project in tallying up how many players have played for each English FC team. StickyWicket (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjib Ahsan Saad[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Fails WP:CRIN, WP:GNG and WP:V. Player has appeared in ICC Trophy but not in final. There are some passing mentions but not enough for him to pass GNG. The articles needs more reliable sources in significant coverage to pass GNG. — A.A Prinon  Conversation 04:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails CRIN as stated by A.A Prinon above, no appearance in a final. In terms of GNG I'm seeing a lot of mentions, but not enough for a GNG. No suitable redirect as he played in two tournaments which could have been suitable redirects. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fox the elder[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. This article is a complete mess, basically entirely comprised of Joseph Fox the elder's family, will, and a journal entry. Penale52 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 05:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 05:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fox family of Falmouth[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Fails WP:GNG, most of the sources are Fox family journals or genealogy-type references. Penale52 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources aren't clearly supporting the idea that this family is notable. Rather, someone has cobbled up a bunch of information from both relaible and unreliable sources about various family members and stitched them together here as a probable SYNTH violation. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Waxahachie, Texas. North America1000 03:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Waxahachie, Texas[edit]

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

This doesn't fulfill WP:SPLIT at all. This list can easily be merged into the main Waxahachie, Texas article. Love of Corey (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom, but I'm not sure why this was taken to AfD when there's no need or appetite for deletion. Mergers can go to WP:PAM or simply be boldly done. Vaticidalprophet 03:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Waxahachie, Texas article, clearly this article didn't fulfill WP:SPLIT and should not stand as standalone article. SunDawn (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (or question). I had never heard of Waxahachie before this thread, but it seems a remarkably long article for a place with 38000 inhabitants. Is it really so important? Athel cb (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on the city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Sanchez[edit]

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

An appearance in one certain documentary film and two failed congressional campaigns do not help this person meet WP:NPOL. Also, it should be noted that this article was created and initially edited by sockpuppet accounts and has an undisclosed payment template tagged to it. Love of Corey (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree that her appearance in a docmentary does not make her notable. See Knock Down the House: Amy Vilela isn't notable. Neiher is Jana Sanchez, the WP:CITEBOMB to suggest notability notwithstanding. These references do not cover her in detail. Most of the sources are about the election, not her. WP:GNG is not met. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Twice-unsuccessful congressional candidate fails WP:NPOL. If there is no clear consensus to delete, Redirect to either of the main election pages. KidAd • SPEAK 02:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sure there’s a way you can put that into your own words. KidAd • SPEAK 14:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I wrote in the previous AFD, the subject passes WP:GNG largely because of the documentary. Being 1/3 of the featured subjects of a documentary on a major network is more coverage than most candidates receive. By being featured in the documentary, the subject is used as an example of other candidates in the 2018 election. If this is not kept, it should be redirected. --Enos733 (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please show us where in the notability guidelines it includes "appearing in a documentary". Notability is about sources, not documentary appearances. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When we look at the exception for local politicians in WP:POLOUTCOMES, there is a recognition that "coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized" beyond what is expected of similar officials. The GNG asks whether the subject "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." While I am not one that agrees that if you have X number of reliable sourced coverage, I also not not believe that we ought to completely discount coverage of political candidates in the context of a campaign. So, what we have is a documentary where the subject received significant coverage. We also have profiles of the subject from two campaigns and associated other independent sources. So, while it is not the documentary per se that elevates the subject over the GNG bar, being featured in a significant documentary separates the subject from the hundred of other candidates running for Congress each election cycle. --Enos733 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:GNG, where it says "Sources"[2], footnote 2 says, Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries..., so being featured in the Showtime documentary Surge, and the critical commentary/reviews discussing her appearance, appears to support notability per the guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary counts towards GNG, but it isn't enough with the lack of significant coverage elsewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above delete !voters - a non notable failed candidate, however, we could redirect to the documentary. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and nothing is available to pass WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 19:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, including due to the 2020 documentary and reviews highlighting her role, as noted above, (that had previously been in the article before the Surge article was created) and the national news coverage she has received in The Guardian (2018), The Hill (2018), and The Washington Post (2021). Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and all three of the national news sources are more than a trivial mention. Also, per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and she also received coverage independent of her political campaigns in the Dallas Morning News (2020), and in an article about the same issue, was described by the Fort-Worth Star Telegram (2020) as "Polk’s friend and fellow politician who first drew national attention to Polk’s story" in more than trivial coverage of her role. And there are a few post-election instances where her commentary has been included in news articles: Fort-Worth Star Telegram (2018), San Antonio Current (2019), Independent (2020). I have also made some fairly substantial revisions to clean up the article after a close review of the sources, so it is less WP:CITEBOMBed. Beccaynr (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your efforts to improve the page are admirable, but that coverage looks to me to be about the elections she's run in, not the candidate herself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - it has been on my to-do list to clean up the article after the SPI referenced on the Talk page, and this AfD helped prioritize the task. Both the Guardian and Hill articles include biographical information, so they appear to be about her in addition to her campaign, and reviews of the documentary now added back into the article include secondary commentary about her campaign (Baltimore Sun), and context that seems to be about more than her campaign, e.g. "In the end, Sanchez loses but comes closer than any Democrat in 36 years in her Texas district" (New York Daily News), so these sources at minimum seem to support WP:BASIC notability due the depth of biographical and WP:SECONDARY coverage. There are also other sources I identified in my comment above that are independent of her campaigns, when her role is an activist or commentator. I think with the 2020 documentary that includes a major focus on her campaign and appears to be WP:SECONDARY coverage, the reviews of the documentary that include a focus on her, two in-depth international/national 2018 news articles that include biographical coverage, 2021 national news coverage, and some additional news coverage outside of her political campaigns, it appears that WP:GNG can be satisfied by the most in-depth sources and notability can be further supported by WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are really terrible references you have posted up. They are rank. One is up as it has a Twitter link to here name,, one because she had her covid injection first, several are notes of possible election success, which didn't come to pass. They are all non-rs effectively. None of the are in-depth. Posting random links for a set agenda, is not the way to do it. scope_creepTalk 21:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:SIGCOV just isnt there. All of the articles mention her as an aspect of the main subject of the article (not her). Nweil (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Vives Casas[edit]

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

Ana Vives Casas. This article is headed by a tag saying this person may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I get the impression that some one read a report of this journalist's death in a Spanish newspaper, and then put in the article. Just because some one's death is mentioned in a newspaper does not, ipso facto, make the article notable. The article is only two sentences long and does not say much, other than that this person was a Spanish journalist and her dates. Rollo August (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rollo August, have you gone through the process in WP:BEFORE, e.g. check to see whether the subject passes WP:GNG, check the Spanish article, consider allowing more time to develop the article as it is only two days old? TSventon (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have checked all six reports, and they all say much the same thing. (My Spanish is adequate for reading, not so much for writing.) There is absolutely nothing to suggest notability. Athel cb (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Award winning journalist. Meeting GNG per multiple independent secondary sources writing about her. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is the Premio Huelva de Periodismo itself notable? OK, it's worth 3000€, so it's not trivial, but Huelva itself is not a big city (No. 28 in Spain). It's only natural that the editor who posts an article will vote to Keep it, but that effectively guarantees one vote for Keep if the author looks at this discussion. Athel cb (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Fox of St Germans[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Fails WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry, Friend Fox, but I don't think of thee as meeting our standards of notability. This article contains a lot of stuff from a self-published genealogy, and even gossip from a descendant of the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was bot notified about this but my involvement was only administrative; it was created as the result of a CFD eleven years ago. The creator of that category, HaWe (talk · contribs), is inactive; the nominator should review the edit history of this page to see if there is anyone who may actually have an interest in it. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am an interested descendant, and found this to be a helpful summary of information I hadn't managed to find elsewhere, but I can see it probably doesn't meet usual standards of notability Cesyavon (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant View, Wood County, West Virginia[edit]

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

This one is very difficult to search for, because there are many Pleasant View, West Virginias. (I found the most for Pleasant View, Jackson County, West Virginia). Topos originally show a school named "Pleasant View School" here, which later becomes just Pleasant View with a church and not much else. I found a few passing mentions to the school and a cemetery here during my search, but most of the rest was for either Pleasant Hill, Wood County, West Virginia or for other Pleasant Views. I don't think this is notable, but if I missed something, please be understanding, as searching is really noisy. If I missed something that demonstrates notability here, I will withdraw. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It does appear on the USGS topo map on the South Parkersburg quadrangle. That seems to me to qualify it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Orangemike: - WP:NGEO states This guideline specifically excludes maps, tables, lists, databases, etc., from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. We need more than just maps to indicate that this site is notable. Hog Farm Talk 18:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not any of the Pleasant Views in Lippincott's Gazetteer. The cemeteries all appear to be somewhere else. And I cannot confirm that the Pleasant View farm in an obituary matches this. This seems to be practically unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The show a common metamorphosis of an isolated school into a town, which consists (until suburbia reaches it) of an equally isolated church which could well be the old school building repurposed. No sign over the years of a "settlement". Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ https://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-union/scotland-v-italy-sarah-law-is-backed-to-pull-the-strings-at-stand-off-3202738
  2. ^ https://www.modernghana.com/music/17707/1/female-singer-she-donates-to-a-hole-in-heart-patie.html
  3. ^ http://nanayaw18.blogspot.com/2012/07/female-singer-she-dedicates-song-drop.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_May_4&oldid=1022866554"