Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 05	May 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paratharia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG , unsourced since 2011.Google search give one two minor source and Wikipedia mirror sites. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the added sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources added by SailingInABathTub. Less Unless (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are sufficient to pass GNG. Sam Sailor 21:13, 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. JGHowes ^talk 16:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nanuchka[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Unable to find any real coverage of group. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For what it's worth, I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Carefully Planned Accident as redirect to Nanuchka, so I'll relist for another week just in case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article suggests it will pass WP:NMUSIC, my search did not find anything else. I glanced at the band members with pages, they should probably have their notability checked as well. Jeepday (talk) 14:26, 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, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Lyon shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. After all these months, it's clear this is a non-notable crime. The sole victim survived his gunshot injury, and the crime was motivated by a personal dispute, not terrorism of any sort. Love of Corey (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a WP:NOTNEWS soap opera dispute that wasn't anything more than that. Nate • (chatter) 01:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the events have panned out the incident does not seem to have any long-lasting effects or significance, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Kellis7 17:18, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Maxwell[edit]

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

Non notable voice actress who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The claim to have won awards seems spurious as I couldn’t find reliable sources substantiating them. Celestina007 (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per proposal Sweetpool50 (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER as the guideline stated that Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Maxwell has significant role in Attack on Titan, Genshin Impact, Code Geass, RWBY, The Legend of Zelda, and some more. She is also a scheduled speaker in SXSW. Per award, she didn't want any as in the article, but she is nominated in BTVA 2017, and BTVA 2015. SunDawn (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. The article as it stands is a bit rough but if fleshed out with all of her major voice acting working she would certainly meet the criteria. PvOberstein (talk)
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER I understand there is not much information on this individual but believe the page is fitting and can be expanded upon in the future. Hawkilloo (talk)
Comment Interesting coincidence that three editors (incl. the article creator) suddenly rock up all citing WP:ENTERTAINER. Just saying, nothing more. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability per WP:GNG and per WP:ENTERTAINER standards, by some margin. I guess those award nominations were the reason why this couldn't be speedied, fair enough, but they certainly aren't enough to justify an article. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as currently written is weak and needs additional sourcing and justifiable expansion. Having said that, there is no doubt that this individual has distinguished herself in her niche. The frequency and ubiquity of her work suggests ample WP:GNG and it would be a disservice to the community to simply eliminate the article rather than attempt to improve it.Carmelhighlander09 (talk) 07:29, 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 23:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small Pond (Innsbruck)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. This is an unsourced article for which I can find no sources. If anyone doubts the insignificance of this pond, just look at the picture in the article, the average backyard swimming pool is probably bigger than this. Article was DEPRODed with comment "Although the article is still missing sources, significant coverage shurely (sic) exists in Austrian sources, especially because it is near a castle." I do not understand why its proximity to a castle would add to its notability. Rusf10 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image is obviously not 1.7 acres as the infobox claims, which is still not notability without coverage. Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tiny body of water with what is essentially a drainage ditch as its primary water flow source. This doesn't even seem to really have a formal name. About as WP:MILL as the pond in the cow pasture next to my parent's house. Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. I don't know why this should have a page. It is just a pit as the picture shows. Alex-h (talk) 08:11, 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 23:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flightmare[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. No reliable source coverage has been found/provided. Rusf10 (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sites list this as "One of the earliest shareware games". A proper source for that would be good, but at least there are enough mentions of this game to make it notable. --Bensin (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper sources are found (then ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). I failed to find a single source that is reliable and contains SIGCOV. Note that there is a new piece of software named the same which is mentioned by a few academic works ([1]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The game certainly existed, but I am finding no real coverage of it in reliable sources. The few sources that do mention it seem to be user-generated or non-reliable sources. The only real piece of information in a reliable source was this article from Eurogamer, but it only has a single sentence discussing it. If anyone can suggest a potential Redirect target, I would probably be fine with that, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, just passing mentions[2]. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 18:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If this is indeed the first shareware game, this should be mentioned with a source at Shareware#Games. There is far from enough sourcing to justify a separate article. IceWelder [✉] 00:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we can find a reliable source for that claim, I wouldn't even mention it.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: No one said it's the first, but rather "One of the earliest shareware games". As for sources, since this game likely had its peak around its release in 1984, there is a good chance that more sources or reviews can be found in print rather than online, and it would be sad to see this article go because of that. I don't think anyone doubts the game's existence or that it was wide spread. --Bensin (talk) 11:02, 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. JGHowes ^talk 16:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BD-21 784[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Probably also fails WP:NASTRO, the spirit if not the letter. A couple of scientific papers discuss this and a small number of other star systems, but mainly in the context of showing that they don't have a previously-suggested exoplanet. Not having an exoplanet isn't yet a cause for notability ... maybe one day. Otherwise a dim red dwarf with zero popular coverage. Lithopsian (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I only saw two papers that have any substantial discussion: one was the discovery paper and the other rejects the finding. There isn't a list of rejected exoplanet candidates, so no redirect. Praemonitus (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could find a redirect target if you think there is something worth a mention. A line in List of stars in Eridanus, for example. Lithopsian (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of things that are notable for not existing, but this exoplanet is not one of them. Alternatively, we could redirect it to List of exoplanets discovered in 2014, where it is mentioned, but BD-21 784 doesn't strike me as a plausible search term. Tercer (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Not very notable.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pro-delete arguments of Lithopsian, Praemonitus or Tercer regarding disproven exoplanet are irrelevant here because the page of question is about host star, not about exoplanet. The star page do comply with the WP:NASTRO as Lithopsian mentioned.Trurle (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have misunderstood my position. The only substantial discussions I found about the star were about the non-existent planet. If you disregard those, the star itself is completely non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can find elsewhere points to this star being notable besides the disputed planet discovery ThomasAstro (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non notable subject. Alex-h (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it seems that most articles cited are not about BD-21 784. Cinadon36 13:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, aside from the non-existent exoplanet mentioned, it looks like some of the papers cited in this article just have trivial mentions of the star. And some aren't even about BD-21 784, like Cinadon36 said. Unfortunately these aren't enough to pass WP:NASTRO. HoneycrispApples (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one do not mention BD-21 784?Trurle (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  References 6, 8, 9, and 10 in the article don't appear to mention BD-21 784 at all. Or anything else that it's known as, for that matter. (Gliese 160.2, Gliese 9144, LHS 1628 or HIP 19165) Even if they did mention it, a simple mention isn't enough to meet WP:NASTRO, an object has to have significant commentary about it to do so. HoneycrispApples (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - For ref. 6 you likely use wrong link. Template {{Cite Gaia EDR3}} do create multiple links, and one marked "Gaia EDR3 record for this source" is leading to exact entry. Reference 8 lists BD-21 784 properly as alias GJ 160.2. Reference 9 had a typo in arxiv link (you should have noticed it yourself). Fixed now. Finally, reference 10 lists star properly under alias GJ 160.2Trurle (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree I may not have looked thoroughly enough at the references, and I apologize for that. I am however still concerned about the notability of this star. The one reference that talks about BD-21 784 outside of it being an entry in a table or database (which again, does not demonstrate notability) is reference 10. The mention is 2 paragraphs which talk about how it might have a planet, and I doubt that 2 paragarphs qualify as "significant commentary" per WP:NASTRO. HoneycrispApples (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Mendoza (Venezuelan footballer)[edit]

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

The only sources I can find for him are playmakerstats.com and transfermarkt.com, both unreliable. Doesn't pass GNG. If someone else can find a reliable source to show that he played in a fully-pro league, I'll withdraw my nomination. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found below which demonstrate notability, and subsequent article improvement. Giant Snowman 16:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails NFOOTBALL and GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per below changes.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: So, I found this. Pretty much looks like his own CV uploaded online, thought it was interesting but could also lead us in a direction. Soccerwire has an article saying that he has played professionally in Venezuela BUT that could mean anything. worldfootball.net has it that he played in six Copa Libertadores matches in 1995. Ceroacero has a match lineup with a Luis Mendoza of Caracas FC. Also, this RSSSF states that "Luis Carlos Mendoza" played for Caracas FC against Deportivo Táchira and Botafogo. Also, this article is interesting. Essentially, Bernardo Añor scored for Caracas and set a record for being the son of another former Caracas player who scored for the club. The article also lists this also being done by Luis Mendoza "Mendocita" in 1986 and his sons, Luis Enrique and Luis Carlos while listing this Carlos as being with the club from 1987 to 1995. So I am pretty confident that this article for sure passes NFOOTY. He has plenty of appearances at a level that I would think leads to notability, just needs sources and revisions. Also this nugget of old html. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ArsenalFan700: Interesting, so not only would he pass NFOOTY, but he would also be the son of the Luis Mendoza born in 1945? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so. The gradadigital source says that Luis Mendoza is the son of this Luis Carlos Mendoza... and that older Mendoza was with Caracas FC in 1986. They 100% father/son. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) The subject does meet WP:NFOOTBALL, having played at the Venezuelan Primera División, which is included among WikiProject Football's fully professional leagues list. @Nehme1499: I have found more sources included in the Spanish version of the article, where there is further information that could be translated: AVN(state source)Venezuelan Football History and Statistics Association and the RSSSF. There are more sources, but I haven't brought them up for being either dead links or in blogspot.

Mendoza was one of the first Venezuelan footballers to enter in the Hall of Fame, he played in eight Copas Libertadores, three Copas América and three World Cup classifications,^[1] and this comes from someone that isn't quite interested in sports. I have added the "Expand" tag and linked the article to other languages in Wikidata. The page is currently in a deplorable state, but the subject meets the notability standards to have an article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wrong Mendoza. Your article and source for Venezuela national caps is for the Mendoza born June 21, 1945. The one in this discussion is on the one born in 1970. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Many thanks for the correction, I have striken down my Keep. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in view of ArsenalFan700's sources above, I withdraw my nomination. I have also cleaned up the article using said sources. Pinging @GiantSnowman, CommanderWaterford, ArsenalFan700, and NoonIcarus. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortizesp Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Giant Snowman Dr Salvus 17:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes our standards following work done since the AfD started Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to easily meet Nfootball and likely GNG with improvements to article. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Luis Mendoza:Un talento del balompié nacional". AVN. 8 November 2010.

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion has run out of steam. Everyone who wanted to say something has done so, and there's no agreement as to whether the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Henderson[edit]

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

I believe that since the previous discussion closed as no consensus and since more than 4 years have passed, I am okay to start a second discussion on Henderson. In the last 4 years, it does not appear that any further coverage has developed and Henderson still appears to fail WP:GNG.

I am of the belief that none of the sources currently cited show significant coverage addressing Henderson directly and in depth. The Futsal4all source is not sufficient. Outside of the article, I have found a Telegraph source, a Perth Now picture and Women Soccer. All of these mentions are completely trivial and there is no depth at all.

I therefore request that anyone voting keep in this discussion please provide WP:THREE best sources from reliable publications that clearly show enough depth focused on Henderson to demonstrate WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment - One source that has a small amount of coverage while the rest have next to no coverage. I cannot see how WP:GNG is met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://web-old.archive.org/web/20130409052711/http://phufc.com.au/about_us1	Club websites are not generally the best sources. Professional independent publications are preferred.		Mentioned along with several other youth footballers. Very little depth.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20140327115808/http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/perthglory/players/Emily-Henderson/106827			Profile page on club website	✘ No
http://web-old.archive.org/web/20130702015212/http://futsal4all.com/2011/01/henderson-among-the-goals-wa/		?	~ At an absolute push you could weakly argue that there is some significant coverage here. At an absolute push.	? Unknown
http://www.womensoccer.com.au/?p=385			Passing mention	✘ No
http://www.womensoccer.com.au/?p=1045			Passing mention	✘ No
https://www.footballwest.com.au/?id=11&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=918&cHash=0f218f1b98d02fd91a7e7a69a26e0c8f	?	?	? Permanent dead link, nothing in web archive	? Unknown
https://us.women.soccerway.com/players/emily-henderson/325804/			Having a Soccerway profile does not confer notability (this is the same for male footballers as well)	✘ No
https://us.women.soccerway.com/national/australia/w-league/20132014/regular-season/r22774/			Soccerway	✘ No
https://us.women.soccerway.com/national/australia/w-league/20152016/regular-season/r33200/			Soccerway	✘ No
https://www.news.com.au/sport/football/complete-preview-for-each-wleague-team-for-season-201718/news-story/76670dbf0ac0dcef9c1c67eae3b0e7a6			Literally mentioned once in a list of players leaving the club, nothing more.	✘ No
https://thewomensgame.com/news/u17s-thump-thailand-482657			Trivial match report coverage about an Under-17 game	✘ No
https://thewomensgame.com/analysis/stockys-scribbles-australia-pocket-the-points-482871			A couple of passing mentions in an under-16 match report	✘ No
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/swoop/complete-preview-for-each-wleague-team-for-season-201718/news-story/76670dbf0ac0dcef9c1c67eae3b0e7a6			Passing mention - mentioned literally once	✘ No
https://www.perthnow.com.au/community-news/eastern-reporter/soccer-perth-glory-women-kick-off-season-this-sunday-c-790505			Just an image	✘ 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}}.

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still believe that playing in the top-level league in Australia which is almost fully professional and getting closer every season, gives a fine enough presumption of notability as say representing a Pacific nation once (not even mentioned on Soccerway) and not doing anything after that. It's a shame to waste time in putting up these AfD's instead of using this time constructively to create and expand articles. --SuperJew (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you link me to a relevant policy/guideline that this article meets? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - WP:GNG. Emily Henderson has 12 references in her article. On the other hand, for example Jais Malsarani has 2 and yet no one has considered sending his article to AfD. --SuperJew (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that playing in the W-League provides a presumption of notability and I'm curious as to where that presumption comes from. For example Rachael Smith appeared in the same league and there was clear consensus to delete per GNG failure. Same with Ashlee Faul, Lauren Chilvers and Jodie Bain. How is this case any different? GNG was why Sammie Wood, Stella Rigon and Angela Fimmano were kept so if a similar amount of sourcing could be provided for Henderson then maybe we can keep this article too but I'd much rather work on evidence of notability rather than presumptions in an AfD. For what it's worth, there are many articles on GNG-failing male footballers that get deleted every week despite passing NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat surprised (and concerned at the same time) that someone with almost 100K Edits does not know of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. W-League does not provide GNG at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford: You are capable of bringing to light the essay you think is relevant if you want, but no need to belittle me in the process. I am well aware of this essay and will highlight for you This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. --SuperJew (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the rationale shared by talk. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SuperJew. Can I just say that some editors' zeal for AfD'ing women footballers on WP can be better spent elsewhere? Especially in this case where it had happened once already and where the footballer in question already retired from playing when the first AfD discussion occurred, so it's unlikely there would be additional coverage in the interim. Honestly it feels all of our time could be better spent doing some actual improvements rather than this over and over again... Seany91 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide three sources discussing Henderson directly and in detail? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if we are to disregard GNG and NFOOTBALL for female footballers, what would be an alternative guideline? Or do we just keep all female footballers as long as we can prove that they exist and played at least one game somewhere at some point? If the current guidelines are a problem, then that's fine to state that, but, as far as I can see, nobody has come up with a viable alternative. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Neither you, nor any of the other deletionists, have answered the counter: can you provide three sources discussing Jais Malsarani directly and in detail? (And the point is to show that there is a double-standard. If we agree on that, I'd like to see your zeal for mass AfD'ing such men footballers too and I'm sure that the "Keep" arguments there will be relevant to such women footballer AfD's such as this one). --SuperJew (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malsarani is completely non-notable from a GNG perspective but meets NFOOTBALL as an international player. Wikipedia community consensus is that all international players are considered notable regardless of GNG. Please note that this applies to female footballers such as Victoria Balomenos, Linda Oe and Tessy Bamberg-Schitter as well so it's not in fact a sexist double standard at all. Henderson only has youth caps so this same consensus does not apply. Any male footballer that passes NFOOTBALL but has no caps and clearly fails GNG can and, in most cases, will be deleted as even a cursory glance at recent AfDs will show. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, there's no difference notability-wise between playing 5 minutes in an international match between Vanuatu and Fiji and between playing 5 minutes in a Premier League match or in a W-League match. --SuperJew (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Dougal18 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL and the keep camp are yet to come up with anything better than WP:OSE. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG has not been demonstrated, and keeping an article that also doesn't even meet NFOOTY only perpetuates harmful stereotypes that women are only capable of notability if we lower our standards. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 17. Any uninvolved admin may reclose this immediately (or, at their discretion, allow it to run for longer if they feel that's needed).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Super Jew Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew's argument mainly focused on the perceived unfairness that Jais Malsarani is allowed to have an article but Henderson isn't. Worth noting that Malsarani has been deleted since that comment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, we'll note that his article was deleted due to doubt cast over his appearance for Vanuatu - the actual WP:GNG met by him is the same amount - no new sources were found or disappeared. I can find you plenty of other examples of what we previously thought the case was for Jais Malsarani - for example King Moe (great name btw!). Therefore still the main argument stays: a player can play 1 minute for a Pacific nation team and you'd argue for their keeping regardless of if any sources covering them at all, but for a woman playing in Australia's top league, you require a whole heap of sources to prove notability. --SuperJew (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew - this presumption of notability for playing international football applies to women as well as men, so is not a sexist double standard. For example, Oloa Tofaeono is a woman with 1 cap for American Samoa. A search reveals no significant coverage of her either, just passing mentions in match reports as with King Moe. If Henderson has played international football then she would be presumed notable but she hasn't therefore we must look for evidence of notability rather than a presumption... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: That's part of the issue here... it's a mix of gender issue and domestic v international issue. But something is wrong when a sub who came on for the last 3 minutes of the match where the 191st ranked team lost 8-1 to the 161st ranked team (rankings slightly anachronistic as of today) in front of 140 people is inherently more notable than a squad player in a top-10 ranking country's top league in front of crowds ranging between 300-714 (at minimum twice the crowd and that's not including TV watchers). It's honestly quite a shock that said "international player" gets a free pass, while it is a battle to try and keep the top league squad player. Bottom line btw, I'm not trying to say "delete the 'international player'" either. I would be happy for both to stay - as this is an online encyclopedia, I don't see the problem with some articles being only a couple of paragraphs as that is what is known about them, while others are longer. And I don't see what is burning for a few editors to push many articles to PROD and AfD. --SuperJew (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, neither should get a free pass. If there is no WP:SIGCOV about them, then they simply fail WP:GNG and should be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sneaking in before this is re-closed, but I did spend some time on a source search for the DRV just to see if a mistake was made but unfortunately I could not find any articles which demonstrated she passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and SuperJew. WP:NFOOTBALL excludes the vast majority of women's top leagues around the world and is not reliable - even top leagues like the W-League (Australia), of which Henderson played in, and are broadcast internationally. Hmlarson (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is not based on NFOOTBALL but on a failure of GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thanks for changing your repetitive nominations. Hmlarson (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Passing WP:NFOOTBALL does not mean that a subject is automatically notable, it only means that the subject is supposedly likely to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Male, femlale, international, professional or amateur - does't matter. The subject still has to have significant coverage which Henderson unfortunately does not. Alvaldi (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I note that the assessment table above simply ignores the half-dozen or so sources that aren't available online. With the known WP:BIAS that exist with women footballers, it's hard to objectively apply the same standards that are used for males. That being said, we have one source that's borderline, and years of play at the highest level of the sport. And lots of peripheral media mentions. If this was a male player, it could go both ways, but to counter bias, we shouldn't be quick to delete articles for women players that have survived here already for years, and do have sources. Also, I fixed a broken reference in the article. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - GNG is applied equally to both genders. We have no idea what the Hills Gazette sources contain and therefore can't consider them for GNG. Mere mentions of her don't make her pass GNG, significant coverage does. An article being here for years/having sources are not reasons to keep. Dougal18 (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just because one editor cannot access a source doesn't mean it should be excluded from consideration: WP:PAYWALL. Seany91 (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And this idea that "GNG is applied equally to both genders" might be an aspiration but is patently untrue. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hills Avon Valley Gazette is a newspaper for a local region of WA about 40km east of Perth. I can't find those articles online, but I'd expect a professional sportsperson to have received coverage from places other than the place they came from. SportingFlyer T·C 10:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait until this same standard is applied to the academy boys scraping by NFOOTY with a few appearances off the bench in, say, USL League One... Seany91 (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seany91, that's what almost all the delete !voters here are trying to do... We don't want articles on non-notable male athletes either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet female footballers (and women in general) continue to be disproportionately & negatively impacted by WP notability criteria, so take that how you want. Seany91 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the focus here is on the missing Hills Avon Valley Gazette references. The missing reference that jumps out is the June 21 2010 reference from The West Australian, one of the oldest and largest newspapers in Australia. As for GNG applying equal to "both" genders (and I don't understand the need for a binary reference here) - that's only true if the media reported equally on all genders. I hope no one here believes that they do! Nfitz (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources in the article. The fact that they're not available online is not a reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ones not available online would cover her youth career and wouldn't count towards notability per WP:YOUNGATH. SportingFlyer T·C 14:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is GNG as you say, then YOUNGATH is irrelevant. You can't have it both ways. Smartyllama (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources show significant coverage addressing Henderson directly and in depth? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what "having it both ways" means. GNG is the issue. WP:YOUNGATH tells us that teenage athletes have to have very substantial coverage in order to be notable. If there are no GNG-qualifying sources from her professional career, YOUNGATH means we don't keep on the grounds that her local paper covered her amateur youth sports career. SportingFlyer T·C 13:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still having some good conversation here. Let's do one more relist and hopefully it'll be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I mean if that league isnt fully pro then she fails the relevance, and she also hasnt done anything in 4 years.Muur (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The league she is playing in has no bearing on her notability. A player playing in an amateur league can be notable while a player in a professional league can be non-notable. Alvaldi (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This vote totally goes against WP:GNG and should not be considered. Seany91 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Jeepday (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monster (Kellerman novel)[edit]

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

Fails at WP:RS. I've been trying to look for additional citations and been unable to find any. JayzBox (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did some digging and found newspaper coverage in Newspapers.com - @JayzBox: if you don't have a subscription to this site, you can request this here. It's pretty handy, although you do have to sometimes wade through a ton of false positives when there are relatively common terms. (Like Monster, which brought up a ton of random things until I started limiting the search fields more and more.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ReaderofthePack:, thank you for your response and for suggesting me to use Wikipedia:Newspapers.com (of which I wasn't aware existed). My perspective has greatly changed regarding this article (I've decided to withdraw). I see myself using Newspapers.com in a nearby future if the information I'm looking can't be found in either Google Books (via Scholar), or Google News. Regards. JayzBox (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books is good, but it feels like their offerings have gotten a little weaker lately, as more and more things seem to be hidden behind paywalls. This might be due to publishers fighting against the preview option, which isn't a new phenomenon with GB unfortunately. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve definitely noticed that, but I can’t complain since if I were in their shoes I would’ve completely understand and most likely done about the same. Local libraries really come in handy since they always have a variety of subjects, with the perk being they’re free to view. JayzBox (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. per ReaderofthePack. JayzBox (talk) 23:18, 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) 00:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martins Osodi[edit]

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

All of the sources provided are self-published or press releases. A WP:BEFORE search does not yield any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, therefore the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by Spiderone, self published sources do not count towards establishing notability. Furthermore it appears a COI is present. Celestina007 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, had been draftified before and re-moved, COI Editing suspected, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources supplied in the article are either primary otherwise unreliable, or passing mentions. I cannot find any RSes to support the subject's notability. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using WP:NLIST, Martins Osodi is notable as a musician more than an entrepreneur, most Nigerian blogs appear to be primary because of their low blogging standards, additionally, more Nigerian notable people are not on wikipedia and that is why, as a part of improving the Wikipedia community we keep contribute and bringing notable people’s knowledge to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.217.75.93 (talk) 7 May 2021 (UTC)

NLIST is about stand-alone lists. Nothing to do with biographical articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also incorrectly cited by the different (ahem) person below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Though article appears to have been draftified, it does not warrant the removal of the article. Subject seems notable as a musician and in accordance to WP:NLIST. I don't also think there is any trace of COI Editing so I will advice the article is kept., JamesWaterford (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Waterford (talk • contribs) — JamesWaterford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - As the musician YungBilo he is only present in the usual streaming services, and a couple of the notoriously unreliable Nigerian "media" websites that only reprint press releases and don't even moderate the uproarious language of how famous and amazing the musician is. (e.g. [3]). As the businessman Martins Osodi he is only visible in his own LinkedIn account and a few basic industry directory entries for his company. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:13, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Al Nasser[edit]

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

Contested draftify, moved back to main space by User:Lilianasri (see Draft:Saad Al-Nasser for original article). His 11 mins of football to date were against an Uzbek team, the Uzbek league is not listed at WP:FPL as 'fully professional', therefore Al-Nasser does not yet meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Only passing mentions found in an Arabic search; Alyaum gives a passing mention of his debut, Al-Jazirah mentions him in a squad list and another passing mention in Dawri Plus. There are a few other small mentions of him but I couldn't see anything that indicates WP:GNG.

Since he does not appear to meet either the GNG or SNG, I would say that this article is WP:TOOSOON. I believe the draft should be allowed to stay, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete main space article and keep the draft, per Spiderones reasoning that makes good sense as they may pass GNG/NFOOTY in the near future JW 1961^Talk 19:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, WP:TOOSOON, does not fit into NFOOTY or GNG yet CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftiy per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 08:21, 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 merge to Eaten Back to Life. 100% consensus for merging (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal Corpse (album)[edit]

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

Not notable, unfortunately GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first demo album by a now famous and legendary death metal band. Unfortunately it is not notable for Wikipedia. Tagged for sources since 2009. Even though there are entries on other wikis as well, the sourcing isn't better on any of those, in fact, most of them are unsourced. If there are sources, they are mostly unreliable databases like metal archives, discogs and musicbrainz. During a google search I couldn't find anything that establishes notability, only the usual unreliable sites. This seemed good at first, but under the article it says "source: Wikipedia", so there goes reliability. So, in conclusion, this demo is not notable. Too bad since CC are great. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eaten Back to Life: Not individually notable but perhaps a merge with the album page it was re-recorded for could be of use? nearlyevil 665 19:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Should I do it? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eaten Back to Life per nearlyevil665. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:25, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project GreenWorld International[edit]

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

This is a project of Hritdith Sudev, that I have just listed at AfD. I list this separately, because it is conceivable though in my opinion unlikely, that it might be notable, if promotional material were removed

Essentially all the material is unsourced, or sourced only to self-serving promotionalinterviews that do not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Perhaps WP:TOOSOON as I cannot find multiple secondary sources for this organization. nearlyevil 665 19:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORPDEPTH failure Graywalls (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed to find proper coverage. It might grow into something bigger in the future, but for now it's an WP:NCORP fail. Less Unless (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:23, 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 keep. HighKing's last comment sums up the general trend in consensus well. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Smith (executive)[edit]

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

References are routine announcements. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there are a few primary sources, but also 3 or 4 that satisfy WP:GNG, so it should stay. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kokopelli7309, which 3 or 4 sources satisfy WP:GNG? TSventon (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TSventon: I thought that the first five all seemed to comply (maybe Bloomberg is a little bit dubious, but the others are solid). Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Kokopelli7309: I came to this via Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Benjamin Smith (executive). I can only find one in-depth, reliable and independent source in the first five. There may be better sources available, but it is hard to find them as there is also a lot of routine coverage.
    - Reuters.com: not in-depth
    - ParisMatch.fr: looks good
    - Forbes.com: interview so not independent
    - TravelPulse: possibly press release so not independent
    - Bloomberg.com: "these profiles should not be used to establish notability" per WP:RSP. TSventon (talk) 15:46, 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) 02:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kokopelli7309: Is there anything in particular which is causing doubt or needs additional citation? For example, Reuters cites that he was named AFKM CEO and came from Air Canada - even if not in-depth, those are fairly objective facts. I've added a couple other sources, which should helpfully help, too. What's missing to close this discussion and keep the page up? Ben.lipsey (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben.lipsey Wikipedia has various policies on which subjects need articles, the most relevant is the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (GNG), that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Click the links for further detail. The idea is to write articles based on independent sources, not information published by individuals or their employers. So what is needed is at least another two sources like Paris Match above. Also you should disclose your conflict of interest, Special:Diff/1019448972, when contributing to discussions. TSventon (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable as CEO of a very major company. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the lack of sources? So far there is only one source that is not an announcement. scope_creep^Talk 18:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per references found by TSventon. Delete Being the CEO of a major company does not automatically confer notability. WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is neither policy nor guideline. I cannot find any references that meets the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added more sources, including in depth articles that I found such as Skift, Simple Flying, and from major (French) publications like Le Monde, Le Point, Les Echos, and Europe 1. Hopefully this adds some more independently-verified sources. (For the record I work at AFKL so there is an [unpaid] COI, which I have disclosed on my user page, but all these articles are/were publicly available and extensively researched.) Ben.lipsey (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben.lipsey: Those references are cack and you shouldn't edit an article when you have a COI during AFD. Three references are routine announcements of the new position, the same news that was in the article already and the other one is puff piece, no more than a profile. No one is saying there aren't articles about him. It is the quality and where they are suitable to prove WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: OK not sure I understand then, still getting used to this. There was a request for more sources and I added a few more. Skift, Simple Flying, and the French newspaper articles are all in depth and quite extensive (and from what I can tell, they were also published in print).Ben.lipsey (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From an external viewpoint, you seem to be here to fudge the Afd. You have declared a COI, so have the good grace to stay away, while the article is being discussed. scope_creep^Talk 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources added by Ben.lipsey in case anyone else wants to check them: Europe1.fr,^[1] Le Monde,^[2] Le Point,^[3] Les Echos,^[4] Skift.^[5] TSventon (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Qui est Benjamin Smith, le nouveau patron d'Air France-KLM ?". Europe 1 (in French). Retrieved 2021-04-30.
^ "Air France-KLM : le Canadien Benjamin Smith nommé directeur général". Le Monde.fr (in French). 2018-08-16. Retrieved 2021-04-30.
^ magazine, Le Point (2018-08-16). "Benjamin Smith, un "fin tacticien" pour reprendre les rênes d'Air France-KLM". Le Point (in French). Retrieved 2021-04-30.
^ "Benjamin Smith, le nouveau patron canadien d'Air France-KLM, entre en piste". Les Echos (in French). 2018-09-17. Retrieved 2021-04-27.
^ "Air France Unions Don't Want Outsider Ben Smith of Air Canada as New CEO". Skift. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

For the record I’m not trying to fudge anything. It was suggested by two other users to come and contribute to this discussion, and I was only trying to respond to others who said the sources were not in-depth/independent enough - that’s it, nothing more. But I’ll stop here. Ben.lipsey (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as CEO of a very major company per Necrothesp. I believe that GNG is met by the Paris Match reference,^[1] a Les Echos (France) reference covering his career to 2018 in the fr article,^[2] and a Financial Times article about his performance in 2019.^[3] I am still concerned that the article has mostly been edited by single purpose accounts as discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Benjamin Smith (executive). TSventon (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Sources wikilinked. TSventon (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Qui est Benjamin Smith, le Canadien qui va piloter Air France-KLM?". ParisMatch.fr. 21 August 2018.
^ "Benjamin Smith, l'un des artisans du retournement d'Air Canada". Les Echos. 2018-08-16.
^ "Air France-KLM boss covers first leg of long-haul recovery". Financial Times. 2020-02-24. Retrieved 2021-05-01.

Keep. Meets the WP:THREE standard per TSventon above. feminist (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging scope creep, HighKing, please can you comment on the sources I identified on 1 May. TSventon (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Paris Match is a good reference, the 2nd one is profiley type thing, it is like a mini CV listing, the third one I can't see, but assuming AGF, it is likely to be about his financial performance, in a trade paper that has a duty to report on financial news. scope_creep^Talk 11:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia notability criteria, there is no policy based argument that says that if a person is in charge of a large company, they are automatically notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison the Paris Match reference is around 1050 words, the Les Echos reference is around 650 and the FT references is around 1150. I believe that they are all "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The FT and Les Echos are business papers but that does not mean that they are not reliable sources or can't provide evidence of notability. The FT article covers Smith's performance in 2019, especially in union negotiations, but also mentions profit targets and fleet renewal. It may be possible to access it by searching for the headline rather than clicking on the link. TSventon (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me, although there are a lot of similarities between the LesEchos and ParisMatch articles which suggests that the company produced a profile pack for the press, having reviewed closely I'm happy that there is also a sufficient quantity and quality of independent commentary on Smith in both and also in the FT article. I've changed my !vote to Keep. Thank you TSventon for finding and providing those refs. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 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. JGHowes ^talk 16:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Jobst[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 17:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use a lot of work, but a quick search for his name yields significant coverage. I'd lean keep if the page can be updated with some better sources. --Nemov (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I didn't find notability by searching through the references.Wasraw (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the proliferation of more and more chief x officer titles, we do not need a corresponding proliferation of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a five-minute Google search of German sources revealed the following: one piece by the Westdeutscher Rundfunk, an interview with the Ruhr Nachrichten, an article by Express (a tabloid which I would say is reliable on sports), this one by Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. There is more out there and I have no doubt that this subject meets WP:GNG. I'll add some content from these sources to the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Johnpacklambert. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Not wanting to badger, but can I ask why the above sources don't convince you? There are lots more sources out there, so I'd be willing to direct you to them. If you have reasons for your !vote with regard to WP:GNG, I would be more than happy to hear them. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two are interviews, one is an annoucement and not a single one is WP:SECONDARY source, mainly due to him resigning. scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Modussiccandi. I agree with Scope Creep that the sources above are Primary and therefore do not meet WP:NBIO. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging, scope creep. I acknowledge that not all of the sources I linked above contribute to him meeting GNG. But, as I said, there is much more coverage of him available. This one, for example, offers an analysis of his resignation and is certainly secondary in nature. This piece talks about his role in the club's future development. These two sources alone seem to lift him above the bar for GNG. The more relevant question is whether he is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT. I think the answer is "no" since his career as a high-level sports executive before his resignation is documented well enough. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my remarks regarding WP:ONEVENT: kicker, Germany's leading sports paper, featured a large-scale interview with him in their print edition of 12 October 2020. (The publication of the interview is previewed here.) I don't have access to this publication at the moment but their article, albeit not independent, will surely help to reliably confirm lots of facts about his work before his resignation. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Honestly what has he done? This person appears to be yet another PR person whose page is using Wikipedia as a web host. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as GNews gives me a lot of coverage from him, albeit from German sources, about the man's involvement in the sports industry], plus GBooks also gives me a couple of good results. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are routine in the context of him in the poistion, not him, specifically. Several are the annoucement of him resigning. The last one for example, in the first list [4]] is again related to the death threats. The SPORT1 is another annocement of him leaving. Looking at the 2nd Google Books list. The first at [5] looks like a series of profiles. Not really suitable for BLP, possibly external link. The 2nd one looks like an e-book with huge writing. It is not in-depth. The third one in the Italian language, is effectively a passing mention in relation to something else. The fourth one, The aim was to “further sharpen the external image”, as Marketing Director Alexander Jobst explained (quoted in the N.N., 2014, p. 10). is not in-depth. So I don't think it is particularly useful in an AFD discussion, just to provide a search listing and somehow make it feel it worthy of a BLP, without actually examining them in detail. They're not good sources. The guy is a marketing manager and these are all mostly unsuitable to prove WP:V and WP:BIO. Very poor all-in-all. scope_creep^Talk 22:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there are a number of sources available, a consensus is emerging that none of them are the kind that can be used to establish notability. However, given discussion to date relisting to see if firmer consensus one way or another can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 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 Monster (EP). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond (Red Velvet – Irene & Seulgi song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. The song has not been released independently as a single and it does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent. It has been only covered in the context of album reviews which does not establish notability. Sources like this constitutes press release, and more like routine coverage on the album. The recording has appeared on the Gaon Digital Chart at 83 but has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted or is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an alternate to deletion, I am fine with a redirect to the parent album article Monster. Ashley yoursmile! 15:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 15:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 15:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. EN-Jungwon 17:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monster (EP). This will never grow beyond its stub form and the EP article hasn't even cracked 10kb worth of content to justify a separate page for this non-single. ✗plicit 06:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the coverage from this songs comes from album reviews, chating may indicate the song is notable, not that is notable. Clearly fails WP:NSONGS .MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Monster (EP). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel Good (Red Velvet – Irene & Seulgi song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. The song has not been released independently as a single and it does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent. It has been only covered in the context of album reviews which does not establish notability. Sources like this constitute press release, and more like routine coverage on the album. The recording has appeared on the Gaon Digital Chart at 86 but has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted or is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an alternate to deletion, I am fine with a redirect to the parent album article Monster. Ashley yoursmile! 15:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 15:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 15:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. EN-Jungwon 17:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monster (EP). This will never grow beyond its stub form and the EP article hasn't even cracked 10kb worth of content to justify a separate page for this non-single. ✗plicit 06:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the coverage from this songs comes from album reviews, chating may indicate the song is notable, not that is notable. Clearly fails WP:NSONGS .MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its parent album, a b-side track with no assertion of independent notability. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico Real Cafe[edit]

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

Orphaned promotional article on non-notable company. Subject fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE checks show no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The majority of content is a history of coffee in Mexico, unrelated to the company. PROD contested by author. Jr8825 • Talk 15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom; bizarre article with lots of sources which are completely unrelated to the company. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Lorenru The article can be improved and I am volunteering to do it. I've found relevant sources to add and improve the content. I'll take 10 days from this date to finish it. (Lorenru) 22:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails our guidelines on the notability of corporations. Most of the provided references don't mention the company at all, and my searching does not identify any coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:56, 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 Draftify. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Methavi[edit]

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

Non notable future film, fails WP:NFF as production wasn't notable. Should be deleted or moved to draftspace until release and then notability can be determined. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG/NFF. Kolma8 (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I sent that into the draft, so that it can be improved. Fails WP:NFF. Sonofstar (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace It seems one editor is trying to update the article, unfortunately without any citations. Consider moving to draftspace so that the editor would be able to write the article and add some citations. Upon which, one can see if it still passes WP:NFF -- DaxServer (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Does not meet WP:NFF yet but it could meet notability guidelines soon as it has a notable cast and crew. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:29, 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 23:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malkeet Rauni[edit]

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

The article was previously PROD and deleted for not satisfying WP:NACTOR. He acted in a number of Punjabi films but none of them appear to be notable ones. The three cited sources are profiles and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything noteworthy. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable actor. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - THe person is a notable personality and acted in number of Punjabi and Hind Movies. But THere is less online content available about the person may be because he is underrated. Many personalities on the same level are already recognized as notable on English wikipedia. SO i think there may be chances of improving the article with more trusted references but deleting it wouldn't be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagmit Singh Brar (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG for BLP and NACTOR. Kolma8 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Hanan attack[edit]

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

Clearly unntoble. It cites Israeli government. Nytimes does not mention "Beit Hanan". -- Maudslay II (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Event reported by mainstream and reliable sources, including The New York Times, Milwaukee Journal, Ocala Star-Banner and others.--SoaringLL (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

Milwaukee link is not working. Other sources including Nytimes does not even mention Beit Hanan. How is it notable? -- Maudslay II (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The attack is mentioned: the 4 civilian murdered by Egyptian. If the name is not precise it could be changed --Shrike (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we have 3 sources from 1955 that says: an attack happened. No location. No details. No WP:DEPTH. No WP:LASTING. Are 3 sources enough? Is that notable? -- Maudslay II (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep political motiviated attack on civilians with casualties cited by RS. Sokuya (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources cited at all (and newspaper accounts 50 years later are WP:PRIMARY, see for example here). Bring some actual secondary sources that discuss this and provide in depth coverage then make an article. As it stands now there are literally 0 sources demonstrating any type of coverage in secondary sources. nableezy - 21:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No case for deletion was made or, for that matter, exists. The attack was mentioned in all Israeli press at that time example1 example2 example3 example4 example5 and has not been forgotten since. There are tens of article like this, just for this massacre. It's part of a sad history of violence. The nomination refers to the lack of references in the article but per WP:NEXIST (an important part of the notability guideline) this does not matter at all. It are the sources "out there" that count. gidonb (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those show any lasting coverage, which is what WP:NEVENT requires. Primary sources that are 50 years old do not notability make. nableezy - 01:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are not primary but secondary sources from that time. I will look for contemporaneous sources later. The labor lodging location where people were massacred is in between two moshavs (sometimes also containing the workers for both) creating some confusion below and in the intro. gidonb (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are primary sources now. And they show no lasting coverage now. nableezy - 20:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually these were and remained journalistic reports, independent, in-depth, reliable, verifiable, secondary, and plentiful. gidonb (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT. I tagged the article, needs reliable sources that support the content.Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Everyone should disagree with "points" under their opinion that are not supported by policy, science, and the facts. Plus there is absolutely no need to tag something that is under discussion in AfD in addition to an AfD, then edit war about it. It's an overkill and WP:POINT. gidonb (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read this and this for why 50 year old contemporary news accounts are primary sources. And it should be obvious why those being the only sources cited does not satisfy the requirement for WP:LASTING coverage. nableezy - 09:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the given sources for the article, all external links, all old newspaper reports, one is a perma dead link, the others do not support the material in the article by location or description (eg Palestinian Fedayeen in the article versus Egypytian infiltrators in the papers). Need to find some proper sourcing if this is to be kept.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 21 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?} 01:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to give the "keep" !voters the opportunity to show how this event had a lasting impact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OP's rationale makes no sense but this appears to be a news event without discrete lasting impact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:EVENT, have been unable to find significant non-routine coverage beyond initial reports (most/all in the article), their may be mentions of it later eg. here ("The Beit Hanan attack in 1955 left four Jews dead, shot and stabbed as they worked the fields."), but these are not enough to warrent a standalone article (as a sidepoint, i note that it has not been deemed significant enough to be mentioned in the Beit Hanan article; a sentence could be included in the "History" section(?)). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Alex Rodda[edit]

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

Very sad, but there are a lot of murders worldwide every year and the encyclopedia does not need an article on each one. No indication that this tragic event is of any lasting encyclopedic significance, though obviously life-changing for the victim and perpetrator and their families. PamD 14:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PamD 14:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom User:Glittersnap - Delete it no one seems to want it - I don't see why not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glittersnap (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Striking vote from confirmed sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The closing admin (and @Þjarkur:) should note the curious edit history of this AfD, where a very new editor has removed the !vote of another very new editor, and an IP has since edited other editors' !votes and signatures. Not a pretty sight. Too complicated to try to unpick, short of rolling back all recent edits. PamD 09:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find routine coverage of the case - the same coverage every case gets. Dougal18 (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MURDER and WP:PERSISTENCE. The amount of coverage a case receives initially does not necessarily determine its notability – it's continued coverage that matters here, and I see no news on it past January, when the verdict was made. (Also, @Glittersnap: keep in mind that while you created the article, you don't own it.) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To add onto what PamD mentioned, I definitely suspect sockpuppetry of some kind with these three brand-new accounts and have opened an investigation, and the page history is just a mess now. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 19:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC) The article creator and their three socks have been blocked indefinitely. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 19:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:EVENT, ie. no lasting major consequences, affect to a large geographical area, nor significant non-routine coverage over a period of time. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Language[edit]

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

Non-notable language learning software. The article cites only the company's own website as source, and a search nets a product review in PCMag, various blog sites and the like, and that's about it; couldn't come up with a single RS sigcov references. Fails WP:GNG / WP:PROD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all sources are WP:SPIP. There's barely any neutral coverage of this software at all (besides a single PCMag review). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did find a PCMAG review: [6]. Not seeing any other reliable reviews, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 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. Improve using German WP Missvain (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Kollwitz[edit]

epidemiological:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I myself created the page, now nominating it for deletion as in the German Wiki, I couldn't find verifiable sources to his interesting facts of life, only to his losses during the both World Wars. My apologies if I did a mess trying to contribute CoryGlee (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete per WP:G7 (single substantial author, User:CoryGlee requesting deletion), concur this is a WP:NOTINHERITED situation (from Käthe Kollwitz. Alternatively, a Redirect (with possibly a very selective merge) could be made to Käthe Kollwitz.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as G7 probably does not apply when other users object to author-requested deletion (and will surely not apply if any of them makes a substantail edit). I am unconvinced that Hans is independently notable from his mother (e.g. does this rise to Christopher Tolkien (son of J. R. R. Tolkien, known for work on his father works), but this requires deeper parsing of the German sources.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 02:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kollwitz was notable as an author as a teenager. His epidemiological writings were published as well. We have a well referenced article on the German Wiki. [7] No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t think this is the most clear cut case but looking at the German article and the subject’s role as editor of works relating to his mother, with abundant references, I struggle to see how he wouldn’t be a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 18:43, 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) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pravisht Mishra[edit]

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

Single significant role, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG criteria.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is in a poor condition and the subject clearly fails to pass NACTOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 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) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barish[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG sources are patchy and relate to the business, a bar. No evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 10:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only significant coverage found in secondary sources is based on interviews with the subject and so, not independent. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 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. ✗plicit 13:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John G. W. Husted Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Not separately notable from Jacqueline Kennedy, who this individual was briefly in a relationship with. All sources discuss this individual in relationship to her, aside from the paid-for obituary, which does not establish notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability outside of his relationship with Jacqueline Kennedy, fails WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found outside of relationship. Subject has a minor mention in Jacqueline's article. I looked at the incoming links page, I am not sure it a redirect there is good choice or not. So Delete with no opinion on a redirect. Jeepday (talk) 15:18, 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 13:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Slaunwhite[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable as an author or copywriter and coverage is limited to self published and other non reliable sources. No significant, in depth coverage of his books and I cannot find evidence that his award is a notable one. Deleted at AfD in 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Slaunwhite and although that was an entirely different version and since this was created in good faith in 2009, figured AfD v. PROD makes sense. StarM 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him inclusion in Wikipedia just because he exists, but the sourcing is not getting him over WP:GNG. Five of the ten footnotes are just his own work metaverifying its own existence, which is not how you make a writer notable — you get a writer over WP:AUTHOR by showing that his books have been the subjects of media coverage, such as book reviews or news articles about them winning notable literary awards, not just by citing their existence to themselves. But once you chop the five footnotes where the subject was the author of the source, you're left with a self-published press release from his own organization, an award self-cited to the awarding organization's own self-published website about itself rather than media coverage to establish the notability of said award, user-generated reader reviews on Amazon, and a self-published press release from one of his publishers, none of which are support for notability either. There's just one footnote here that counts for anything, by being a real book review published in a real newspaper — but it still takes a hell of a lot more than just one of those to get a person over the bar. I also strongly suspect some form of conflict of interest editing, since the article was created by an WP:SPA whose only edits to any other article but this have involved creating new wikilinks to this article. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and other vote. Jeepday (talk) 15:20, 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 13:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natty Dreadlocks[edit]

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

This clearly falls under Wikipedia:NOTURBANDICTIONARY (Google it, the first link is urban dictionary and exactly the same words written here). No reliable sources provided or found to support this as anything but a slang term. Rusf10 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, agree. Erinius (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current content seems very trivial. Redirect to Natty Dread, where the origin of the album name should ideally be detailed? Geschichte (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If there is a need to include the term, it could be inserted into Dreadlocks (if an actual source could be found), and without the list of albums. LizardJr8 (talk) 13:53, 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 redirect to 1982 ICC Trophy squads#Bangladesh. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nazam Shirazi[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCRIC. The cricketer hasn't played any domestic or international match at highest level. Can't find any significant coverage. Earlier, the article was also tagged as citations needed but not being improved for a long time. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1982 ICC Trophy squads#Bangladesh Fails WP:CRIN as ICC Trophy appearances weren't in a final. In terms of GNG I'm not seeing anything really that would constitute significant coverage, unless source 1 in the article is so, but then it would still only be one source as the others aren't significant coverage (one isn't even about him). Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and nominator may want to consider using this for some of the others in the previous bundle. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per RugbyFan, not currently suitable for a standalone. SportingFlyer T·C 13:37, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patni (surname)[edit]

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

Not a notable surname, very few people use it and i can see the same from google search. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite a normal surname list that now is sourced with a fourth entry added. "Do I make Wikipedia better if this page is deleted?" is a fundamental question one needs to ask oneself before nominating for deletion. In this case the answer is "no" as the page also serves as a WP:SIA. Sam Sailor 20:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reasons as Sam. Wire723 (talk) 08:06, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djordje Vujičić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 10:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable footballer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG, regional leagues and under age appearances only JW 1961^Talk 20:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG as far as I can see; I only found this passing mention of him Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Poppified ^talk 13:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:11, 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 13:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Lake (New York)[edit]

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

Insignificant body of water, part of mass-creation probably numbering thousands. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mass-produced without demonstration of notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say merge to the Wilcox Lake Wild Forest article, as obviously this is one of several two-sentence lakes that would be best covered in such an article, but that is still a dangling hyperlink on list of New York wild forests. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 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. ✗plicit 13:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Lake (Hamilton County, New York)[edit]

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

Insignificant body of water, part of mass-creation probably numbering thousands. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mass-produced without demonstration of notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say merge to the Wilcox Lake Wild Forest article, as obviously this is one of several two-sentence lakes that would be best covered in such an article, but that is still a dangling hyperlink on list of New York wild forests. Uncle G (talk) 08:00, 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 13:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Butler Hill[edit]

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

Small mountain without WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. nearlyevil 665 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mass-produced without demonstration of notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am undecided on this. It may pass WP:GEOLAND as named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. Missouri Historical Society wrote about it, although not much, which could make a very weak case for keeping. It depends on exactly how you think the guideline should be interpreted.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it didn't. That's what Hog Farm, I, and others refer to by the shorthand "Ramsay" in these Missouri discussions. It's the Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection, held by the society, and derived from earlier sources by a local professor of English. The cards are at most a handful of sentences long, plus a source citation. In this case the source that Ramsay cites is hdl:10355/82581 and its sources, in turn, are an oral history from one Bert Williams, local person, and a map of the Fredericktown Quadrangle. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 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 13:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi cricket team in West Bengal in 1983–84[edit]

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

Very minor tour, not received first-class or List A status. Fails WP:GNG as nothing significant in coverage. I also didn't find the matches of the tour in different specialist stats websites. So, without any reliable sources in the article, its also difficult to confirm that the tour really existed. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable tour, not seeing any real coverage of it in an online search. Can't see a suitable redirect for it either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 19:28, 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. ✗plicit 13:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi Airlines Gymkhana cricket team in Bangladesh in 1992–93[edit]

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

Very minor tour, not received first-class or List A status and fails WP:GNG. The article is fully unsourced and so nothing significant in coverage. Thus it is difficult to confirm that the tour really existed. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cricket tour, not seeing any real coverage in a internet search. Can't see a suitable redirect to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 19:28, 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 14:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paxos Trust Company[edit]

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

non-distinctive cryptocurrency company. the references sre mere notices DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a COI here so not voting, but I believe these pieces from Fortune, the New York Times, CNBC, TechCrunch, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal and CNBC again qualify as significant coverage. Also pinging @Nightenbelle, Timtempleton, and Rosguill:, who have been involved in this article in the past, to weigh in if they'd like. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Coverage is mostly routine, but a fair amount of it is in very reputable publications. It's certainly a cut above most of the business spam that we usually see here at AfD, although it appears to struggle to cross the NCORP hurdle. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - responding to ping. I just looked them up and they are the fifth largest unicorn of April 2021 [[8]]. Along with the coverage cited above, they meet the standards of notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:47, 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 redirect to Richard Milazzo. ✗plicit 13:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewise Press[edit]

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

My !vote is re-direct as I've already done once. Article is not sourced at all, and it is basically WP:ADMASQ and a quick check strongly suggests that this article fails to meet WP:NCORP, and WP:CORPDEPTH. I believe it was generous to consider WP:ATD and re-direct to Richard Milazzo, but that has been reverted by another editor, so now it is time to seek consensus on whether to delete vs re-direct. Graywalls (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewise Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lopifalko Vexations Justlettersandnumbers Graywalls Opposed to Deletion. I am adding sources, for example Peter Carravetta, Language at the Boundaries: Philosophy, Literature, and the Poetics of Culture, Bloomberg Press to start. Why so hasty to eliminate? I prefer to improve the page, as I have just done. Edgewise books has an extensive list of international notables published there (now linked).Valueyou (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Association with others that are themselves notable, doesn't count toward notability. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lopifalko This is an art book publication house, so I would think it very much would be.Valueyou (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not based on what anyone thinks, but on what can be demonstrated, as per the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lopifalko Yes, thank you, but does not the notability of those published by a press demonstrate that the press is itself notable, and that fact should be taken into consideration.Valueyou (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I said above: "Association with others that are themselves notable, doesn't count toward notability". Please read WP:INHERITORG. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank again. I read it and it concerns corporations. Irrelevant here. Edgewise Press is a small nonprofit art press with a record of notable authors attached to it.Valueyou (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profits aren't exempt from N:CORP/N:ORG. Is there a conflict of interest here we should be aware of? StarM 14:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I say I was generous to merge and re-direct instead, because the target of re-direct seems to be of borderline notability and WP:ANYBIO is not as difficult to pass as NORG. Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi Graywalls Lopifalko Vexations Justlettersandnumbers Appreciate all generosity. The Notability (organizations and companies) page is confusing to me. The top of the N:CORP/N:ORG page states "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions..." Edgewise Press is a non-profit educational institution. Len Fulton describes Edgewise Press as an “unfunded nonprofit” in the International Directory of Little Magazines & Small Presses Volume 37 2001, p. 155. Also, I think all would agree that Ross Bleckner and Peter Halley are exceptionally notable contemporary artists, and if they publish their writings with Edgewise Press, that should weigh on the Edgewise Press notability factor. Common sense to me.Valueyou (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valueyou, I'm afraid that Wikipedia's use of the term "notability" is somewhat idiosyncratic and unhelpful. Use common sense is, unfortunately, not a core Wikipedia policy. What (most) participants in deletion discussions mean when they use that word is something entirely different than what you mean when you propose that Halley is a very important artist, his writing attracts significant critical attention by scholars and that the dissemination of those writings is in itself worthy of note. Here, at AfD, notable means that there exists a lot of (written) material that discusses the topic in-depth. I think of "notable" as short for: "Given that we cannot write what we know, but need to base everything on published sources, do we have sufficient material to write the article with?" If the answer to that is no, we reach consensus that the article cannot be sustained and ought to be deleted. Vexations (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that's your interpretation of it. What that means is something like an actual university. Not some silly little groups organized as a not-for-profit organization and decides to call itself educational oriented. You should have another look at WP:INHERITORG. Wikipedia is not copywriting. Things like celebrity endorsement or the notability of the person writing/talking about it do not factor into notability. Graywalls (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Milazzo. There is simply not much to say here, in terms of the sources.--- Possibly (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Milazzo. Worldcat listings are far from perfect, but seem to indicate that this "press" published about thirty-two "books" (many of them seem actually to be exhibition catalogues), of which eleven were written by or associated with Milazzo (for perspective, a comparable search for a major academic press gets over six million results). According to this page, Milazzo was the editor of the press. It does not come close to satisfying WP:NCORP. Star Mississippi, to me this appeared to be part of a dedicated long-term campaign to promote Milazzo and matters surrounding him, but Valueyou has denied any connection. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Milazzo, this seems like a straitforward solution, since the Milazzo article already contains a section on Edgewise Press. Netherzone (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Milazzo I moved the art educational information there and undid revision 1021998731 by Graywalls to reinstate list of nonprofit art educational books - not a product catalog - btw - i object to Graywalls ghosting and reversing almost my every edit since i made a mild critique of the erase mania practiced by Graywalls. i am here to add value within my field of expertise. Graywalls likes to "write stuff and I erase stuff on Wikipedia" but mostly erase stuff and make groundless accusations of coincidence.Valueyou (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is what I did in the first place even though you reverted it only to vote "redirect" again. It was your reversion that made it necessary to start this consensus building discussion. Graywalls (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Milazzo I do not see any of the independent and substantial in-depth coverage of the press itself that would either justify having an article or enable us to write it. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:33, 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. ✗plicit 14:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsmans Warehouse[edit]

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

Page should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG, hard to find any good secondary sources about the business (that aren't on the similarly named American business, not this Australian business) Doctorkaufman (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no single source cited and there is no indication of notability from search results. Kaspadoo (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unreferenced and self serving article. Teraplane (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:52, 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 no consensus. Pre-empting the third relist, which is excessive. —Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda M. Hankerson[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No reliable source were turned up on doing a WP:Before. Fails WP:NSPORT Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / weak keep erring on the side of caution. I'm not knowledgeable about the subject of women's basketball coaches at all, but noticed this page when patrolling. I just wanted to point out that the American women's basketball coaches category is vast for a subject I wouldn't expect so many articles on, and many other pages I sampled are about people with a similar career to the nominated article. It's either full of other articles that need to be deleted, or this article fits in there just fine. EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Comment / ‘’’ When will the decision be made on the inclusion of Coach Hankerson entry? User:Mitchamz(Mitchamz)
Comment / Publish Immediatedly Are you kidding me? Hilda M. Hankerson is one of the most Notable and Decorated Women HS Girls Coaches in history. Her teams are ranked both nationally and within the State of Ga. If style, syntax and clean up are the issue then do that but notablity is definitely not an issue. USA Today and ESPN are quality sources.Mitcham^{Article Support} 11:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mitchamz, I have no issues with the style or anything. I know really well that AFD is not cleanup. This reputed source [9] from USATODAY which you referred is just a fan poll. It talks nothing about this person. And this one from ESPN [10] is about a competition rather than this person.? How can we consider these to establish GNG? As the creator of this article, you might really have an idea about her. But what about others? If you provide a reliable source which actually talks about her, I can consider withdrawal of this nom. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The USA Today article is not a poll. It announced their Coach of the Awardee and ESPN just carried the National Championship on TVMitcham^{Article Support} 11:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Thats what Im also saying. USA today announced their coach of the year in a public poll. ESPN is talking about something else and only gives a mere mention about the subject. These two alone does not give sigvov to establish GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coaching a team to four championships and being recognized as a veteran woman's basketball coach is notable. The biggest issue is inline citation and writing style. I've already made a serious of changes to improve things, though there's a lot more work required. --Dnllnd (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage of her does not meet the significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party indepdent sources test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has just as much coverage as many articles similar to hers or more. When will discussion be closed on this subject? --Mitchamz (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchamz: See WP:CLOSEAFD regarding timing. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In particular, participants are encouraged to base arguments for notability on the existing notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like there is coverage in some reliable sources that isn't already mentioned. I found two articles that I think would help demonstrate the subject meeting WP:GNG:
- "Westlake's Hankerson wins 400th game"; February 15, 2011 South Metro Neighbor (Forest Park, GA) (and other newspapers)
- "Hankerson's long wait paying off tremendously, Westlake seeks fourth consecutive state title against Carrollton", The Atlanta Voice (Atlanta, Georgia) 12 Mar 2021, Page 13 Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can this AFD nomination be finally removed? Mitchamz (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ (Mitchamz cannot !vote more than once, and now he's spamming the shit out of this discussion. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)) - Follows GNG. She recieved continual sustained coverage from reputable sources such as ESPN, USA Today, USA Basketball and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for coaching a National Championship, 4 State Championships and 9 regional championship teams. Mitchamz (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources happen to mention her name in passing in context of polls and season recaps. The articles are not about her. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- She is the principal subject of the cited sources and do not merely mention her name in passing. The USA Basketball article is specifically about her. ^[1] Mitchamz (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2021 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 07:15, 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. A sock nominated this - I would have closed it as custom. But, it appears a draft exists, so I'm going to delete this article. Missvain (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azra Public School, Hyderabad[edit]

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

This article was already declined at the draftspace. See [11]. The creator then had a discussion in my talk page regarding this [12] and told me that they are discarding from creating the article. But it has been recreated now. The school have no coverage from reliable sources thus failing GNG as well NORG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmorwiki I really don't know how this was created again. I put the deletion tag on the draft then click publish. I didn't further create another draft. So I guess you are free to delete this. Also how did this article move to the main space? (Seeing it doesn't have the draft tag anymore. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rasalghul1711, from what I can see at [13], you created it in mainspace, maybe you didn't mean to. Draft:Azra Public School, Hyderabad also exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told I did not intend to publish this mainspace and have no idea how it got accepted. If the moderators feel like this cannot remain an article, it's okay to delete it or I can keep improving this article so that one day it's acceptable. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Found new Source. I managed to get an old publication of Newstime about the school (Image) which talks about the school. Now since I have got a number of independent reliable sources. Does this now qualify for an article? Rasalghul1711 (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-04 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really know what to add anymore. Before there were some sources issues but then I added a photo of the school which was mentioned in a magazine called Newstime (which was owned by The Times of India and was quite famous in Hyderabad and so is a reliable source) so I don’t know what else to do. This is why I removed the AfD Rasalghul1711 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find is a few brief, passing, trivial mentions in school directories. Nothing that would pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG though. Plus, what I can tell all the references in the article are primary or otherwise not usable for notability. So, there doesn't seem to be a guideline based reason to keep the article. That said, I appreciate that the article creator put the time into it and hopefully it being deleted (if that's what happens) doesn't dissuade from creating more articles. Hopefully just more notable ones next time ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 16:00, 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 07:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan and Dakota Gonzalez[edit]

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

Non-notable persons with a ton of primary sources and coverage restricted to local media, interviews and primary sources. nearlyevil 665 05:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 05:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete: per CSD G4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan and Dakota Gonzalez CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford: I'm not sure what you're saying here; that's a link to this discussion? Was there another you were trying to point to? Kuru (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru ? The Article should be speedey deleted per CSD G4, recreation of previous via AfD deleted Article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan and Dakota Gonzalez CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I was unclear. G4 is for quickly removing articles that have previously been deleted as part of a formal deletion discussion. The link you're providing is to this page. We would need a link to a prior discussion to act upon. I don't see anything obvious in the history. Kuru (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize, clearly a mistake of mine. Anyway fails clearly WP:GNG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no to speedy We need a full discussion on this. The reason behind the proposed speedy is unclear and circular, which may be an error or something more. So let's let the discussion run its course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:CSD#G4 does not apply, as it was only deleted via PROD. However, this makes the page ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per logic at WP:UNOPPOSED.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae Rise Up[edit]

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

Non-notable event with nothing but primary sources or trivial local coverage. nearlyevil 665 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 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. ✗plicit 07:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Dennis[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing notable in WP:BEFORE, does not pass WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:22, 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 keep. Going with keep for now. Please propose merger, if interested, on appropriate talk page. Missvain (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laiza Golf Club[edit]

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

PRODing will have no sense here so AfD. Just a Golf Club, perhaps created to establish some notability for Myanmar military personal (see [14]). It has polemic news mentions but fails clearly WP:GNG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page already has good detailed sources which demonstrate international coverage such as the New York Times. And it's easy to find more coverage such as National Geographic. The place is clearly not just another golf club but attracts attention because of its unusual and incongruous existence in a war zone, which gives it quite a M*A*S*H ambience. It clearly passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into some suitable Kachin-related article (eg Kachin Independence Organisation). As a golf course it has no interest, currently just 6 holes. It's only claim to fame is it's connection to Kachin Independence. WP:N says that, even if a subject passes GNG, "editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" and given the limited amount that needs to be said about the course (a paragraph or perhaps two), I suggest merging into another Kachin-related article. Currently it only links from Sumlut Gun Maw, "an officer of the Kachin Independence Army." Nigej (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Kachin_Independence_Organisation#Services as it is financed and run by this organisation. The golf course's notability does seem to be solely because of the Kachin Independence Army's presence there. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the coverage such as NY Times demonstrated by Andrew Davidson appears sufficient for WP:GNG. 185.205.142.77 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2004 NACAC U23 Championships in Athletics. Missvain (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Sylvester[edit]

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

Most of the coverage I can find on him is prep sports coverage, which WP:YOUNGATH specifically discusses. The college coverage is all similar to [15], brief and not significant, and his award is in a youth competition. SportingFlyer T·C 17:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2004 NACAC U23 Championships in Athletics, the only competitive performance of note in his career. We can maintain the categories and is a suitable topic for Wikidata. SFB 20:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per above, extremely far from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 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 delete. ✗plicit 07:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Itahari[edit]

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

Unreferenced list of non-notable schools. Only one of the items has a linked article which can be merged to Itahari. nirmal (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a directory. Totally agree that the one linked article could just be merged to Itahari though. Since it clearly needs the content. Maybe some of the other entries can be merged also. Since the standards of inclusion for city articles are lower then for lists like this one. There's zero reason to have a stand alone article though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR. Mukt (talk) 11:19, 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 redirect to Jill Hennessy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Hennessy[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. This is not sourced to any coverage of her work as a journalist at all, but solely to a photogallery that existed in the context of her happening to be the twin sister of an actress -- but notability is not inherited, so Jill's fame doesn't hand Jacqueline a no-sourcing-required inclusion freebie. The article is also badly outdated, indicating that she "currently" hosts a show she stopped hosting a decade ago, and even that show hasn't been properly sourced as notable either. There's simply nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jill Hennessy. Jacqueline has had a few roles in notable films, though she often plays the body double/twin/replacement for her more famous sister. I would've thought that serving as the narrator of Love It or List It would generate some interest, but no such luck. I believe preserving the page history is important here. KidAd • SPEAK 05:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems like the best solution here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 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 07:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common phrases in Tripuri[edit]

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

Clear Violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Wikipedia is not a place to learn a new language. I would have nominated for CSD if we had a valid criteria for this. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kokborok. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 04:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTHOWTO. I don't think a redirect is necessary as it's probably not a phrase that is commonly searched for. Suonii180 (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect does not seem useful. The article itself is a clear violation of nothowto. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (both of these, 'Common phrases...' and 'Learn...'; I forget now which is the redir and which the target) — per nom, WP isn't a language course. And redirect would be pointless, because who in their right mind is going to search for something like this? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on Wikipedia and Keep on Wikibooks, see b:Bengali/Common phrases. --Titodutta (talk) 17:30, 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. Missvain (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Márton Barta[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:YOUNGATH - apart from [16] I cannot find significant coverage of him, even when searching in Hungarian for Barta Márton, and all of his accomplishments are at a junior level. Can always refund if this is simply WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 09:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably fails WP:GNG, I'm not sure. The only other sources that I can find are Nyugat, Origo and Hungary Sport. Not really enough to build a biography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 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. Missvain (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Fothergill[edit]

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

No significant coverage and only minor roles per WP:ENT. The article is only sourced to IMDb. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Obviously he is known to Doctor Who and Blake's 7 fans but we need more reliable sources other than IMDb. Are there any? Trivia: He lives in Spain with a Nimon (Robin Sherringham) and his niece is the editor of GP Racing (https://mobile.twitter.com/CoddersF1/status/1347262262432690177).2A00:23C6:D884:6401:FD1C:F513:C72:95EA (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 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) 23:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yungeen Ace[edit]

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

Challenged Prod by original author. Artist does not meet any inclusion criteria. They fail WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG. You Tube plays are not an indication of Notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some mention here and here, but no indication of awards, charted songs, or significant coverage to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete there is a notable song, ¨who i smoke¨, but hes not the main singer on the song, and no information that i can find. Im from the area, but hes not notable enough. he only had 1-2 ¨ḧit¨ songs, and both aren´t really known outside of Florida. New3400 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 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. ✗plicit 03:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Intelligence[edit]

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

Article about a community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television talk show), not citing any reliable sources to pass WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows are not handed a free notability pass just because they exist -- the notability test requires them to be the subject of coverage in media sources independent of their own self-published websites in order to establish their significance. But the only other source here is a former host's IMDb profle, which isn't enough, and I can't find any other sources of value. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well the website doesn't exist and I can't find much about the program. G4TechTV isn't even a network anymore either, so we can't find much about a former program on a dead network... Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very well reasoned argument of the nominator as to why this is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 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 redirect to Peter Moore Smith. Missvain (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion, Nebraska[edit]

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

Little-to-no additional information found, and nothing currently here that requires an independent article. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm getting nothing other than it was the basis for the film and that it was a Pushcart and a Best American Short Stories selection. I'm not getting enough more for the film to justify an article on it either. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure if the Pushcart is notable enough to warrant a keep on that basis alone. I know it's certainly well thought of and would at least give partial notability. There aren't really any AfDs to draw upon, as most of the time when it's brought up, it's brought up about people who list that they were nominated rather than the ones who won. The ones for the people who win are generally kept, but the Pushcart Prize has never been brought up in a situation where that award would be what kept the article in and of itself. I'm honestly leaning towards a merge and redirect to the author's article, which is on the smaller side. I do think that this should be covered to some degree, but what is currently in the article could more or less be covered in a single section. I'll hold off because I want to check a few more things. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per my comment above. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the pertinent content and honestly... didn't really lose a thing since there really is only about a section's worth of content in this article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:52, 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 Transwiki. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demonopolization[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article, and the topic doesn’t even make sense as an article concept as more specific facets are covered across several other articles (e.g. Monopoly, Pirate politics, Competition Law, etc). Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Mccapra (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree to the transwiki thing above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's written like Wiktionary already and Wiktionary has no entry for it (only for 'demonopolize'). Perhaps also mention this in Monopoly#Breaking up monopolies, using content from the the refs in Demonopolization. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 20:57, 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. — The Earwig (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulco, California[edit]

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

I have to suspect that Durham, the only source, describes this as a lumber camp rather than as a town, but in any case the only trace of something like it is this photograph of an Ulco logging camp, which may or may not even be of Durham's location. Furham's directions aren't terribly helpful, as seventeen miles is so far east of Ft. Bragg that Willits is lot closer; at any rate, my searching of the topos produced nothing. I single year with a post office isn't going to cut it for notability, and that's all we have. Mangoe (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also prodded by @Geschichte. Durham describes it as "Ulco post office" under the entry for Fort Bragg. It was original research to misrepresent this as a settlement. Reywas92^Talk 01:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the process of procrastinating on accounting homework, so will look for coverage. So far got brief announcement that P.O. was opened, and that's about it on newspapers.com except for repeated statements in a 1930s announcement that a polling place inspector was from Ulco. Searching elsewhere brings up even less - mainly just the lumber company and a bunch of scanner errors. With no significant coverage to be found, this has to be a delete. Hog Farm _Talk 01:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So with the source above, I was able to find Churchman Creek on the topos. Neither the 1920 nor 1943 Glenblair 1:62500 USGS topos show any form of development along Churchman Creek. If there was ever any sort of permanent inhabitation here, it made little mark of its existence. Hog Farm _Talk 02:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder, unless something is provided to meet WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ULCO was a telegraph code ("cable address") for the Union Lumber Company that was headquartered in Fort Bragg (on 6th and Channel, according to the telegraph directory). An Ulco logging camp could be anywhere, as the company had a fair amount of forest in the county. Gudde's place names book does not have Ulco; nor does the 1938 California Names: Over Two Thousand Five Hundred Place Names, Individual Names, Words and Phrases in Common Use in the Golden State, Spelled, Pronounced, Defined and Explained by Harry Laurenz Wells. Elsewhere I can confirm from a 1932 USPS directory that there was an Ulco post office. There's practically nothing to say about it. The Union Lumber Company history should probably say that the company had its own post office. This is not notable and the article at hand is false. Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It now does say. Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 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) 00:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Igors Černovs[edit]

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

Gscholar gives h-index in low single digits, nothing indicates passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. The article is rather promotional. The photo appears to be a copyvio. Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. fails WP:SCHOLAR, no other avenue for notability is evident from the article. --hroest 02:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass NACADEMIC and does not have SIGCOV.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of WP:PROF notability, possibly created with promotional intent. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing meeting any of the NPROF criteria; additionally, it lists him as a "physician" in the infobox, which is not supported by the article... JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:31, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalijs Pavelko[edit]

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

Can't see how he passes WP:NSCHOLAR, and not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citability in GScholar is quite low, with h-index of around 5. Nothing else indicates passing WP:PROF on other grounds. The article is full of unsourced WP:OR and is highly promotional, a borderline G11 case. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not evident from the article, fails WP:NSCHOLAR. --hroest 02:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only evidence of WP:PROF notability is the "honored worker" award and I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:39, 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 keep. JGHowes ^talk 16:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 mm scale[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG and article is full of WP:OR. Sure, there is evidence that some models were made in this size, but no reliable sources discuss the significance of this particular size model train. Rusf10 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I believe this article should be kept for two reasons. 1 You have no proof that some of the articles content is OR 2 Maybe try looking around for more sources. Just because an article is lacking a few sources that doesn’t mean the entire thing should be nuked. Instead if some of the content is found to be OR then surely the text could be rewritten and cited to a source. Slender (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't have to prove anything. WP:ONUS is on the person who added the content. 2. I already did a search and only came up with a few brief mentions, no in-depth coverage. 3. Do you have a policy-based reason to keep?--Rusf10 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment My impression is that almost nobody uses this name: they either call it "FS160" or "fiNescale". And I don't get a lot of hits for either of those, but at least I get something. Given the length of any of these precision modelling groups, though, it's not unreasonable to merge each of them into its corresponding hobbyist gauge. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment Would anything from here be accepted to be added as a source? Surely for this site to exist means that it is a popular scale in the UK at least. http://www.2mm.org.uk/ Slender (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Look at the results of a Google Books search for "'2mm scale' railway -wikipedia" -- mentioned all over the place. They don't say much about it simply because there isn't much to say: "2mm scale" says it all; a scale of 2mm/ft, implied finescale (use of a "Xmm scale" format rather than "N" or other named scale. It's a British thing, so unsurprisingly few mentions outside of British hobby press. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Morven:So if there isn't much to say, why is this deserving of its own article?--Rusf10 (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep While it is less popular than N scale, I have seen plenty of examples of 2mm scale modelling at exhibitions around the UK; it is the little brother of Protofour. I can see that some editors have added new citations but a few more will still be helpful. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep: We are refactored and cited well past the nom. at 1021666328 and required notability is established. There remains some uncited stuff but most will be citable if I or elseone leverages 9780951837313 or a derivation. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:54, 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.

^ [17]

[1] "Luis Mendoza:Un talento del balompié nacional". AVN. 8 November 2010.

[2] "Qui est Benjamin Smith, le nouveau patron d'Air France-KLM ?". Europe 1 (in French). Retrieved 2021-04-30.

[3] "Air France-KLM : le Canadien Benjamin Smith nommé directeur général". Le Monde.fr (in French). 2018-08-16. Retrieved 2021-04-30.

[4] zine, Le Point (2018-08-16). "Benjamin Smith, un "fin tacticien" pour reprendre les rênes d'Air France-KLM". Le Point (in French). Retrieved 2021-04-30.

[5] "Benjamin Smith, le nouveau patron canadien d'Air France-KLM, entre en piste". Les Echos (in French). 2018-09-17. Retrieved 2021-04-27.

[6] "Air France Unions Don't Want Outsider Ben Smith of Air Canada as New CEO". Skift. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[ParisMatch-7] "Qui est Benjamin Smith, le Canadien qui va piloter Air France-KLM?". ParisMatch.fr. 21 August 2018.

[8] "Benjamin Smith, l'un des artisans du retournement d'Air Canada". Les Echos. 2018-08-16.

[9] "Air France-KLM boss covers first leg of long-haul recovery". Financial Times. 2020-02-24. Retrieved 2021-05-01.

[10] [17]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]