Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 30	November 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Styszyńska[edit]

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

Styszyńska does not seem to pass either WP:NPROF or the GNG. An associate professorship does not suffice under NPROF crit. 5, and the low citation levels (Scopus gives me an h-index of 6) suggest that crit. 1 is failed. There are no other criteria that could be met, and a WP:BEFORE search finds no GNG-qualifying coverage in English or Polish. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. She does not pass either NPROF or GNG. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Individual fails WP:NPROF per nom. I am unable to find sufficient sources to show that she meets WP:BASIC, though I'm limited to searching in English because I do not understand Polish. As other editors have been unable to find Polish-language sources, I'm inclined to delete this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Castle (Ybor)[edit]

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

This article is about a nightclub. The tampabay.com sources are short routine articles in the local paper, very routine coverage. There appears to be nothing noteworthy about the business. The building is much older, and is mentioned in context of a 1931 labor dispute, but I don't see enough for the building to meet GNG either. MB 21:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MB 21:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MB 21:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Limited sourcing, local only. And while it may be fun for those who go there, there appears to be nothing particularly notable about this nightclub, its history, or its activities. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Rabt[edit]

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

Sources don't mention the place, neither does Google maps. Possible WP:OR? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google maps link via coordinates. Curbon7 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the map - it has no places names except one "Bou'eid Mosque"; no "Al-Rabt" - a name that as far as I can tell is also not mentioned in either of the sources. I get the impression that the author, who is Iraqi, wrote this from experience (WP:OR). Iskandar323 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this place exists. The only reference in English does not appear to mention it. The article calls it a "little known" village and that may be the most accurate bit of information in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a hoax article or a false reference that was used to support Al-Marasimah. -- Wikiraqi (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This well could be a hoax, and the citations don't support its existence. "Little-known village" is a bit of a red flag unless some source says it exists. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sarvann. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Guliani[edit]

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

Seems WP:TOOSOON. He has mentions in a few sources about a film he did with Priyanka Chopra, but no WP:SIGCOV about Guiliani specifically. Does not appear to meet WP:NFILMMAKER. – DarkGlow • 19:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For creative professionals, it is not mandatory that coverage is directly about them. In-depth coverage about their work (that makes their work notable) can count. In this case, there is one notable project. So a good route will be to create a redirect to the only notable project; or the company. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarvann as suggested above. Good idea. It just may be a matter of TOOSOON so that the biography can be expanded from the redirect when he has a more significant resume. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sarvann per above. No independent coverage of the subject as of yet, but his only notable work is a reasonable redirect target. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Micozzi[edit]

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

Promotional article for fringe alternative medicine physician. (Current version is severely cut down from promotional original.) Despite grandiose claims, there's a paucity of RSes to back them up. A WP:BEFORE shows almost zero coverage in RSes, including passing mentions; even coverage in WP:FRINGE sources seems sparse. Micozzi doesn't seem to pass any of the prongs of WP:NBIO, WP:FRINGEBLP or WP:GNG. Would need solid RS coverage to keep this. PROD removed on basis of H-index, but we'd still need actual sources to have a BLP. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability under several guidelines as mentioned by nominator. More disturbing to me, many or most of his supposed accomplishments are tagged "citation needed," and some of them stretch my credulity. Associate director of the AFIP, three years out of his residency? Really? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I thought I would see what I can verify about him. One source said he lives in Florida and is a forensic pathologist. The Florida "look up license" website is down so I could not confirm if he is licensed in Florida. His website (which praises him to the skies) says he is "qualified for board certification" in anatomic and forensic pathology. However, he is not recognized as certified by the American Board of Medical Specialists.[1] He claims to be an adjunct professor in several departments (Physiology, Biophysics, Pharmacology) at Georgetown University School of Medicine, but the search function at Georgetown does not find him.[2] Shall I go on? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is no longer licensed in Florida. His status is listed as NULL AND VOID - the licensed practitioner failed to renew their licensure status for two renewal cycles, resulting in their license expiring. Practitioner no longer obligated to update his/her profile data. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and contains enough unlikely information to warrant WP:TNT even if he were notable. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdu Kiar[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim I can discern here is that he exists, and said existence is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his self-published social networking profiles and streaming platforms and online music stores -- and the only source that's actually independent or reliable just soundbites a brief quote from him in an article whose core subject is something else, which is not enough in either substance or volume to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if all of the sourcing around it is garbage. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2010-11 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Ortt-Saeed[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE as a poet. Gnews comes up with 3 hits and passing mentions. No major awards won and an orphan article. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ortt-Saeed was the subject of the documentary film Punjabi Love Story. Not sure what parameters were used for the Google News search, but it seems to have missed more substantial coverage in The Express Tribune, Our Heritage magazine and The Sydney Morning Herald. She is listed in World Who's Who and the International Who's Who in Poetry. --Canley (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expanded the article with notable information provided above by Canley and improved the sourcing. At its current state, I believe the subject satisfies WP:POET --WomenProj (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent improvements made to the article after the above nomination are noteworthy.Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to recreate as a redirect. – Joe (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellendale Forge, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Former forge mislabeled as a populated place in GNIS. Archived news articles mention its 20th-century role as a sportsmen's club, but there's nothing that meets WP:GEOLAND/WP:GNG and no indication that this was ever anything more than a single property. –dlthewave ☎ 23:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note: I removed the PROD from this per WP:GEOLAND; however, I had missed the recent RFC on GNIS and per that RFC, this does not fulfill WP:GEOLAND and should be deleted for lack of notability per nom.snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 13:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle Paxton Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. There appears to be a small community here, but perhaps not notable enough for its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Kopel[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. 4 of the sources in the article are by the article subject. Gnews comes up with mentions she's made in the media, but nothing indepth with her as the subject. Also an orphan article. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being an orphan article is not a criteria for deletion AFAIK? MurielMary (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ORPHS, it should not be brought up. Schwede 66 19:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be worth noting that as a researcher/scholar, she may satisfy one of these specific criteria: WP:PROF2: "Their published work has been highly cited relative to their field". Considering that she's tackling very specific issues for a specific location, it's not surprising that her works are not covered globally. However, her work has been cited here, here, and here. --WomenProj (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF2 is a personal draft, not a policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: You are absolutely right, thank you for pointing out. Although it does raise good points about what the somewhat vagueness and lack of diversity and/or inclusivity in the current guideliness. Anyway, if were to strictly stick to WP:NPROF, "Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. From the citations of her work, one can argue the relevance and impact of her works in their area, hence it was covered by the PNG news sites I've mentioned above. I can imagine the media wouldn't really cover her as an individual per se as they would with celebrities, but it may be worth assessing the impact of her work, especially in the PNG. Also, there's are just sources that are written in English, I'm wondering whether you may be able to help source/supply others that are in one of the other official languages of PNG, @MurielMary:? --WomenProj (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this part "Kopel is a senior research fellow and program leader of the Informal Economy Research Program at the Papua New Guinea National Research Institute" may help satisfy this criteria: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon" I'm not familiar with the higher or research institutions in PNG, but can maybe someone else can help confirm its standing in the country/region? (note: please excuse me for using the big formatting as I don't know how other formats to highlight the criteria) - WomenProj (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted criterion is specific to professors at major research universities, which it does not appear she is or has ever been. The applicable criterion is #6, but she definitely does not meet that either. While there is a criterion for "[having] a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", which is where mentions by lay media would come into play, the coverage I am seeing certainly does not overcome the hurdle of C7(a). As for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", the point is that being an expert in a very niche subject is admirable but also fully expected of every independent researcher, so is not by itself reason for inclusion. Unfortunately, I am not seeing academic citations of her work that would indicate she has made exceptional scholarly impact within her field broadly construed. Google Scholar has only 17 hits for her, many of which are not even works authored by or discussing her (e.g. showing up in acknowledgements), and I count just 16 citations total (not all of them academic publications, either). JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See my reasoning above. JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with regret. Try again in the future when more sources may have accumulated. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. (1) I'm not sure why Papua New Guinea has such comparatively low wikidata/wikipedia coverage compared to other countries, but it's very striking and presumably there is some systemic bias here. For example, PNG has fewer biographies than Fiji, though PNG has ten times the population - and PNG has sixty times fewer biographies than New Zealand, though PNG's population is double that of NZ. I agree we should try to find non-English sources. (2) Kopel's activity - that of applied social research in a development context - means that she falls awkwardly within WP:ACAD, which tends to assume researchers primarily publishing within an institutional university context. (I also don't think Google scholar is at all reliable in assessing publications in her particular subject domain.) Dsp13 (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that systemic bias is in the picture. The comparatively large Fijian presence probably comes from one source only, sports biographies. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scopus only had one paper by her, which is why I looked to GS (which I agree is a dismal source for citations). PNG likely doesn't yet have the infrastructure to support large media and academic programs and clearly doesn't have the sports presence of Fiji. We can't force coverage out of something where there just isn't any RS or evidence of scholarly impact. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Forde (Gaelic footballer)[edit]

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

I am the article subject and a private non-notable person and I want the article deleted pledase Afhl1357 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see how WP:BIODEL or WP:BLPPUBLIC can be applied. As per the referencing in the article and a WP:BEFORE search, the subject is (verifiably) the primary topic of a volume of news and other articles (In the Irish Times, Irish Examiner, RTÉ, and other national news outlets.) If the subject is (now) a non-public figure, deleting this WP article wouldn't address the (relatively apparent) fact that there is significant coverage of the subject's (prior) relatively high-profile sporting career. (While BLP guidelines should, rightly, be applied to the article content, WP:NGAELIC and WP:SIGCOV are met for the title/article. WP:NOTCENSORED also likely applies.) Guliolopez (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the category that was added for football is specific for association football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - deletion unsuitable due to being subject to in-depth coverage from numerous national sources, many of which have now been added Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article passes WP:NGAELIC and WP:BASIC. The widespread coverage in this case indicates that the sportsperson who is the subject in this article was not a low-profile individual during his sporting years, so I'm not inclined to delete out of a privacy interest. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). – Joe (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Orford[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the Football League confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Austin Dunne above. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances) - can't see any claim to notability outside of the trivial NFOOTBALL pass Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't seem to be any real concern regarding WP:NFOOTY, but a lack of overall concensus around GNG. Nothing has been presented to indicate anything approaching significant coverage. Feel that this is a delete given the current input and complete lack of sources, but the NFOOTY / GNG discussion needs more time to be discussed to allow the presentation of sources that satisfy the claim to GNG which NFOOTY presumes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to target mentioned above. With only 1 game he fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, and he had no other career that could be covered. It's also evident that an archival news search has been conducted, and all that was found was an article about the team he signed for where he was mentioned as a new signing. When it comes to precedence, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickaël Kapriélian seems relevant to me. Geschichte (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as GiantSnowman wrote so well above, the article needs to be improved, not removed. Montgomery15 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, we are far past the time where one appearance in a professional-level game is assumed to automatically confer notability in the absence of even a single significant source. Since there is a list to redirect to, that's preferable to deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). The WP:NSPORTS FAQ states For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.) A footballer with only 1 professional appearance in 1925 seems very unlikely to have the coverage to meet GNG. The article is 2 years old and has been at AfD for 2 weeks and no one has presented sources that would allow this article to expand from a permastub (my WP:BEFORE couldn't find anything either). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances) per WP:ATD. – Joe (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Milton[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: where does it say that the Football League wasn't professional at that time? Per WP:FPL the Football League has been professional since its existence since no time frame is given. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider this comment to apply to all your other nominations of this type. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing in the Football League confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NFOOTY and GS above. The Football League was founded as a professional entity and, the more I look at these cases, I think the nominator is guessing when he says these guys played before the league was fully professional. As far as I can ascertain, Bury for example was always a fully professional club and I have no reason to believe Gillingham and others were any different. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - firstly, is his name Alfred Minton or Alfred Milton? The article currently uses both. Given that there are many players in the modern era that have made a single league appearance but failed to meet GNG, I'm not sure that there is enough here to presume that Milton/Minton would have had WP:SIGCOV. British newspaper searches under both names don't seem to yield much about this footballer but I appreciate that there are other ways of finding coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- is his name Alfred Minton or Alfred Milton? - definitely Milton. Some total idiot (i.e. me) typed it wrong when creating the article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if he really only played 1 game it is not enough to meet WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, per countless other AFDs. This is regardless of the year he played in. However, one of the incoming links is also a possible redirect target. Geschichte (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Unless someone can find significant coverage that covers the subject, this seems to be the consensus regardless of era played. GauchoDude (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any online sources other than trivial coverage. I can't access the offline sources mentioned in the article, but they appear to be similar to database entries which are most likely trivial. Even if Milton's single appearance in the Football League creates a presumption of notability, that presumption is invalid when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as this one does. Jogurney (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments of Jogurney and the nominator or redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances), where he is mentioned Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't seem to be any real concern regarding WP:NFOOTY, but a lack of overall concensus around GNG. Nothing has been presented to indicate anything approaching significant coverage. Feel that this is a delete given the current input and complete lack of sources, but the NFOOTY / GNG discussion needs more time to be discussed to allow the presentation of sources that satisfy the claim to GNG which NFOOTY presumes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. One FPL appearance that satisfies WP:NFOOTY doesn't mean GNG is met. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the outcome is not to keep, I suggest redirecting to 1920–21 Gillingham F.C. season, when he played his one game..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it seems his sole claim to notability is to have played one game in the Football League (and there is nothing to suggest it is a particularly notable one) then it seems like a clear failure to meet GNG. The redirect suggestions by Spiderone and ChrisTheDude are worth strongly considering I think as a redirect would at least help identify that there was a Gillingham player of this name if someone searched for him, though I am not sure which is the best option. Dunarc (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list article as a WP:ATD; in the absence of significant coverage, playing a single game is simply not enough to indicate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From Chris' comment above, it probably is better to redirect to 1920–21 Gillingham F.C. season out of the two options, since it at least tells the reader which season he played his one game Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Qwaiiplayer's rationale below, I think the list is better. There's nothing to say that list couldn't be expanded to mention/link what season(s) someone played in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the list already records the date range of each player's Gillingham career, so it already shows that Milton's one appearance was in 1920. I'm not fussed either way...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances) as the subject fails GNG. I'm also ok with redirecting to 1920–21 Gillingham F.C. season, but it seems more appropriate to redirect an article about a person to a list of people rather than a football season. Ultimately, the same (limited) information about the subject will be present in both articles so it could go either way. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motocross Kids[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BEFORE did not yield enough WP:RS. TV Guide is insignificant and this list can't support an encyclopedia article. Geschichte (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable film that does not have the sources to pass either the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. I was initially considering a redirect to Tag Entertainment, its production company, but I could not find any sources on it either, so its very likely that the company in general fails the notability guidelines. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Lust[edit]

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

Porn blp with inadequate sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Leaning delete as it stands. If this were a subject in another field, it would not survive on this level of sourcing. BD2412 T 21:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure it would survive if it was a biography of a sportsperson. Christian75 (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Porn stars used to a comparable SNG consideration called PORNBIO. While it is argued that RS coverage is likely to be found eventually for sportspeople that compete at a top level, that presumption repeatedly failed for award-winning porn stars. Sources that cover porn tend be low quality, and this article does not appear to be an exception. WP:NSPORTS is an argument for another forum, but PORNBIO has been settled for two years. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sufficient non-trivial independent RS coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. The subject would not have passed late versions of the now-deprecated PORNBIO SNG. With one exception, the articles references consist of the usual promotional press releases and award rosters. The Creative Loafing article is the only plausibly reliable reference, and that cannot establish notability by itself. An independent search for RS coverage yields trivial coverage, mostly tabloid-grade coverage of her interactions with sports figures. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing Clooney[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a WP:BEFORE did not yield a single WP:RS. Geschichte (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the plot summary as an old IMDB copyvio. This blog is the best I could find for coverage. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clpo13_(talk) 19:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Cordeiro[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NMOTORSPORT. There's no significant coverage of him in reliable sources, my searching brought databases, dubious blogs or sites, WP:ROUTINE coverage of team signings, and even another people who are named the same. Competed in 3rd tiered Formula junior feeder series, had a short-lived stint in a local GT tournament that's not fully professional and retired. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He actually does meet WP:NMOTORSPORT, and his coverage comes from where you'd expect it to come: GP3 news reports and local media. He's an F3 Sudamericana champion and raced two full seasons of GP3, where he actually got one podium at Spa before a post-race penalty demoted him to P14. Pretty straightforward keep. MSport1005 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSport1005 Can you explain me how does he meet WP:NMOTORSPORT? GP3 and Sudamericana don't fall under the Criteria 1. And there is no coverage whatsoever for him at all, which is the most important thing. On the Wikipedia:Notability (sports), it says under the FAQ: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline." Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our interpretations of Criteria 1 clearly differ. I concede the coverage is strangely scarce—although this might be down to his name being common, recency, and even some of the pages not being available anymore ([3]). I've found these ones easily [4] [5] [6], but if we dig enough there should be more. MSport1005 (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the last Globo source you cited is great, good job on finding it (as didn't appear in my searches)! That's one step towards meeting WP:GNG, now it just needs another one. The other sources in Automobil Sport I've also encountered in my WP:BEFORE search, but are just mere name drops and don't count sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've done a quick advanced search: there's these ones [7] [8] [9] [10], from when he won F3 Sudamericana, as well as this 2011 interview [11]. Also a couple from his karting days [12] [13] and this Spanish article that mentions him as a young up-and-coming Brazilian talent [14]. This one also seems to cover one of his wins in GT4 [15]. Strangely there's not many about his GP3 'exploits', this one [16] stands out but it's just a blog. There are plenty more from F3 Sudamericana but that's about it. MSport1005 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there were enough new sources found to show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Crane[edit]

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

A search on Google, Google News and sites related to book publishing revealed no signs of notability. Besides bookstores, only relevant link I found was a Publishers Weekly news about recent self-published books. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Isabelle ^🔔 20:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 20:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 20:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 20:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no reviews in RS for WP:NAUTHOR or other coverage for WP:BASIC. Claim that she's a NYT bestselling author is technically true (see ProQuest 1815063762) but being #21 on the NYT ebook bestseller list is not enough for N, IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I'm having trouble finding coverage online, I urge editors to examine the Media & Press page on the author's website which looks like it has pointers to some promising sources. pburka (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what makes this kind of frustrating. It seems like she's kind of on the cusp of being notable, as I'm also finding things like this, but it's falling short of things that I could use to really argue for a strong keep. Her website says she's landed on bestseller lists, but I'm having trouble finding which books and when. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found the USA Today book - it was for a book that hit at #57 on the general fiction list. Not bad when you consider how much fiction would fall into the list at any given time but I don't know that this would qualify this as a notability giving source on Wikipedia. When the bestseller list qualification was added as a potential source of notability it was pretty specifically intended to be the top 10-20 type of listings. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 00:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benvanshi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG. I've searched but didn't find any sources. || Orbit Wharf 06:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. || Orbit Wharf 06:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: agree with Orbit Wharf, this doesn't meet WP:GNG.Advait (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Both Orbit Wharf and Advait.kansal have been blocked as sockpuppets, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 00:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venuvanshi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG. || Orbit Wharf 06:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. || Orbit Wharf 06:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Doesn't meet WP:GNG.Advait (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note Both Orbit Wharf and Advait.kansal have been blocked as sockpuppets, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Equity Partners[edit]

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

Although this article has 81 references, none meet the criteria for establishing notability of companies as per WP:NCORP as they are almost entirely based on announcements and Press Releases. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies entirely on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's coverage of the firm that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. The firm has received coverage from:
1. The Wall Street Journal (1, 2, 3, 4, 5; enormous tax fraud case, enormous tax fraud case 2, enormous tax fraud case 3)
2. The Times (1, 2)
3. Reuters (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
4. CNBC (1, 2, 3)
5. The New York Times (1, 2, 3; enormous tax fraud 1, enormous tax fraud 2)
6. The Washington Post (1, 2)
7. Associated Press (tax fraud coverage via USA Today)
8. Forbes (1, 2, 3; tax fraud 1, tax fraud 2, tax fraud 3, tax fraud 4, tax fraud 5)^{[notes 1]}

Notes

^ (The fifth tax fraud-related link also has a contributor as a co-writer, so I'm unsure of how to apply WP:FORBESCON. The remainder are written solely by current or former staff.)

I believe that there are enough sources among those above to easily satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGCRIT. Thus, the company is notable, and the article should be kept in some form. The article requires a bit of cleanup and additions—I'm kinda surprised the tax fraud case isn't mentioned whatsoever—but this isn't a WP:TNT case. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Generally per Mikehawk10, I've added Tax evasion to the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are promotional concerns with the article in various places, but sources do indicate that the WP:NCORP threshold is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, Mikehawk10. The article may have had some promotional issues (company articles often do), but it easily meets WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as added references are easily enough for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clpo13_(talk) 19:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy's Knights[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else in a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the first films that Kevin Costner had a lead role in, pass criteria 2 of WP:NFILM, "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." DonaldD23 talk to me 20:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previosus comment. --Bensin (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it passes WP:NFILM Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I would disagree that the film is a major part of Kevin Costner's career as the coverage I've been able to dig up on the film merely includes it as a passing mention (e.g. in Kevin Costner the Unauthorized Biography). That said it barely has enough mentions in print sources (e.g. Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide and various local newspapers) that I would expect enough coverage exists to meet WP:NFILM. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (declared as a mistake at WP:TH See here Nick Moyes (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Oswald Porter[edit]

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

Not Notable she is only the wife of Lee Harvey Oswald who assassinated John F Kennedy. UserABCXYZ (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. UserABCXYZ (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Porter easily passes GNG: substantial coverage in the press,in Warren Commission and other investigations, extensive treatment in books on the assassination, and a book of her relationship with Oswald. As the Russian wife of a defector who killed a president, she is much more than the insignificant figure claimed in this nomination. Acroterion (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Key figure in one of the most significant events in US History. SkippyKR (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - per Acroterion, self-evidently notable, and frankly, after a look into the less than two week old edit history of the nominator, and their Talk page, I believe we have a problem editor. Update: I thank Acroterion for leaving a cautionary note on the nominator's Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: An extremely bad nomination. I highly recommend the nominator not come back to AfD until they have a clear grasp of notability guidelines. Curbon7 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who would even raise the possibility of deleting this article and for what reason? That the person is not notable? She may have many defects, but the least important is not being notable. Definitely keep, for all of the reasons already given above. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raakhee Bose[edit]

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

All references listed are unreliable and she is not notable because she has not work in a significant role in multiple movies. UserABCXYZ (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. UserABCXYZ (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added her IMDb page and one source to the article.Eevee01^(talk) 04:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Eevee01^(talk) 11:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as nomination by blocked/banned editor -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA "TARA". --Finngall ^talk 19:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep doesn't apply now because multiple people have voted delete in good faith WP:CSK - hako9 (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NACTOR. Geschichte (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any significant coverage. She has a supporting credit for a tv show and another role in a non notable short film. - hako9 (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep per WP:Speedy keep#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no remaining arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agroindustrial Casa Grande[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suspect regional viewpoint. —¿philoserf? (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I see that enough coverage was added from a subscription service. I would like to withdraw this. SL93 (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Locke High School[edit]

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

I'm throwing up my hands here, because I have been completely unable to verify any of the information in this article to the point that I'm starting to become convinced it's a hoax. I have not been able to so much as locate a single trivial mention of a "John Locke High School" existing in Florida at any time, in Google searches, Newspapers.com, or Google News Archive. I tried adding Florida, Duval, and Jacksonville to the school name to reduce noise from an LA school of the same name - no dice. I took out "high" and searched for "John Locke school". Nothing. I tried just "John Locke" in Florida-only papers. Zip. Nada. No announcement of closure, sale, nothing. Not even a forum post about a reunion for alumni.

This article asserts that an unnamed replacement school was built in 2006, but list of schools in Duval County, Florida gives no school established in 2006 (several don't have dates, so it's not impossible that it's one of them anyway, but - no way to know). I even searched "hospital+"panther cafe"" in the hopes that some local-interest piece somewhere mentioned this nameless hospital's cafe, supposedly named for the school's mascot. Nope.

I would be delighted to withdraw if it turns out there are sources and I just don't know how to use my eyes properly, but I would insist on knowing what occult magic was used to find them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax: According to my research that I did. Atlantic Coast High School, which opened in 2010, was the first new high school in Duval County in over 20 years. So unless the school that replaced John Locke was a private school (which it doesn't appear to be), this isn't true. I also looked through the results of every Florida high school football championship there ever was and found no mention of John Locke High School. I couldn't verify any other information in the article. So I believe this is a hoax. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 15:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax per nom and ColinBear. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 16:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax per nom and above. – The Grid (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently John Locke Doggett was one of the founders of Jacksonville, Florida and a pretty important historical figure there. So it's pretty likely that's who this high school (if it actually existed) is named after. That said I couldn't find anything about the school itself, but at least there was a John Locke in Jacksonville, Florida. So this might not be a hoax after all, but it's still not worthy an article if it isn't one. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to the hoax museum. I cannot find a single reference to a "John Locke High School" in any Florida newspaper archived by Newspapers.com, nor in ProQuest. This is extraordinarily unusual for a public high school, so much so that I'm left to conclude that the high school didn't actually exist. And, even if it were to exist, it appears to fail WP:GNG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karitas Karisimbi[edit]

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

Promotional BLP article, coverage is WP:ROUTINE for a television presenter. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was planning to post this myself, but missed it. scope_creep^Talk 15:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles in the Independent (Uganda) and the Observer (Uganda) are evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most of our television presenters have similar coverage and it is WP:SYSTEMICBIAS to dismiss these sources due to their unfamiliar location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They looked more like primary references. It may be a special category of coverage for tv and radio presenters, but I think it is still mostly primary. scope_creep^Talk 16:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raghuvanshi Clan[edit]

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

This article seams to be about a group of people whose notability is not established. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to pass WP: GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 06:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 00:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrawan Ghimire[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Only one reference is provided which fails to establish notability.Advait (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC) rv sock Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR with starring roles in Lahure and Deuta, both considered among the most important works in Nepali cinema. He should easily pass WP:GNG with coverage in connection with these films, his other works, and his close relationship and collaboration with Tulsi Ghimire who's one of the most important figures in Nepali cinema. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clpo13_(talk) 19:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Duarte[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria, as he only has 2 fights in top tier promotions out of the required three, nor has he been ranked inside the top 10 of his division. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 08:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear that he doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NMMA. Determining whether or not he meets WP:GNG requires more digging. Much of the coverage is clearly routine sports reporting and database info, but there are listings in some books and articles on the web. Unfortunately, the book coverage is generally a passing mention or part of a list of names, while some of the web articles are not in sources that can be considered independent and reliable. Despite some claims of being one of the best ever, there's no documented evidence to support these claims and his MMA record is relatively mundane. I don't believe WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R.D. Engineering College Ghaziabad[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Advait (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... And obviously not even considering the obvious alternative to deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence. I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record.Advait (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow. Either option is fine, but this is nowhere near notable enough to justify an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry Polyamorph (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niamatullah Rahimi[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Theroadislong (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:AUTO moved to main space by creator after being rejected by AFC. Almost all sources are from a digital library where users apparently can upload their own ebooks. Isabelle ^🔔 14:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact I think it could well be speedily deleted as both promotional and giving no indication of significance. It is about someone who has self-published some writing, and that seems to be it.JBW (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC; I am unable to find reliable sources that indicate that this is a notable person. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IntITa[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable school. A WP:BEFORE search only returned primary or self-published sources. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might just be one person's business? Also observed the user who created it Special:Contributions/Olha Prymak has not made any other edits in the following 7 years. W Nowicki (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted and salted by User:Seraphimblade. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyDesigns (graphic designer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG sources either don't mention him or they are not reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Item has been returend to draft by creator. Eagleash (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not resubmit, do not move to Mainspace. Vexations (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional interviews do not establish notability nor does having a large number of Instagram followers Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: blatant spam. @Seraphimblade: MajorUKBaitWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pretty obvious sock of Londonukbanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked in September. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians in Brazil[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian Brazilian, these is no need for this page either. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. I strongly believe the sources to be WP:SYNTH trivia. The history section pertains to "Macedonian Migrants in all corners of the world", not Brazilian ones. Geschichte (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING and its sources definitely fails WP:SYNTH. Jingiby (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian Brazilians[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian Brazilian, these is no need for this page either. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. Geschichte (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Piro[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and is just another TV person doing their job. People are not notable for doing their jobs, even on TV. The referencing lacks substance. Primary sources. My WP:BEFORE failed to find any useful sources. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are a couple of independent sources (including The Independent, heh) but I wouldn't say they add up to notability. This is what I found that might be useful: The Independent, The Hill, hillreporter.com. Everything else is press releases, pieces published by Fox, or trivial mentions. (The The Hill source is already in the article.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If he fails WP:BIO. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Pact[edit]

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

Relatively niche topic, and while the article is currently a decent length, much of the details discussed seem hardly noteworthy. For context, this article is primarily based on an event that takes place at Stanford University, mostly citing news coverage surrounding it. The event is mention in two lines in the article for Stanford but I don't see how it requires its own separate article. I'm not sure what kind of subject-specific notability guidelines to judge this article on because it's hard to classify. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some googling shows that the Marriage Pact is probably notable, and is much bigger than what happens at Stanford University, although it started there. For notability, it more than satisfies the requirements of the General Notability Guideline: it has significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Dedicated articles by The New York Times, Vox, CBS, and NPR's Planet Money were among the first articles I could find. Those articles mention 5 universities by name (Tufts, Middlebury, Vanderbilt, GWU, Stanford), but various articles report it being at 51 colleges, 55 colleges, 55 colleges, or 56 colleges, depending on date of publication. The article could probably be expanded with more sources, but the subject is notable and the article is sufficient to be kept as-is. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "seem hardly noteworthy" is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia notability guidelines are based on significant coverage in reliable sources. We have a full article in New York Times about this specific subject, plus a half hour segment on NPR, both detailing how the phenomenon spread across the US, plus many ongoing articles by sundry publishers, mostly local and college news (a google news search shows 2,900 results). As for the suggestion to merge it into college dating, Wikipedia is mostly composed of articles about distinct subjects, not survey articles about broad topics. College dating as it now exists is a fairly weak hodgepodge overview about romantic encounters on modern college campuses, with nearly half devoted to date rape and sexual violence. Dumping content in there would not serve the reader or Wikipedia's mission of covering notable topics. Marriage pacts are about economics, marriage, long-term post college plans, a cultural phenomenon and a business enterprise. That is more focused, distinct from, and not coextensive with the slightly forced subject of college dating, which is short term scheduled romantic meetings among people who happen to be enrolled on college campuses for purposes of courtship and romance. disclaimer: I started this article, but it was because in my judgment it merited one - Wikidemon (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. The subject passes WP:GNG and being "niche" is not a reason for deletion. TipsyElephant (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by Shrinkydinks are enough to easily pass WP:GNG. I'd be more concerned if this were an article about a corporation, though because it seems to be about a product I'd think that WP:NCORP is out of scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tillandsia 'Feather Duster'[edit]

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

A cultivar is a human-bred plant, either a version of a single species or a hybrid between two species, usually created to exhibit particular traits. Over a decade ago, several hundred articles about various cultivars for ornamental plants were created (see Category:Ornamental plant cultivars). The overwhelming majority are referenced solely to database entries and have gone untouched for since creation.

"Cultivar" is not a formal/scientific taxonomic rank, and cultivars can vary in rigorousness from long-term commercial products to passion projects for home hobbyists. As a result, unlike scientifically-described natural species, cultivars do not have any presumed notability on Wikipedia. Therefore, like any other subject, an individual cultivar should meet WP:GNG in order to merit inclusion. Consensus to this was recently reaffirmed with zero objections in a non-RfC discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#cultivars, with some posters specifically affirming that existing articles for non-notable cultivars ought to be reviewed and deleted if found wanting.

Over the past ten days or so, I have been tagging cultivars for PROD in small batches, working from User:Premeditated Chaos/sandbox 5. I posted about this at WT:PLANTS and received no objections to either my first post about Tillandsia hybrids or my second a few days later indicating that I would be carrying on with cultivars of other genera. Although the first few batches were deleted without contest, the remainder have now been mass-contested, forcing an AfD nomination. Rather than flood AfD with several hundred individual nominations across the next year or so, I am bundling ten here as a test case. If the consensus is to delete, I will nominate the rest in further batches.

All of these articles are sourced solely to the cultivar database maintained by the Bromeliad Society International. Anyone can submit new cultivars to this database simply by filling in an email form. There does not seem to be any rigorous scrutinizing or verification process that the cultivar even exists, which is to say that it is essentially a user-generated primary source. I have not been able to locate any independent coverage for any of the cultivars I have tagged, nor do I expect to locate any for other similar stubs. It's clear that these cultivars don't meet the threshold for a standalone article either on verifiability or on notability.

A scant few, such as Tillandsia 'Peach', were cultivars of a single species, so I redirected to the parent species as possible search terms. Unfortunately, the great majority are hybrids of two species. From a technical perspective, this makes merging difficult, as an article cannot be redirected to two places and there is no objective way to determine which of the two "parent" species should have the redirect (and never mind those which are hybrids of hybrids). Merging would also mean including information in the species articles sourced only to a user-generated primary source.

Merging each one to the genus article would take up an enormous amount of space and place similar undue importance on a large list of unverified, non-notable cultivars. Merging to a standalone list is also not suitable, as the list would fail the verifiability criteria owing to a lack of independent sourcing.

For transparency's sake, I intend to place a note at WT:PLANTS advising of this nomination, as obviously the participants there have a vested interest. I also intend to notify the de-PRODder.

Bundled in this nomination are the following:

Tillandsia 'Feather Duster'
Tillandsia 'Fireworks'
Tillandsia 'First Born'
Tillandsia 'Flaming Spire'
Tillandsia 'Folly'
Tillandsia 'Frolic'
Tillandsia 'Gardicta'
Tillandsia 'Glenorchy'
Tillandsia 'Gorgon'
Tillandsia 'Graceful'

If you've read this far, thank you for your time. I apologize for the lengthy rationale, but I believe it's important to give you the context for this nomination (and any others that may follow). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. None of these articles have any references beyond tiny webpages in a source that doesn't appear to rank as very much of a WP:RS - nor any content, really. If there was actual content, then merging could be a possibility, but there isn't, so just delete instead. A simple external link to this cultivar register website in the Tillandsia article would surely be sufficient, and I'm not sure it even deserves that. (Disclaimer: Wasn't explicitly canvassed here, but saw this AFD as a result of a conversation in the Wikipedia Discord.) SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that I mentioned writing an unusually lengthy nomination statement on the Discord, but intentionally did not link the AfD nomination by name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Bromeliad Society International is the official international cultivar registration authority for Tillandsia (and also other bromeliads). As such I think that WP:V/WP:RS would not be an issue for using it as a source for a list of Tillandsia cultivars. WP:NOT (a database) would however seem to apply, and I'd also have some concerns about compilation copyright, and as a practical matter any list article becoming dated. An external link at Tillandsia seems justifiable. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, only very selected cultivars are notable on their own, and that is only in the most extreme of cases... Draco phyllum 08:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw this on Discord too. I also saw the huge number of prods when doing prod patrol. I could say a lot more but that would just add to the pile. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little to no scientific rigor behind what defines a cultivar, and therefore only a small number of these cultivars are actually notable on Wikipedia. I am in full favor for batch deletion of single-sentence articles on non notable ornamental cultivars. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 21:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Cultivars still need to meet WP:GNG. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from Wikipedia per above. Is this anything that might be worthwhile to transwiki to WikiSpecies? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 12:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurley Pro at Trestles 2017[edit]

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

Not a notable event. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dallax[edit]

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

Article for a non-notable band that has had referencing issues for over 10 years. WP:BEFORE yields nothing relevant except social media accounts, Spotify, iTunes, etc. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has only one reference (one that's dead now anyway). None of their songs were notable, and beyond that, there's not that much. The 2nd paragraph reeks of OR. A section of the members isn't notable. And the existence of them on various repositories like MB or Discogs means nothing anyway. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 02:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above.Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table hockey (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Procedural nom after a RM. Unnecessary DAB; air hockey isn't properly called "Table hockey" (and is linked from a hatnote), Billiard hockey is a redlink, International Table Hockey Federation is a partial title match, and various Table football (disambiguation) links are just related topics. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unnecessary disambiguation page. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 03:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Air hockey is not table hockey, and then it goes downhill from there. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The hatnote on table hockey is a perfectly good way to find air hockey. Narky Blert (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can add content with a sourced ref to verify the Czech game in Penny football - at present "hockey" doesn't appear in that article. PamD 09:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: here is somehow source. W also have Coin football (disambiguation) which is not useful disambiguation. As nom says article on Tabletop football could cover many other similar topics like de:Tipp-Kick, de:Klask etc. Hatnote is more useful than disambig here but I think it is better to 1Add short info about Sprect into article on Penny football.2create hatnote which revolve around three topics (not two: air hockey and table hockey games). If Tabletop football has three entires in hatnote then this stuff can not have three too, not two to cover more sources contents. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not believe that this disambiguation page is useful, which is the basic reason that we have them. It's an unnecessary page and I see no reason to keep it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MusicalSplaining. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Taherian[edit]

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

This individual appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. I'm seeing some reviews of "20 Years of Madness", but it appears that the article subject was the third co-producer on it and doesn't cover him in-depth.

The sources in the article also don't cover the article subject in-depth. The film review of The A-Word doesn't mention Taherian whatsoever and The Oprah Magazine likewise isn't an in-depth source.

Wikipedia is not a place to host a Résumé, though this article appears to be nothing more than one for a non-notable individual. Therefore, I move that this article be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MusicalSplaining if nobody can dig up enough substantial coverage to justify an article. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Redirect to MusicalSplaining. It's the only thing on his resumé that has an article here. There don't seem to be enough references actually about him for an article of his own. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be that guy, but are we sure that MusicalSplaining actually notable? I understand that this is properly the subject of a separate AfD, but the sources in the article are largely SPS/blogs and college newspapers. It would seem unwise to redirect this to an article with questionable notability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's another issue for another day. We are talking about this article. If somebody wants to separately nominate MusicalSplaining, they can; and if it gets deleted, a redirect to it should get deleted too - because without MusicalSplaining, there is no basis to grant him even the minimal recognition of a redirect.-- MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perfectly fair. I'll do a search and see if I can find WP:CORPDEPTH-compliant coverage, but I agree that this is a question for another discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Does anyone know if the motivation for creating a Kaveh Taherian page was Kaveh Taherian's voice acting for the audiobook that came out around the time of the creation of this article? I am not completely sure if that adds any notability or just adds. However, I'd also agree with a redirect to MusicalSplaining. Potatoes and planes (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This wouldn't add notability in itself. Ordinarily, it would raise flags to check for WP:UPE or WP:COI editing. That being said, the page creator's editing history doesn't seem to indicate a strong pattern of UPE or COI as far as I can tell; nothing screams inappropriate to me. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, again. I think I asked my question incorrectly. I was not intending to imply any COI as, frankly, my user likely screams coi more. What I was more getting at is whether or not notability would be created given Mr. Taherian's involvement with the Noumena Series, mostly the recent Truth of the Divine, and MusicalSplaining. Thank you for your answer. Potatoes and planes (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per MelanieN. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It appears that after lots of research everybody agrees (or at least nobody disagrees) that this can be deleted. Sandstein 20:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Creek (Marin County)[edit]

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

Reason Schmiebel (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC) There is no Mill Creek in the USGS GNIS for Marin County, nor do any maps show a Mill Creek flowing into Richardson Bay. The two references on this page are to a travel guide and another reference to a blocked site. There is an Old Mill Creek that is tributary to Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio and I have created that page with appropriate name Old Mill Creek (Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio) with USGS GNIS citation and others.Schmiebel (talk) 01:07, 31 October 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 October 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Probably need to rename the creek Paper Mill Creek it is a keep per WP:GEOLAND Notable stream/creek this one had Salmon using it and was called Paper Mill Creek in Marin, County. Here is an article from 1892 about the same creek. And an article about the park system in Marin county and the fishing in Paper Mill Creek. Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Old mill also exists, but looks more like a colloquial name. Appears more like a neighborhood name. Lots of listings for rentals. and listings. Lightburst (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also labeled Old Mill Creek here on this map: I am now seeing. Here. Not sure now. Maybe there are two. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about a Redirect to Mill Valley, California? We could also create redirects from Paper Mill Creek, California and Old Mill Creek (Marin County) (since there is also an Old Mill Creek in El Dorado County). The geographical description definitely places it in the town of Mill Valley, and several businesses and developments in Mill Valley are named for it (Mill Creek Plaza, Mill Creek Apartments, Mill Creek Meadows). I am personally aware that there is a creek in Mill Valley that flows into the marshes at the edge of Richardson Bay. I don't know the creek's name but it's almost certainly one or several of these. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC) I have changed my opinion to Delete after the discussion and research here. See below. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am unsure Melanie. I see what is either the same creek, or two creeks with Mill names - in Marin country. Is it possible it has local names applied to it being that it is not a named river like the Columbia? Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either is possible - multiple names for a creek, or multiple creeks. Either way a redirect would be useful, particularly if we could incorporate a mention of the creek(s) into the article about the town. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article is appropriate, a redirect is like a deletion. The Paper Mill Creek has SIGCOV- I just picked three articles. I am sure if I continued I would find more old Mill references also. Lightburst (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why don't you write a draft, or better yet an actual article? And if you find out that those are two names for the same creek, put it under whichever name has better sourcing, with an "also known as" descriptor, and incorporate the references for both. This AFD is young, you have time. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

some others will be along. Might just rename this one. Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to use additional references to expand this into an article about the creek under all of its names, and then rename this to whatever name has the best support, I would support a keep vote to give you time to do it, or a userfy if you'd rather do it in your own namespace at leisure. I might even help you write it. (On the other hand, do we really have articles about every creek in California? We could just put the information about it into Mill Valley, California.) -- MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. I just checked on eight creeks I am familiar with in San Diego and in Northern California, and all eight of them have their own articles, so the answer to my question may be yes, we do have articles about known creeks. Here is an example of a creek article with an "also known as". -- MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the enthusiasm but it would be wise to verify that "Mill Creek" is actually a name that's used by reliable sources and not just something that the article creator came up with. –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be (or to have ever been) a "Mill Creek" in Marin County. There's an Old Mill Creek which matches the description in this article, and there's also Lagunitas Creek which was historically known as Paper Mill Creek but is in an entirely different watershed. Neither of these would be a valid redirect for plain old Mill Creek. –dlthewave ☎ 04:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've created redirects for Paper Mill Creek, California and Old Mill Creek (Marin County). –dlthewave ☎ 04:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just found something at the Mill Valley website[17] that lists the creeks that flow through Mill Valley. It lists Warner Canyon, Corte Madera Del Presidio, Sutton Manor Creek, Cascade Creek, Old Mill Creek, and Reed Creek. To make things more confusing, this history of Mill Valley says that a sawmill was built on Cascade Creek at what is now Old Mill Park - but the city paper I cited above lists Cascade Creek and Old Mill Creek as separate bodies of water. And in response to Dlthewave's comment above, the city also lists Corte Madera del Presidio and Old Mill Creek as separate bodies of water. (It's possible, of course, that some are tributaries of others so that one creek runs into another and takes on its name.) ~~I'm not sure we are ever going to be able to straighten this out - although I have friends in Mill Valley that might be able to.~~ -- MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I look at the articles Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, Old Mill Creek (Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio), and Lagunitas Creek (of which Paper Mill Creek is a tributary, referring to a paper mill rather than the sawmill after which Old Mill Creek is named). I think these articles have the situation well explained as to what is what, and what is a tributary to what. We should keep them, possibly renaming Old Mill Creek to something simpler like Old Mill Creek (Marin County), and simply delete the article under discussion here. I am going to change my "redirect" recommendation to "delete". -- MelanieN (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Mill Creek, Warner Creek, Reed Creek, and Widow Reed Creek are all the named tributaries to Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio. I've added them to the Watershed section of Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio with reference.^[1] I'll add the GNIS refs for these small tributaries now.Schmiebel (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Alice A. Rich (May 31, 1995). Feasibility Study to Rehabilitate the Fishery Resources of the Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio Watershed, Mill Valley California (PDF) (Report). Retrieved October 30, 2021.

'Thanks, Dlthewave! Creating the REDIRECT for Paper Mill Creek, California is very helpful. Paper Mill Creek is an unofficial name for Lagunitas Creek, also in Marin County, California. I have also created a REDIRECT for just plain "Paper Mill Creek" to Lagunitas Creek. Others, for correct information on stream names, the authoritative source is the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Geographical Names Information System (GNIS). GNIS is referenced on every creek and river in wikipedia in their respective geoboxes. Old Mill Creek is the official USGS Board-recognized name for Old Mill Creek (Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio) the tributary to Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio. Their confluence is in Mill Valley, California. You will see the USGS GNIS references for all these wiki pages have links to the USGS GNIS site. There is no Mill Creek in Marin County in the USGS GNIS, so Mill Creek (Marin County) should be deleted.Schmiebel (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schmiebel: it was your nomination so you cannot ivote here. it is a given that you are a delete participant. But I am glad to change my ivote based on new information. My thought was there were historic references to "paper, and old". The puzzle is getting solved. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I deleted my "delete" vote!Schmiebel (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Sandstein 20:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SP Memorial Institute of Technology[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Advait (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence. I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record.Advait (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect To Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. There's a couple of trivial sources in the article and some name drops in school directories. Nothing that would pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG from what I can tell though. That said, I'm fine with redirecting the article as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator blocked for sock puppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. While tainted by a sock trying to game the system and WP:BEFORE was ignored, I see no evidence of notability so the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Frankly, I would have boldly redirected if there was not an ongoing AfD. --Muhandes (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that establishes it meets criteria for its own entry in articlespace. If sources exist, they must be added. Multi7001 (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Sandstein 20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ram Murti Smarak College of Engineering, Technology & Research[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Advait (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... Nor is there any sign they may have considered the very obvious alternative to deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence. I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record.Advait (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect To Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. I'm fine with either option, but as things stand this clearly isn't a notable subject. There isn't even the usual trivial references in book listings that some colleges have. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.per above.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 12:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC) another sock[reply]

Note: Nominator blocked for sock puppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. could not find significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kanpur[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Advait (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Next time, please refrain from nominating 21 (!) articles at the same time. Curbon7 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Curbon7 about the mass nominations. It's usually better to spread them out more. If for no other reason then it keeps from being procedurally kept or disputed based on the grounds that the nominator didn't do a proper BEFORE. Not that I'm saying they didn't. More on topic, this university clearly isn't notable. I couldn't even find trivial name drops in any schools directories that usually exist. That said, maybe someone with a better knowledge of Indian sources can find something about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence. I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record.Advait (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid rationale for this college/university. Per WP:UNIN In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNIN is an essay and your leaving out the part of it that says "the document you are now reading is not a policy or guideline and should not be treated as such." So hopefully your vote is ignored by whoever closes this. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have used the essay to illustrate why the stated and sole rationale provided for deletion SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid. Hence speedy keep. Polyamorph (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After receiving some pushback on my use of an essay in my !vote, I note that my speedy keep is on the basis that the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES rationale is invalid as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (an explanatory supplement to deletion policy) clearly states Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online.. The essay WP:UNIN (not policy) explains this more succinctly. So no valid deletion rationale has been provided by the nom, who appears not to have performed WP:BEFORE (as evidenced by the fact that some previous discussions kept these articles on the basis of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES!). The OP should explain why they decided to obey instructions from an IP user on their talk page to nominate these articles for deletion - this shows at best naivety on the part of the nominator and at worst meatpuppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator blocked for sock puppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reliable sources need to be added, as there are none listed. Multi7001 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's none listed because there aren't any. That's sorta the point in this. -Adamant1 (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominated by sockpuppet whose MO is nominating articles for deletion, with no thought to their notability. And really - universities aren't notable? Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same argument as Polyamorph regarding universities and notability. However, the lack of sources and the relatively recent establishment of the institute are problematic. If there were somewhere to redirect to, this would be a good outcome for now, but I am not convinced there's a viable target. So keep. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is listed as an argument "to avoid in deletion discussions". Take away that, and there is no deletion rationale present. NemesisAT (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ College of Engineering And Technology[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Advait (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm reading WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES wrong but doesn't IMS Engineering College plainly satisfy point 2 : "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pichpich (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on if you disregard the first word in that sentence "most" or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence. I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record.Advait (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid rationale for this college/university. Per WP:UNIN In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your leaving out the part of UNIN that says "the document you are now reading is not a policy or guideline and should not be treated as such." --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the essay to illustrate why the stated and sole rationale provided for deletion SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid. Hence speedy keep. Polyamorph (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. And? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are not policy but can be useful. Regardless the rationale for deletion is invalid because WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES explicitly states that independently accredited degree-awarding colleges and universities are notable. So WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is actually valid rationale for keep, not delete. Polyamorph (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph:Like I said elsewhere WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly says "most" independently accredited degree-awarding colleges and universities are notable. In no way does "most colleges and universities are notable" mean "all colleges and universities are defacto notable." In the meantime I'm not personally a fan of "keep because offline sources might exist" arguments. Otherwise we could play that game to get articles about literally everything before the internet kept. Clearly that's not how this works. Nowhere do the guidelines say it is. There's no consensus anywhere that it is..Etc. etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

note the "in general" covers "most". In any case, nothing changes the fact that the nom had an invalid rationale (you really think that delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES i.e. most degree awarding institutions are notable makes any sense whatsoever?), had no WP:BEFORE, and now we know was performed by a sock of a banned user, all of which is reason enough for procedural keep. Polyamorph (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator said in another AfD that they did a WP:BEFORE and you have zero evidence that they were lying. So I don't know why your repeating that they didn't do one. In the meantime your free to change your vote to a procedural keep based on them now being found out as a sock, I'll probably do it myself, but them being a sock has nothing to do with how we originally voted, what instigated this discussion, or my last comment. Don't act like it does. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear evidence the nom was lying about doing BEFORE. Clear evidence in the fact that some of these AfDs were previously kept on the basis of the very rationale the nom provided. You have crossed the line of WP:BLUDGEON, please stop. Polyamorph (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that have been kept at AfD before can be nominated again. There's zero wrong with doing it and it's not evidence of anything. As far as the accusation of WP:BLUDGEONing goes, I'm not dominating anything. Nor do I care to. I was just interested in what evidence you had that the nominator didn't do a before. Which you could have provided about 5 comments back instead of talking in circles. That's as far as my involvement or interest in this goes though, because I thought I would change my votes in this person's AfDs that I voted in if you had access to sources or information I didn't. That's it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After receiving some pushback on my use of an essay in my !vote, I note that my speedy keep is on the basis that the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES rationale is invalid as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (an explanatory supplement to deletion policy) clearly states Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online.. The essay WP:UNIN (not policy) explains this more succinctly. So no valid deletion rationale has been provided by the nom, who appears not to have performed WP:BEFORE (as evidenced by the fact that some previous discussions kept these articles on the basis of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES!). The OP should explain why they decided to obey instructions from an IP user on their talk page to nominate these articles for deletion - this shows at best naivety on the part of the nominator and at worst meatpuppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry Polyamorph (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any usable references about this. In the meantime, the whole thing Polyamorph said about the nominator not doing a BEFORE made it sounds like references existed, since I don't know how they would know if the nominator did one or not otherwise, but apparently Polyamorph is more concerned with threatening to send me to ANI then they are to provide the evidence they have that this notable. So at this point I have no choice but vote delete. I'm more then willing to change my vote keep if someone can provide WP:THREE in-depth secondary sources about this school though. I guess I could also vote procedural keep due to the nominator being a sock puppet, but my guess is that this article will just be back here in a few weeks and I rather just deal with it now if it's possible to. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. While tainted by a sock trying to game the system and WP:BEFORE was ignored, I see no evidence of notability so the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Frankly, I would have boldly redirected if there was not an ongoing AfD. --Muhandes (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominated by sockpuppet whose MO is nominating articles for deletion, with no thought to their notability. Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, so if I would re-nominate it immediately afterwards, you will change your !vote to delete? Yes, the sockpuppet did not consider notability, but myself and other editors have (and found it lacking). Please judge by the book, not by the cover. --Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it on it's merits. But I wouldn't object to abuse of the process by renomination. Looking quickly just in English, I'm finding media coverage like this. What would I find in Hindi, or possibly Urdu? Nfitz (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this source is enough to establish notability, but at least it is a judgement based on essence. --Muhandes (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was - just that it was quick to find in English. What about in local languages? Nfitz (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument "to avoid in deletion discussions" and if we take that away, we have no rationale for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor secular observances. Very briefly. I'm discounting the unsigned IP comment. Sandstein 20:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World NGO Day[edit]

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

This is not a notable subject. There is no coverage of this day in actual reliable sources. The sources are all just meaningless press releases and other non-RS. It's one of a trillion meaningless days and commemorations that governments and organizations have issued press releases recognizing. The article was created and heavily edited by abusive accounts working for PR agencies.[18][19] Wikipedia shouldn't let itself be abused in this manner. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep. I agree that it's one of a trillion meaningless days and commemorations, but there's enough coverage (and enough other articles on similarly meaningless days) so I can't support deletion. Merging to some list of meaningless days (and purging the blatant PR content) would be fine, though. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Once you remove the primary sourcing, UGC (YouTube videos), there may not be enough to establish notability. Hence, it may be worth merging it with List of minor secular observances--WomenProj (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with User:力 there are so many awareness days around the world but this day is dedicated to NGO sector and has enough coverage, including European Commission and other government statements on World NGO Day. There are also so many coverage in other languages and it is alright to have a short article in English about this day. You can't ignore this international day that has history, go and check EEAS office (website) who issues regular statements on World NGO Day since 2014. Would you like to object international organisation official statments. It seems that some Wikipedia users are suggesting delegation of this article by intentionally suggesting remove sources etc, based on their poor research or other political or personal reasons. In that case we should delete 50% of wikipedia articles if go that way. 21:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user has not made any edits to Wikipedia before suddenly appearing here to advocating to Keep this article. This is likely a WP:COI account, judging by the history of this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to Non-governmental organization). Mostly sourced to primary sources, such as random NGOs themselves. I don't see significant, in-depth coverage in independent sources. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a one-line listing in List of minor secular observances. Like most "awareness days" of limited recognition, this has no sign of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources but it is a plausible search term. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clpo13_(talk) 19:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcis Liors Skadmanis[edit]

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

There is no substantive coverage of the subject. If there is coverage, it's in non-RS or it's off-hand mentions. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with World NGO Day. The page was created and heavily edited by abusive accounts that work for PR agencies.[20][21]. Wikipedia shouldn't let itself be abused in this manner. Wikipedia pages shouldnt be glorified LinkedIn profiles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to BLP, BLP1E (creating "World NGO Day" is one thing and apart from the promo his role is actually minor), paid editing socks, and general promo concerns. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 19:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with 力 above. ~~Or Merge with either World NGO Day or List of minor secular observances --WomenProj (talk)~~ 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either World NGO Day or List of minor secular observances, since he is founder of this day. 21:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.3.193.211 (talk)
Comment. World NGO Day is currently under deletion discussion. Geschichte (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The coverage that is reliable or independent is not significant and vice-versa. Redirecting or merging to World NGO Day as an ATD would likely result in a double-redirect as that article shows a similar lack of reliable sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cetana PSB International College-English Business Tourism Hospitality[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable college. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nanos Fireworks[edit]

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

Some vague waves at notability, but these are tied to the history of fireworks in Greece, not Nanos specifically. Similarly, unable to find souricng to find independent, in depth coverage to meet WP:ORG. Sole results match what's in the article, name checks that they provided fireworks but nothing on the why, or why the choice was significant. Survived CSD and I feel PROD likely challenged due to Brittanica source, although it's not at all related Star Mississippi 00:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speedy would have been valid but at first glance the sources make it look like a controversial deletion. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems a promotional, self-referenced article. In Greek I basically found just listings on the company. There are a couple of press-realease-like articles, obviously reproducing company claims about winning an important international award. Those had to do with the Canadian Casino Lac-Leamy Sound of Light prizes, but I neither found any verification for the company as a winner, not for the Casino awards as notable, or of any importance. I also checked the de:Flammende Sterne competition mentioned twice in the "Awards" section of the article. It's true that the company appears among the official list of the 3 finalist competing teams, in 2005 and 2011 ("Unsere Teilnehmer der Jahre 2003-2011" [22]) as written in the article, but there is no info about which team won. On the other hand, the company has no adequate references in third-party, independent and reliable sources indicating notability. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] (The fifth tax fraud-related link also has a contributor as a co-writer, so I'm unsure of how to apply WP:FORBESCON. The remainder are written solely by current or former staff.)

[2] Alice A. Rich (May 31, 1995). Feasibility Study to Rehabilitate the Fishery Resources of the Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio Watershed, Mill Valley California (PDF) (Report). Retrieved October 30, 2021.

[notes 1]

[1]