Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 04	February 06 >

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 23:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic ancestry[edit]

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

This is Hoyle's and Wickramasinghe's particular version of their fringe panspermia nonsense. The only sources on this are primary sources, from either Hoyle or Wickramasinghe, or close collaborators. The rest is original WP:SYNTH. Fails WP:N Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on scholar does not indicate that the concept has gained any sort of traction outside of the Panspermiaverse of fringe scholars dedicated to the topic. The relationship between panspermia advocates and theistic evolution can be discussed in the main panspermia article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. I don't know of any serious scientist who takes this stuff seriously. Athel cb (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked at the citations and those that are not from the main authors appear to be related to horizontal gene transfer but used with WP:SYNTHesis since they are not really about this cosmology. This article was sometimes boldly redirected to panspermia in the past and when I look at older revisions none were sufficiently independently sourced. —Paleo Neonate – 18:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fringe piffle that lies about what its sources say. It claims There are also many instances of genes detected in species that have no known current use for them and cites a paper that identifies the likely functional role of the genes it investigates (Hox-like pattern formation during development). Synthesis and wankery. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is WP:FRINGE content and lacks notability. Aldebarium (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Praemonitus (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the wub "?!" 12:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Boss Ultimate[edit]

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

~~Online reality TV series spin-off series. Notability seem to be WP:INHERITED from the main show. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is about a television show which is globally successful worldwide and a massive hit in specifically South India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.174.61 (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TVSERIES. The show has started airing, and I see do see independent coverage in WP:BEFORE. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the show has started airing. I can also find independent coverage from reliable sources. It doesn't needs to be deleted. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search on Google News found new articles written today, and there already seems to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja 'Flower Power'[edit]

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

Per User:Premeditated Chaos's PROD: "Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries are not considered sufficient for this purpose. I found no WP:SIGCOV of this cultivar." which was contested by an IP User talk:73.170.77.46 because "no, you cant [sic] delete a whole bunch of articles without a discussion".

So here's your discussion. (Bundles incoming.) casualdejekyll 21:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling articles because same PROD nominator, same PROD contester, same reasons.

casualdejekyll 21:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, as the PROD-tagger. Thanks for saving me the time of creating the AfD nom, lol. The thing about the sources in this article and the other Buddleja articles is that they're mostly commercial entries or lists of nursery holdings (which aren't significant independent coverage), or entries in comprehensive lists/dictionaries/directories of cultivars (Hatch falls into this, for example, as it's simply a list of cultivars without in-depth content about each individual one). The only one which really ever has any content about any of them is Stuart's RHS Plant Collector Guide, and even that is generally scant paragraphs (under 100 words in most cases). So there really is very rarely enough sigcov to support an article. (For previous consensus discussions about cultivars, please see this discussion at WT:PLANTS, and the unanimously-deleted cultivar AfDs listed here.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well reasoned PROD. Star Mississippi 01:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per skillfully argued nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as these clearly aren't notable. Really they should have just been deleted through PRODs. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, blame the IP for randomly de-PROdding a small subset of the large number I've been PROD-tagging intermittently for weeks now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Obviously fails notability as well described by nom. Alex-h (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per PROD rationale, the individual cultivars are not notable. AryKun (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Five months ago, there was a unanimous Keep decision and now we have a consensus to Delete. I don't think that we have seen the last of this title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of animals[edit]

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

Renominating this article for AfD because the previous one was closed prematurely after rather poor keep arguments. A large chunk of the article; most of it in fact, is blatant original research. Most of the refs don't even regard animal stereotypes directly, and their inclusion is WP:SYNTH - drawing conclusions from unrelated sources. There could be a grain of notability in the topic but it is clear it would require an utter rewrite in any case. No improvement seems to have been done since the previous AfD at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is pretty much entirely comprised of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Notability is a moot point, as any kind of article on the topic would need to be completely re-written in its entirety to even pass our basic policy of WP:Verifiability. Even then, I would argue that any actual sourced material on the common depictions of a specific type of animal would be better suited to be included on the main article on that specific animal or one of its spinouts, rather than having a massive list of what can be best described as "all animal trivia". Rorshacma (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of animals participants: Geschichte (talk · contribs), Lembit Staan (talk · contribs), Vladimir.copic (talk · contribs), and Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand by my previous keep vote for the most part but I am now wondering if this is a candidate for WP:TNT. It is a notable topic but this article is just a badly sourced "List of Stereotypes of animals". A better example of how this should be structure is Anthropomorphism. If this article was improved, almost none of the current content would be retained. Interested in what other editors think though. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It surprises me to come to this conclusion, but I think this does actually have a useful function as a list. I think a prose article would just attract even more OR and and SYNTHy stuff, that would then be harder to remove (I can hear the "deletion is not cleanup" already), and wouldn't be as useful for one of the couple hundred-ish readers who visit this page every day, who probably come here to learn... well, some animal stereotypes? Rather than a consideration of the meaning or concept of an animal stereotype. I might propose renaming it to "List of animal stereotypes" and cutting it down to only the things that are sourced or could be handled with a "see also", but then there's barely anything left. Worth it? I don't know. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a general dislike of list articles and their proliferation on WP for a number of philosophical reasons - I admit my bias here. They usually descend into WP:TRIVIA and WP:SYNTH which is basically what this article is right now. In my vote in the previous discussion [1], I listed a number of works that speak extensively about this as a topic. I see that value of exploring this holistically and that seems most encyclopaedic. Further, a list article needs these kinds of sources which speak about the topic as a whole to meet WP:LISTN. However, seeing as no one (inc. myself) is doing much to improve this article as it is maybe the best option is to move it to dreaded the realm of listipedia. At least then the article will do what is says on the tin. Again - I am biased here so take with a pinch of salt. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:OR. Most of the article relies on what a historical text or person may have used a particular word to define something else than the actual 'stereotypes'. Shankargb (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH/OR policy issues abound to the point WP:GNG isn't established. As discussed above, I also don't think this would qualify for a list. KoA (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Milojević[edit]

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

While there is some coverage, it all appears to be about a Serbian pilot. Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GNG not established from the article. --Tone 20:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- I cannot find any IRSs to show she meets GNG. Fails WP:PROF (because she only attained Adjunct Professor position (a claim that I cannot find a single IRS for, in any event)). I thought possibly WP:TOOSOON but her positions were supposedly in 2010. Just can't find anthing to show she is notable, rather than just an average academic. Cabrils (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The case isn't as weak as I expected, but I don't think this meets our notability criteria. The subject has a lot of works with some citations on Google Scholar, but I'm not seeing the few highly cited works that I'd look for with WP:NPROF. There are two books, with three reviews in total, which I think is short of ~~WP:NPROF~~ WP:NAUTHOR. A editor could in good faith make an argument for a combined WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR case, but I think it's a bit WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. As nom says, coverage seems to be mainly about a pilot of the same name. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tapioca (framework)[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no significant coverage in web/books/scholar searches such as '"tapioca" voip'. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tapeworm (Stamford band)[edit]

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

I found nothing to show notability for this band. SL93 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find enough reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability from a search. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Maria Goretti's RC Primary[edit]

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

PROD declined because it exists, which it does. But while there's coverage of vandalism, controversy and a fire, nothing of it is significant or in depth about the school. No indication that this school is notable in any meaningful way Star Mississippi 18:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. It was my PROD. WP:MILL primary school. I will ensure the stuff about the lollipop lady and fires goes on the Cranhill page. Crowsus (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the school clearly isn't notable. The only thing worth retaining is the incident with the lollipop lady, but that doesn't directly relate to the school. So it's fine to mention it in the Cranhill article instead of this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very rare that primary schools are notable enough to have articles of their own, and I do not see anything here that would make this an exception. As stated above, if reference to the lollipop lady incident is desired, then it could be accommodated adequately in the Cranhill article. Dunarc (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another PROD removed per "it exists" by Special:Contributions/73.170.77.46. The IP appears to have backed off but if they come back somebody needs to talk to them. casualdejekyll 15:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Niyogi[edit]

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

This is a bit of a gray area; obviously, the article may or may not be sourcable with offline or non-English sources, which is either impossible or quite difficult to find on a Google search. However, nevertheless, I couldn't find any related sources on a Google search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I tried looking into Bengali sources, looks like he would pass off as WP:N as an editor and writer. But finding sources is quite tough, I think a Bengali editor might be able to help check this better. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article that the page is based off of does seem credible, which is why I did "Weak Keep" isntead of "Weak delete". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Akhil Niyogi alias Swapan Buro is a notable and popular writer and artist of India. The page needs reliable citations which I'm searching for. Pinakpani (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per improvements by Pinakpani.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bineesh Vadavathy[edit]

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

Fails revised WP:NCRIC guidelines by only appearing in minor miscellaneous matches. No wider WP:GNG satisfaction either. StickyWicket (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC and not seeing anything to suggest a GNG pass. However Mozambican media is likely to be offline and there may be some there. Not seeing a suitable redirect here so delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westhead Road[edit]

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

Contested PROD - fails WP:GEOROAD, see also this prior AfD concerning similar articles created by the same user. firefly ( t · c ) 17:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 17:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and wish there were a speedy category to avoid seven days of wasted time. Star Mississippi 18:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Crowsus (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no suitable redirect target exists; a quick look at roads in Toronto does not appear to bring up anywhere it can be redirected to. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its in Alderwood, Toronto, but honestly, it's not notable in any way (Horner Ave at least seems to be the main road in that neighbourhood) so I'm not sure a redirect is suitable, as a semi-positive search might falsely imply to others that this type of suburban street is valid as an article topic. Crowsus (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. StarMississippi snow-closed the last one, so someone else will have to step in this time. This isn't going anywhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I suppose the only redeeming factor, is that could once have been a continuation of The West Mall - but that would be WP:OR. Nfitz (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's starting to snow in here, isn't it? casualdejekyll 02:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and its snowing. I was originally going to bundle this with the other three roads at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horner Avenue as this was part of the same series by the same editor (who is now pblocked from the main article namespace for CIR reasons related to these articles). But because it was PROD'd, I didn't bother. Now the PROD has been contested by an IP with no prior contributions. The rationale for the bundled AfD and the deletion outcome clearly apply here. Singularity42 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an absolutely non-notable street. (I'd snow delete this myself, but I !voted in the previous bundled discussion and suggested that the article creator be blocked from the Article namespace, so I don't want to give even the slightest inkling of an involved close.) --Kinu ^t/_c 19:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Roads are not automatically notable enough for encyclopedia articles just because a map verifies that they exist — the notability of a road is established by reliable source coverage about the road in newspapers, books or magazines, establishing political, social, cultural or historical context for why the road should be seen as significant. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:GEOROAD. Not every single street in Toronto needs its own article. Yes, I know that this is not WP:CSD, but it would have easily qualified as one. It's truly a blizzard and it's getting tiresome. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maldives Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Hassan (cricketer)[edit]

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

This cricketer fails the revised WP:NCRIC guidelines as his appearances in T20I cricket have not been in qualifier finals. Coverage is mostly stats and little comprehensive coverage to satisfy wider WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List of Maldives Twenty20 International cricketers Fails the updated cricket guidelines, and I'm not seeing anything to suggest a GNG pass. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass cricket guidelines or GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maldives Twenty20 International cricketers, as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chillatta[edit]

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

References prove that the film exists but there is no evidence of any significant media coverage or reviews from independent WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE search only came up with other film databases and social media accounts. There is also no claim to meeting any of the criteria outlined at WP:NFO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film fails notability requirements as stated by nominator. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any reliable reviews to meet WP:NFILM. Since the cast and crew are non-notable, its unlikely that any reviews exist. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how this meets WP:NFILM--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 23:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interplanetary transport (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation pages are supposed to navigate topics with the same name, not similar topics. The contents are two partial title matches, the target of the redirect at the base title, and List of interplanetary voyages that is included for no reason except being a subtopic of the aforementioned. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of ambiguity. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 06:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing here to disambiguate. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is pretty funny, but definitely not notable. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a useful disambiguation page per WP:PARTIAL. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manamagizhselvan[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a BEFORE to help it pass. PROD removed by creator DonaldD23 talk to me 14:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plz help me Regurding issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmdAsjad (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reviews or other examples of significant coverage in independent WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom; unable to find any reliable reviews to meet WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peter Stiff. Sandstein 08:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rain Goddess[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. The sources provided include one partial review in a compilation of a review of the genre that is Rhodesian military pulp fiction. Everything else is either sales pages, blogs, or doesn't actually mention the book. Searching for the book and author's name in my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing new. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Peter Stiff, the author, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the book to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to the source mentioned by the nom, this article talks about how Stiff portrays the guerrillas' use of weapons. In addition, I found a review from a Zimbabwean nationalist/patriot standpoint. All the flaws of Zimbabwean media notwithstanding, it would regard it as a reliable account of how the book was seen by Zimbabwe's regime at the time. Furthemore, said review states that "The Rain Goddess, by Peter Stiff has been described by The Natal Mercury, Durban, as the ‘classic novel on the Rhodesian War’" and refers to "many online reviews". Thus it would be a task to find these "many" reviews, or at least some. Geschichte (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another Zimbabwean perspective. Geschichte (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Peter Stiff per Cunard (talk). The book has 5 owners on LibraryThing, and 34 on Goodreads, which is more than nothing, but a long way from notability. Nwhyte (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Everybody[edit]

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

No references, unnotable. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 10:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no evidence of notability. FalconK (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added sources, now meets WP:GNG. I'm concerned that it appears the nominator has not conducted a WP:BEFORE search in this and other AfDs. NemesisAT (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is an organization therefore GNG is not the appropriate guideline, its NCORP for companies/organizations. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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 on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, even the ones added by NemesisAT which were more-of-the-same "advertorials with no accredited journalist" articles. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 One Thousand and One Nights. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tale of the Trader and the jinn(1001 Nights)[edit]

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

Seems to be just the tale, not an encyclopaedic article. Happy editing--IAm Chaos 08:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One Thousand and One Nights. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 08:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it should be The tale of the trader and the jinn (1001 Nights) or just The tale of the trader and the jinn. The template on the 1001 nights article lists several of the best known tales from this important work, so that I do not see why we should not have another. Certainly not the best article, but no reason to delete it. Yes, it is a work of fiction, but that is not a ground for deletion. This would not be suitable for merging, as the target article is far too general and wide-ranging. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with suitable notices for concerned editors, who may wish to make contributions. While the content is improperly structured, it does not seem correct to remove the page entirely.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Thousand and One Nights. AfD participants, please provide sources. Not generic advice, especially of a poor kind. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Aryer[edit]

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

Article has existed since 2009 without even one reliable source in violation of our WP:BLP policy. The Geocities source is clearly unreliable (I haven't accessed it as my computer is warning me that the site is unsafe). Google News returns nothing as does ProQuest (the search redirects to "Jeff Ayer"). I had no luck searching in DDG also. Google only returns an almost-empty Transfermarkt profile, which is unreliable as per WP:TRANSFERMARKT. The article alleges that he has played some games in a WP:NOTFPL league so there is no claim to WP:NFOOTBALL and I found no realistic chance of passing WP:GNG from my own searches. Doesn't even pass WP:V and may even be a hoax. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, and fails GNG and WP:V. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kevin Holt#Personal life per WP:ATD. ✗plicit 12:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Holt[edit]

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

Disputed PROD, with the wording "fails GNG, fair enough..." (?) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the rest of my comment goes on to say that he played 5 games in the 1986–87 Scottish First Division as confirmed by the WP:RS reference Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that matter if he "fails GNG"? Did you mean to endorse the PROD and remove it by mistake? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he does fail GNG, he has played multiple games in a fully professional league per WP:FPL so does not qualify for uncontroversial deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He played five times for Airdrie, who were a part-time club. Gordon McQueen tried to take them full-time just after that but gave up and resigned because the players would not give up their day jobs for the meagre wages offered. The 1986–87 Scottish First Division did not contain a single club who were full-time professional. Eleven of the better players including top scorer Rowan Alexander played for the Scotland national semi-professional football team at the 1987 Four Nations Tournament (1979–2008). In fact the 1986–87 Scottish Premier Division had three of 12 clubs which were part-timers, so not even the top division was "fully professional" at that time. Not that any of this matters, since we are agreement that GNG is not met. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting this info from? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage; whether they meet WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kevin Holt#Personal life (article on his son), where he's mentioned, and so is a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he played a few games for a part-time club. This is not a sign of notability, and we do not have adequate coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Delete though the Redirect suggested by Joseph2302 might be a useful ATD should anyone search for him, and I can understand Spiderone's point. But ultimately we cannot have articles for players of questionable notability simply because they benefit from an institutional bias, as minor gridiron football players and baseball players also do but other footballers generally do not. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they lack notability but I like the redirect option.Gusfriend (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination itself was astoundingly absent of any policy-based reasons to delete. ✗plicit 12:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Pashaei[edit]

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

This page was created in three wikis at the same time. It is better to check the sources. Persia ☘ 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Persia ☘ 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Persia ☘ 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Persia ☘ 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Persia ☘ 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what is the actual reason for deletion Persia? We don't just nominate articles because they have been created on multiple wikis. A world gold medalist is surely notable enough for an article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‌Lee Vilenski What are the sources that point to this person's medals?--Persia ☘ 17:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Persia all of the sources have pointed to his professional background but this one which is in Persian and OK for you, has directly pointed to the medals .Khabat4545 (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 22 references in the article. Tell me which ones aren't suitable to show the subject meets WP:GNG? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The sources are reliable, especially the sources related to the official site of the Wrestling Federation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the largest world news agencies such as CNN, BBC, DW, Fox news, Radio-farda and so on. Thanks,Khabat4545 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An athlete with world gold medal is clearly notable enough. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Annas[edit]

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

Never played in a WP:FPL league as Polis Diraja Malaysia FC were playing in the second tier of Malaysian football during the time in which it is alleged that Annas played there. Google News and DDG have nothing on him. The three relevant hits in ProQuest are passing mentions in match reports and therefore insufficient for WP:GNG. The article should be deleted unless GNG can be evidenced. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Adams[edit]

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

Contested PROD - fails WP:NFOOTBALL due to never playing in a "fully professional league" and WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Correct me if I'm wrong but Ayr United were playing in the 2nd tier of Scottish football at the time in which he played 29 games for them. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but according to Ayr United's official website: "It is a fact that Ayr United engaged solely part time players from 1939 until 1989." So if you wish to pretend they were "fully professional" you will need a source. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Touché Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete but a redirect might be useful (this might have to be to Ayr United itself, because there does not seem to be a list of their players). Certainly not notable enough in the global context for his own entry, and if Scots consider themselves to be European (on which matter I sympathise) they cannot then take advantage of Anglosphere bias as if they were borderline-notable baseball players. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article totally fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given that my suggestion that he played in a fully professional league has now been proved wrong, I can no longer make an argument for keeping. Given that he played for 3 different clubs, I would oppose redirecting for now. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'm now wholly for Delete here. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manan Sahni[edit]

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

The article relies entirely on an unreliable source (see WP:IMDB). I searched for but was unable to find any evidence of being able to meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no evidence anywhere of notability, and also unambiguously promotional.JBW (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Found nothing about this filmmaker. Non notable. IndaneLove (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No indication of passing NFILMMAKER or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Middle Georgia State University#Athletics. The two sourced sentences are already included in the target, so there is no verifiable content left to merge. ✗plicit 12:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Georgia Knights[edit]

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Georgia Knights

Article about a college sports team that does not satisfy general notability. A review of the references shows that none of them are independent and secondary coverage.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Stats.NJCAA.org	Shared statistical website	No	No	Yes	No
2	MGC.edu	Not available, but should be university's own web site	No	No	Yes	No
3	www.baseball-reference.com	Information about a player.	Yes	No	Yes	No

Moved from draft space to article space once. Then moved back to draft space by User:Onel5969. Then moved back to article space by originator with edit summary: 'This page is acceptable to be published'. So the community will decide if the page is acceptable to be published. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle Georgia State University#Athletics. RIght now, about 95% of the article should be removed as it is uncited, which was why I moved it into draft to begin with. Just gets the type of routine local coverage one would expect from a low-division athletic program. Fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Middle Georgia State University#Athletics. Cannot stand alone. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Middle Georgia State University#Athletics - there's some material here worth salvaging, so redirect isn't quite enough. Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle Georgia State University#Athletics per everyone else. This really should have just stayed as a draft since there only seems to be routine local coverage. That said, it's fine to redirect the article as an ATD until the necessary coverage materializes for this to be notable, if it ever does. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - Not even seeing where their games are covered in any depth. Rikster2 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banwari Lal Goswami[edit]

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

Not much references. PQR01 (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as the subject person is not even near to notability. Fails WP:GNG. The 2 citation is all about MENTION only. STRONG DELETE. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 07:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Subject doesn't seem to have enough coverage on Google results. 2601:8D:8700:5E10:D5E0:983D:E9A4:B0E8 (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NYT and doesn't have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. ✗plicit 12:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BITS School of Management[edit]

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

Notability of this private university campus seems to be WP:INHERITED from the overall university (Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani). MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. This doesn't seem to be notable on it's own since all the references in the article are trivial, promotional, contain interviews, or are otherwise not usable for notability. That said, it's a satellite school of Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. So I'm fine with it being redirected to their article as an ATD. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. There is independent sourcing but insufficient for a standalone article. There is already an empty section for it in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani per Tayi Arajakate. Can be covered in the target article per ATD. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page should not be deleted because the institute - BITSoM, has an individual standing of its own and is as notable as any other campuses of the parent institution BITS Pilani. In view of the fact that all other campuses have their separate pages - BITS Dubai, BITS Goa and BITS Hyderabad; BITSoM Mumbai stand-alone page should not be a matter of concern. Further, the page is in a rudimentary stage and is bound to get more informative in coming months.
Talking of Wikipedia's policy, the page does not violate any rule, it neither displays content which is promotional in nature, nor advertises any external medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyushYR (talk • contribs) 09:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Asif Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as He has never played a game at WP:FPL level so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 07:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet GNG and NFOOTBALL Footy777 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics#Tennis. history remains under the redirect should GNG compliant sourcing eventually be found. Star Mississippi 03:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Stadel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as they lack significant coverage. A search for results from St. Louis reveals some passing mentions to 1906 tennis results that could be in reference to him, but there are no other possibly relevant results, including globally in 1904, and globally in 1952, the year of his death.

Passing WP:NATH, but per WP:NSPORTS this only provides a presumption of notability, and thus WP:GNG is required to be met - although the presumption does mean an AFD rather than a Prod is required. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not pass GNG. I also would add that considering that we decided Olympians are not default notable for competing, only for medaling, we probably should change all other references to the Olympics to either limit it to medalers, or at least something less comprehensive than just competing, since we decided that just competing is not enough. For what it is worth the 1904 Olympics were barely more than an American competition, with several events having only American competitors, and some team competitions featuring multiple teams from various cities in the US, in fact a few competitions may have only featured teams from St. Louis iteslef, many of these teams were sponsered by the Turners organzations, which we have an article on which neglects to mention their role in the 1904 Olymics (at least it as of last week, I did not check it again just now).John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics#Tennis if nothing can be found on him per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We should not try to preserve links about people who are totally non-notable. I strenuously object to making this a rdirect, which is evidently what needs to be done to stop people from turning Wikipedia into a huge collections of redirects about non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lugnuts, a redirect makes sense as an WP:ATD. There is no problem with non-notable subjects being redirected, that happens all the time on Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatemeh Masoudifar[edit]

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

does not have General notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. She has no special reputation as an actress and there are no films in which she has acted. She has not won any special award. She may become famous in the future, but not now Persia ☘ 10:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by significant and wide media coverage according to resources mentioned .She had leading actress role in movie skin She has a major role in big production TV series Jeyran Faryouab (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maxwell Street#The Maxwell Street Market. Valid ATD. Does not appear further input is forthcoming, so this could also be considered an uncontested PROD/soft deletion. Star Mississippi 03:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat You Fair: The Story of Maxwell Street[edit]

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

Non notable documentary with minor awards. Nothing found in a BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deprodded this with the comment "At worst, this could be a redirect to the section of Maxwell Street which discusses the documentary." Can the nominator please explain why a redirect would not be acceptable and why it was necessary to bring this to AfD? SpinningSpark 16:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Metcalf[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. He is a former fighter in his 40s who only won 1 of of his 3 fights in a top tier promotion. Very unlikely for him to meet GNG in the future, most coverage is through sports databases and routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NMMA. The three fights to meet WP:NMMA were about 15 years ago and the promotion of those fights, Strikeforce, has been defunct about 10 years. The odds of finding anything that old through conventional Google sources is small. But Strikeforce was a big deal back then and their fights/events gained a lot of coverage, which is why they are listed as a top tier organization. So I say follow the guideline that we presume sources do exist for this fighter through the events he took part in. Note that win/loss results don't matter; sources covering MMA bouts/events cover event winners and losers. RonSigPi (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to provide evidence of SIGCOV to show he meets GNG. The point of WP:MMABIO is to allow MMA pages to exist with the idea that they can meet GNG in the future, I couldn't find much coverage outside sports databases and a few routine interviews from journalists. You gotta understand that not everyone that competes in a top tier mma promotion means they meet GNG, which is most important compared to wikiproject guidelines. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 05:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, but why did you wait 9 years to raise this for deletion? In 2013, sources probably could have been found or alternatively a through check could have been done with nothing found, so the decision is easy/easier. Doing this now, it we are just guessing on what was out there at creation. I agree SNG does not trump GNG, but SNG exists for cases like this. RonSigPi (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because I wasn't on wikipedia 9 years ago. I started editing around 2019. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 02:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough Sigcov to meet GNG. The sports SNGs specifically say they do not overrule the need for GNG. There is a proposal to delete these misused SNGs, and those who are opposing it are explicitly accepting this limiting of their scope and saying that those who want them to go are over-reacting because they do not trump GNG, and that administrators should stop blindly accepting false claims that sports SNGs can in fact trump GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree he meets WP:NMMA but that he fails to meet WP:GNG. The problem is that many MMA fighters have little coverage except for reporting on their results. With the seemingly increased focus on SNGs vs. the GNG, we're having a lot more AfD discussions on individuals who meet an SNG. This is particularly noticeable for middle of the pack fighters (Metcalf's highest ever ranking by fightmatrix.com was 74th). Papaursa (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. G. Sangram Singh[edit]

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

Doubtful notability, most coverage seems to be related to the stamp paper scam, and the article seems to be devoted to countering that. It actually seems to come close to G11. It is largely unsourced. It is also full of irrelevant information, like details about some film that he apparently liked and how often he watched it, and details on the children of his adopted daughter. To say that it would need a rewrite would be quite accurate, and that's assuming that the subject is even notable. Anyway, I am calling for WP:TNT regardless of notability, to ensure that the current version cannot just be reverted back to. Mako001 (C) (T) 07:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 07:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 07:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 07:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as fails WP:GNG. Not a notable police officer, not citation is there to verify the claims made on the Wiki page. Moreover, the Assistant Commissioner of Police is middle class police officer. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 07:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lili & Lola[edit]

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

Article about a television series, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows don't get automatic notability freebies just because you single-source the fact that they exist; the notability test requires more evidence of significance, such as notable television awards and/or the reception of considerably more than just one piece of coverage. But this literally just says that the show exists, the end, and is referenced to just one very short blurb in a trade magazine, which isn't enough, and even on a search for better sources I'm essentially only finding press releases from its own production company rather than any independent coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A few new sources have been added, but they aren't an improvement. Two are still primary sources — the show's own press release about itself and its directory entry in a tablet app store — and the only one that comes from an independent media outlet is covering it in the context of being named a winner of that media outlet's own proprietary awards, which are not a notability-clinching award for a television show. There's also an unsourced claim added that it won a Leo Award, but the Leo Awards are also not a notability-clinching award for a television show, because they are not an award that gets covered by the media either. (I've tried to source Leo Award wins in Canadian film or television articles, and I very regularly can't.)
"Notability because awards" does not attach to just every award that exists: it attaches only to awards that get covered by the media in order to establish that the award itself is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it, and not to awards that you have to source to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself or a YouTube video. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SMS Möwe (1914). Sandstein 08:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 16 January 1916[edit]

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

1. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The firefight between a German cruiser and a British cargo vessel on January 16, 1916 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. It would be better to delete the page and ensure any sourced details are recorded instead in the article about the SMS Möwe 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the Kriegsmarine. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards. Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (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/2022 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

~~Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-1224, USS Flounder & USS Growler. Keith H99 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

~~Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-168 & USS Besugo. Penultimate addition. Keith H99 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Above items now listed in separate nomination, as requested.

Articles for deletion/Action of 23 April 1945

Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons.

What is particularly interesting is that the talk page acknowledges that there is no scholarly source for this engagement.
Talk:Action of 12 October 1950
I deduce it lacks significance. Final edit Keith H99 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename~~ to Sinking of SS Clan Mactavish. This is a reasonable article: I expect there are Reliable sources, even if not cited in-line. Commerce raiding during WWI was severe enough to worry the British government, so that merging this inot a list article might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sinking of the vessel is recorded in a chronological list as the eighth of fifteen ships sunk or captured on the first raiding voyage of SMS Möwe. Keith H99 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Please make the others into a separate nomination for WWII. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The 1950 case is covered in Operation Wonsan and can be redirected there. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of the article is about USS Pirate. I have cut this, and pasted it into the USS Pirate article.

One of the few citations in the article, which references the loss of two minesweepers, has been added to the Operation Wonsan article, as it was lacking an inline citation for the loss of the two minesweepers.08:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus following separation of other articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into the SMS Möwe (1914) page for the ship. It adds flavour to the ship page and the citation link would be a useful thing there for further information if someone was interested. Gusfriend (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- perhasp the answer is to merge to this and other sinkings to SMS Möwe. The individual victims are perhaps NN.

Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a separate Afd for the 12th October 1950 if that is deemed worthy of deletion. Gusfriend (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the SMS Möwe (1914) page for the ship and create a different Afd for 12 October 1950.Gusfriend (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is some sentiment for merging to the author or the story collection, but no clear consensus to do that or which target would be better. RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Doll-House[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any particular reason why this particlar story should have an article., and no reason why it should have even a redirect, DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question / Tentative Keep - Is there a wiki-project with special notability guidelines for short stories? I note that this article is sourced with contemporary criticism in what I presume are reliable sources... that suggests meeting the notability criteria to me. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dangerous Visions - The reviews currently in the article are just one to two sentence mentions in larger reviews of the collection its in overall. Searching for more sources turns up more of the same - brief mentions in discussions of Dangerous Visions. I don't think this is enough coverage to support an independent article, but Redirecting it to the notable book collection it appeared in would make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's sufficient, well referenced content, and the page about the anthology would become unwieldy if we merged in all the pages for its constituent stories. pburka (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to Hugh Jones Parry, an article on the author which I just wrote. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hugh Jones Parry or Dangerous Visions. Gusfriend (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a snippet in Google Books that implies that it was reviewed in Galaxy Science Fiction per the phrase "the vantage Cross's “ The Doll House ” was point from which we peek out written pretty much to one of through them". I think that this was the same one that I added to the article to back up a quote made about how they were submitted. The general gist seems to be that the article goes into some depth about the story. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Golden[edit]

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

Golden directed episodes in a lot of televsions shows, often less than 6 in shows that ran well over 20 episodes. The sourcing is low quality such as IMDb and a search for additional sources turned up nothing substantial. Just having a job directing television episodes does not make someone notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would meet WP:NCREATIVE#3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". He served as a director on episodes of notable shows. I also added more sources if it helps passes WP:GNG. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion has been relisted 3 times and it still seems like there is no consensus regarding this article. Maybe another discussion after a suitable amount of time has passed (not tomorrow) would be warranted. Hopefully, there would be more participation which would make this decision more, well, decisive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Simpson (MSP)[edit]

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

Businessman/author does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. I couldn't find independent reliable sources on Google. Won't pass WP:GNG. VincentGod11 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable individual with some significant contributions to MSP and a founder of notable institute. There is a lot of significant coverage in MSP publications and has been recognized for his contributions. Some sources I found: [2], [3], [4]. Modafferi (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Weak because it would be easy to change my mind, just show me that both his books have been independently reviewed a few times, which would be the standard way to show an author was notable CT55555 (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And also a comment MSP as a suffix means "Member of Scottish Parliament" I recognize that to audiences outside the UK this is probably not widely known, but I think MSP as it is intended here is also not widely known. I would suggest "(author)" would be a more normal disambiguation title, should this stay. CT55555 (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources given by Modafferi don't provide significant coverage: for instance, one is a top 20 of "bright minds in the SMB channel", with a very short paragraph per person. I can't find any independent reviews for the books. Femke (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep coverage exists. I found a number of books mentioning him/his work on Google Books and coverage [5], [6], [7], [8]. Significant coverage is relative and in the field MSP the already listed coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG. 67.168.136.107 (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether these sources count towards notability- the first one is merely a name in a list and the others are interviews. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ––FormalDude talk 21:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heartbreak High episodes[edit]

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

Violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ––FormalDude talk 03:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 03:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 03:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 03:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how does this violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY? It's not an indiscriminate list, it's a subpage of the main Heartbreak High page. Deus et lex (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is an indiscriminate list, in that it lists every single episode without any discrimination. Per WP:NLIST, it should have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I'm not seeing any independent reliable sources here that do that. Most of the sources are just directory listings. ––FormalDude talk 03:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure how this violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY specifically, are you suggesting to redirect to main page? Pinchofhope (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting this poorly sourced and likely unnotable content be deleted. ––FormalDude talk 03:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources can be fixed and Category:Lists of Australian drama television series episodes has 48 pages just like this one, so if the argument is based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY then they should all be up for deletion. If you are arguing about the notability of Heartbreak High specifically, I also disagree. Its one of the most successful Australian shows internationally with an upcoming Netflix reboot that has just wrapped filming. either way I vote keep and rework.Pinchofhope (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so successful it should be easy to find independent reliable sources that discuss the episodes as a group or set. ––FormalDude talk 04:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of television episodes, primary sources (i.e. the episode itself) are considered a reliable source for information such as title, writers, directors, episode numbers, and airdates. Secondary sources are preferred, but the lack of secondary sources is not uncommon. See: MOS:TVEPISODELIST (and there is other info in the TV project MOS pertaining to this, but its location escapes me at present). ButlerBlog (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is not an indiscriminate list, and episode list articles are not WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Heartbreak High is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, and generally, a series that has run for three or more seasons (as this has) will break out the episode list to a separate list article such as this, rather than include it in the article due to length. ButlerBlog (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as an episode list article under Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, listing of AfD discussion in non-Television project discussions should be withdrawn. ButlerBlog (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet WP:NLIST. ––FormalDude talk 06:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguably a speedy keep, because while the rationale listed is a deletion rationale, the nominator appears to be unfamiliar that 'lists of episodes' are often improved to be featured list status. Regardless, no cause for deletion articulated, let alone one that would require deletion rather than editing to solve. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid reason given for deletion. List of episodes for a notable show are always notable. Dream Focus 16:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. WP:NLIST states the requirements for a list to be considered notable, and I don't think this article meets said requirements. ––FormalDude talk 19:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has happened in AFDs for years now, and always ends the sames. Also WP:NLIST clearly states Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. This is an informational list. Dream Focus 21:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I was not aware of that standard. Seeing as I'm the only one dissenting, I will close as keep. ––FormalDude talk 21:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonpreet Jawanda[edit]

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

Non notable actor. No major roles as an Actor. Not enough news coverage for qualifying notability. Article created by a blocked user. IndaneLove (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IndaneLove (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. IndaneLove (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mere appearance in notable productions does not meet WP:NACTOR; it needs significant roles backed up by reliable sources which I don't see here. No coverage to meet GNG either. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS, Devokewater, and Johnpacklambert: Courtesy ping to all registered users who participated in previous nominations. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still no evidence of notability. The subject appears to have played some minor supporting roles in major productions but nothing that satisfy WP:NACTOR. GSS ^💬 19:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vienna Vikings. Content remains under the redirect for when the season begins. If someone wants to actively incubate in draft space, also fine, but appears unlikely sources will be forthcoming until the season begins. Star Mississippi 03:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Vienna Vikings season[edit]

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

Delete At the time of nomination, there were four "sources" cited in this article: 3 are the team's Twitter feed, and the 4th is the league's Twitter feed: in sum, there are zero independent sources (probably a function of WP:TOOSOON). I tried draftifying, but the creator insisted, INSISTED, this met all Wikipedia's policies for articles. So here we are. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, doesn't this meet WP:NSEASONS, which states: Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European League of Football is not recognized by NGRIDIRON as a top professional league. Cbl62 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it will never be notable; but just like 2028 Vienna Vikings season, or 2039–40 Manchester United F.C. season, there are no sources on which to base an article now. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the desired independent sources to this article. This discussion is not about the question, if this league is professional, semi-professional or neither of those. Due to the fact that the franchises and league make signifikant changes in this preseason, the 2022 season is already happening. Even if it would fail to make the first game day, it would be notable. Dopeious (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dopeious: I suggest that the draftspace is the proper place for this page, and the other similar ones you are working on, while you are adding those sources. I trust you will not oppose such draftification, and will put them through the WP:AFC process when you think they are ready rather than just moving them to the mainspace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. Fails WP:GNG for the lack of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, and independent source. Also, this is a season that has not yet happened, implicating WP:TOOSOON issues. Cbl62 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vienna Vikings, as it seems there is not enough coverage as of yet, but there could be in the future. Either way, it preserves a valid search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Redirect Until the season starts, then I believe it will warrant an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Algarve U17 International Tournament[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. There is a season article for this competition, but there is no main article? This isn't quite making sense. Also, fails WP:GNG Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Better write about the series. The editions are not notable. gidonb (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for this much detail on an U17 tournament with little coverage outside of the FAs of the nations involved Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, as is the case for the majority of youth tournaments. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partho Folia[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911, I will reply in detail, but for now, The Daily Star source (12) was a mistake, it was supposed to be this:https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/music/news/bappa-mazumder-answers-nikuchi-kori-ami-mystery-new-song-2195931 I guess I copied wrong url. And I know it's just passing mention. Well, yeah. Cause graphics designing isn't the subject's main gig, just side kicks, so I just used the sources to make the info verifiable.-- Tame (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep You can check the talk page of the article, I already discussed the sock parts. So, you said, There isn't enough in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. This from Jugantor is an in-depth coverage of him and his short film Jok and also briefly mentions other films. At the end of the article, it contains 1-2 lines of interview, which doesn't make it primary for its entirety. And there are a lot of sources that are solely about his films. And you used the term "YouTube video", which IMO downplayed the fact that it was actually a TV Drama which was "released on YouTube." In one of the sources, it reads: "New music videos, web series and short films are usually released on YouTube. On the other hand, there is a large audience for the TV drama. Because, the dramas can be enjoyed anytime without any ad break on YouTube. The latest addition to this is 'Opekkha.'" The drama stars Tasnuva Tisha, and is notable, and the drama has the potential of a page in wiki. Then you wrote, (Interview with an unreliable source) so by your logic any publication that doesn't have a wiki yet is unreliable? I use The Business Standard a lot as a source in articles, which doesn't have a page, so now it is unreliable too? I know the page contains primary material, but with due respect, this is AFD, you can't just write a newspaper off, which didn't have any reliability noticeboard consensus. And you said Kinopoisk is a Russian version of IMDb? IDTS, IMDb data are user generated, unlike this, which is beside the point, I just used it just to consolidate the fact that he directed the films. Same goes with Radio Times sources. And I admit, there are some sources that "contains" interview along with independent factual data, for example his film names, or awards they won, or in which festivals they were screened on, and then they contain the interview part, for example asking him his future plans, influences, all of which are not talked about in the article, since I couldn't find any independent source that mention those. In any case, I used the sources just to use as a reference to the factual data, such as his film names, I didn't mention any PS material in the article, so just writing those sources off as "PS" isn't really appropriate. And besides his short films, he also directed music video. And his films are talked about in the media, in both PS form, PR form, but also Independent form. Also, his films were screened in numerous national and international film festivals, won some, also got critic praise, for example from bn:সেলিনা হোসেন. Although none of them has a wiki yet. His short film Jok received significant coverage, including a few others. IMO the person is a notable director. Even with the PS token, I mean a non notable film maker wouldn't be interviewed repeatedly by reliable pubs. And as I said, has independent, in depth to some extent coverage from reliable media. Tame (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Figuring this out is difficult for 2 reasons: 1) few of the sources are in English, and it is always recommended that one use English language sources if they exist and 2) a lot of the sources are not actual information sources, but are things such as links to video listings. It would be easier to assess this article if the non-sources were removed and we could see what remains when only reliable sources are used. But as per Nom, reliable sources seem scarce. Lamona (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona, But as per Nom, reliable sources seem scarce

I already discussed about the sources, they might seem "scarce" to you or the nominator, but not every one them are. I expressed this also earlier on a previous AFD, most people just take a cursory look at foreign sources, not bothering at least trying to translate them. PS: Except one or two, most of them have a wiki page, and are legit, reliable pubs. Tame (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tame you indicated one source that is in-depth. You seem to say that the others (such as the one you quote/translate) are what we would call 'mentions'. No number of mentions = in-depth. If you have other in-depth sources, please note them here. Lamona (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please link the three best sources and I'll translate them to review. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the possible existence of in-depth sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at all the sources using Google Translate and there is no significant coverage whatsoever. The vast majority of the sources are simply directorial credits (or credits for production or graphic design). The exceptions are a few interviews (which do not contribute to notability) and a promotional-type piece which is like an interview in that Folia is mostly talking about himself. Having said that, the director is obviously amassing a body of work so I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. What is needed are some articles about him and that are not merely credits or interviews. Curiocurio (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I translated a few of the sources for Jok, the ones that supposedly substantiate that it's an award-winning film, but couldn't find anything about awards. They are just announcements that the film was screened at those festivals. There was nothing in-depth about the director. Unless the films are notable, one can't make the case that the director is, since that's all he's known for. Fails WP:NDIRECTOR. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Please nominate the other two articles separately, as they were not tagged for discussion here. ✗plicit 02:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Chinese provinces and sovereign states by GDP PPP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting in light of this recent AfD. Appears to violate WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTDATABASE, etc. Similar issues are present with Comparison between Indian states and countries by GDP (PPP) and Comparison between Argentine provinces and countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, as was mentioned in the last AfD. Humsorgan (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Humsorgan: Did you intend to bundle the Argentina and India articles to this AfD as well? Jumpytoo Talk 03:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Chinese provinces and sovereign states by GDP PPP participants who have not commented here: Normchou (talk · contribs), Trimton (talk · contribs), Hyperbolick (talk · contribs), Humsorgan (talk · contribs), and SunDawn (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the rationale that had been used on this AFD. The rationale used there applies here as well, and I do think that despite being an interesting article, WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE applied on this article as well. Similar articles should be nominated and discussed as well:

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL SunDawn talk 12:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yes, per the reason listed in my previous nomination. Glad to see User:SunDawn changing their mind this time. Normchou ^💬 15:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People News Chronicle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. PQR01 (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt While not WP:G4 due to the addition of the website being banned briefly, the article is significantly more promotional than the deleted one, and the only new non-Twitter source doesn't seem reliable at all. Jumpytoo Talk 04:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand you Jumpytoo. Let me try my best to remove any promotional message. Thank you for your input. But on the references, I would tell you that they are reliable, independent, and verifiable sources. Please check through the links, you will notice they are reliable news sources and some are even competitors of PNC. I'll be glad to hear your feedback on this. Goo Figure (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I noticed that PQR01 pointing out that Wikipedia previously deleted the page. That is true. The grounds were that it did not meet the notability criterion and references were not independent. However, take a careful look at the new page. You will hardly see paid references or a lack of notability. I have highlighted various areas where PNC has been recognized and awarded, which tells us that the organization is highly notable. In terms of references, I have used independent, reliable, and verifiable sources. And for this, I also invite Jumpytoo to take a look. You will realize that the references are qualifying. You mentioned that there were promotional messages and I have subsequently removed anything that sounds like a promotion. I am not immune to mistakes and I am ready to accept to make the right changes when given the opportunity. I welcome you to help me by pointing out where exactly you think I might have gone wrong. Guys please, let us reach a consensus about this and remove it from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thank you all. Goo Figure (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt - no signs of reliable, independent coverage of this site. All links are to Twitter posts or the same press release. The only other page is a post that the site was blocked, which was self-reported on Twitter. All promotional junk. Evaders99 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello Evaders99, did you really mean "all links are to Twitter or same press release". I think that is a mistake. There are 10 references there and only three lead you to Twitter. You also mentioned that "The only other page is a post that the site was blocked...". If this is not deliberately being dishonest, I don't know what is. Well, FYI, apart from Twitter, this page has five other independent links: Google Maps, Mid-Day, Oneindia, Filmbeat, and Nagpur Oranges. There is a sixth one (peoplenewschronicle.com) but I would say that is self-reported. But you coming and saying "delete" because "all links are to Twitter" is dishonesty and it is unfair to do that. Goo Figure (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello members. In my opinion, this page should be kept. Even though it was deleted, we can look back at the reasons for the initial deletion and agree on whether the issues have been resolved. Note that the previous page was weak in terms of references which were mostly promotional, notability—whereby the page did not meet the requirements, and it had little to no independent sources. Looking at the new page, these issues have been addressed, at least, to a large extent. The page has had references replaced and the use of independent ones employed. We can also agree that it is notable given the wide media coverage it received regarding its launch as well as the awards and recognitions. I believe that is enough to let this article sail through. I can only imagine the hard work and input here by the authors. They have demonstrated the willingness to rectify errors when they are pointed out. We should be considerate and lenient enough to keep this page and possibly prevent it from future nomination for deletion. I hope we can, at least, agree on something: That the issues raised on the previous page have been resolved. This page should be kept. Sonamnegi121 (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Striking comment by CU-confirmed sock of the account that last wrote this article. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Promotional rubbish. "The history of PNC dates back to December 2021". Rathfelder (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guys, I have heavily edited the article. I believe it is good now. We can check and conclude the matter. I promise to look for independent sources and update the article accordingly. I will keep developing it, and I welcome your views. Kindly see the page and consider closing this discussion. Goo Figure (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. Additionally, there may be sock concerns, as the creator of the article that was deleted at the last AfD was blocked for sockpuppeting. casualdejekyll 03:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Actually, scratch that. Speedy Delete and Salt as G11 and potentially G5. Not only have multiple people agreed that the current article is promotional, multiple patently false claims have been removed from it (see this diff and this diff), and the article was originally created by User:Simransertt (who is blocked for promotion), and then later by User:Arunpawargere (who is blocked as a sockpuppeteer). casualdejekyll 03:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to Casualdejekyll, I think (this diff) is correct. It has all of the needed information. The only problem is that it seems to contain extra information yet it was just supposed to more focus on awards. Other things were not supposed to be on the reference article. Similarly, this diff) is correct because the ranking can be seen on the ranking Crunchbase page (which is a respected site). You can check the rankings as well as other information here: [9]. Guys you need to know that your comments are being taken with the seriousness they deserve. That is why whenever a concern is raised, I go to the article and address it promptly. The continuous editing should be seen as an effort to have the article meet the standards required. Please try to be considerate in your deliberations. It is not like I am trying to hide something, no. I am just trying to make sure that whenever an issue is raised, it is promptly addressed to try and merit this article. Goo Figure (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those diffs are correct, though what I think you meant to say is that the things removed in the diffs were correct. The second edit wasn't made by me, but on the subject of cohorts: Not only did the source cited say absolutely nothing of the sort, but the claim itself can be proved false with some simple googling (here). The first cohort of the Google News Initiative in India consisted of BehanBox, Bisbo, East Mojo, ED Times, Headline Network, Main Media, Suno India, The Bridge, The Cue, and The Probe. That is it. And none of those have anything to do with Youthistaan or People News Chronicle, last I checked. casualdejekyll 14:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Additionally, if you read the edit summary of the second diff, you'd know that Crunchbase is not a reliable source.) casualdejekyll 14:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still on Casualdejekyll, I am Goo Figure. I am not what you are saying I am and I was not blocked before. I did not create the previously deleted article. I only recreated this page after it was deleted. I have never been banned or blocked or whatever it should be by Wikipedia. You should investigate more but please use other methods. The one you used gave you false red flags. Have you ever seen this account blocked? In terms of G11, it does not apply because the content was notable but I had issues. First, I could not find good sources to back the claims. For example, an award I know they earned was deleted because I did not back the claims with good references. Of course, there are issues with references. And I accepted to remove them and identify that such sections need references. Second, I had not mentioned them in a neutral way. For example, awards were somehow detailed (which was not necessary), something like "Staff" had a link redirecting to PNC webpage and such like things. But I made edits and the article meets the requirements. Therefore, whereas it seems G11, promotional content was either purged or replaced with neutral content. Goo Figure (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Goo Figure, you have to understand where I'm coming from, right? Literally every other account that has created this article at some point in time, as well as another account that has !voted in this very AfD, User:Sonamnegi121, has been blocked as a confirmed sock of Arunpawargere/Simranserrt. So another brand new account immediately creating a promotional article on the same topic is definitely something to be suspicious of. Although technically I cannot say either way whether or not you are the same person, it's very hard to assume good faith when by my count six other accounts have been confirmed as the same person creating this article over and over. casualdejekyll 18:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ARTSPAM about subject lacking sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet inclusion requirements, particularly, WP:CORP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly zero depth-of-coverage from reliable sources; just mentions and a press release. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Salt. This appears to be a scam SEO/Newsagg sink, frankly. The images on that google maps link are stolen stock images. The "staff" listing that previous added by the author of the article here seems to be a complete fabrication. The first person on the list "Aldous McEwan" has an image stolen for journalist Dainius Radzevičius and his bio is "He’s best known for writing science fiction, entertainment including the bestseller Redshirts, which won the Hugo Award for Best Novel". This will come as a great shock to John Scalzi. The entry for "Ethan Hansen" is Ethan Cohen with a nonsense bio. This is just a start; there are a lot of pretty outlandish claims on the about page, and the sources given are riddled with typos. I honestly can't see this as anything but a scam; will dig in to more later to see if I can spot the relations to other SEO scams like this. Kuru (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Many of the 'writers' on this site have Gmail accounts rather than website accounts, and per Kuru's findings this is a falsehood of a site, in addition to being extremely packed with advertising and SEO junk designed to pull in clicks. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apology to User:Goo Figure, as a CU has determined that they are a different user to Arunpawargere. (This is technically unrelated to the AfD, but I felt it was worth adding.) casualdejekyll 20:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apology NOT GRANTED How do you send me apologies when "Although technically I cannot say either way whether or not you are the same person..."? isn't that supposed to be BS? Goo Figure (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, ok. If you're going to be like that have fun. This has already veered way off topic anyway. casualdejekyll 11:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per WP:G11. Definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 15:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have made major rectifications on the article and I hope this time around it passes this test. I have added references. When you look at the article now, it technically does not have promotional content and removed things that look like adverts. Concerns raised before have been addressed not to mention that efforts are still ongoing in the background to have the article made even better. By now I believe I have looked into most if not all the issues you guys raised. I hope we are reasonable enough to see this and approve the article now. Goo Figure (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If by "in the background", you mean the owner of the site is quickly trying to correct the utter nonsense that was pointed out earlier. Links to blogs and press releases or other paid placement in junk sources does not help. It's pretty clear this is a straight up scam. I'll let this AFD run out so that non-admins have tools to rectify any future unethical editing. Kuru (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Singh Ahluwalia[edit]

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

Sunny Singh Ahluwalia

Non-notable person. Article does not satisfy the verifiability requirements for a biography of a living person. It reads like a directory entry, but Wikipedia is not a directory. There are only two references, only one of which is a footnote (but maybe you don't expect more in a two-sentence stub).

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.5dariyanews.com	States that subject joined the party	Yes	No	Yes	No
2	Yugmarg.com	An interview	No	Maybe		No

An article should speak for itself. Nothing in this article satisfies general notability or political notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as per nom. Fails basic notability, WP:GNG NPOL. If he had won any election then things would have been otherwise. Just DELETE. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 08:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN / WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. and Dan arndt. - Hatchens (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither WP:NPOL nor WP:BASIC is met. There are a few more "sources" at Draft:Dr. Sunny Singh Ahluwalia but nothing that comes close to significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN and no significant news has been provided. Caphadouk (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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