Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 18	March 20 >

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto FC II league record by opponent[edit]

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

So out of date. Low level team. Basically a WP:FANCRUFT article that has been abandoned and isn't even viewed. RedPatch (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons and since Category Toronto FC II players already covers it:

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

RedPatch (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 14:21, 5 March 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 March 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Lists, Canada, and Ontario. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom and NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 21:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~2015~~ Toronto FC II ~~season~~. Nfitz (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not all from 2015 though. There's a couple seasons worth of stats in there. RedPatch (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True - merge to Toronto FC II as appropriate. We don't perhaps need the record against every other team, but the list of players and some of the stats are more relevant. Nfitz (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other team articles don't have massive lists of former players and Category Toronto FC II players already fills that use. The records could be useful, but the data is so out of date that it's not useful. It'd effectively need to be completely re-done, so it's more of a WP:TNT situation in my mind since at least half the stuff is now wrong/outdated. RedPatch (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so apart from the current state of the articles, which is clearly lacking, I don't see what makes this cruft any more than something like Milton Keynes Dons F.C. league record by opponent. And I know WP:OSE is a weak argument, but I am unclear as to where the line is drawn. Is it because it is a reserve side? What is the standard required for such an article? Because WP:NOTSTATS also makes it clear that such articles can exist. Is it a sourcing issue for this particular team? Just trying to clear up what here is the issue. Jay eyem (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reasoning is that it's so out of date, plus the fact it is a reserve side in the third tier. I've basically been the main editor keeping this team's regular page up to date over the last couple of years and even I find this a bit unnecessary, and if I'm not going to update it, it's doubtful anyone will. This was basically last updated after 2016, when the team was founded in 2015. Basically in my mind it's a situation where the article is never going to be fixed and there's next to no interest in it (page views are next to non existant apart from a sharp spike the day this was nominated), so it's not needed. What's the point of an article with incorrect information. RedPatch (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm alright, I'm a bit neutral on this. Part of me thinks a WP:TNT would be appropriate since it is so out of date, but part of me also thinks that the article can be salvaged and that deletion is not cleanup. I don't want to make a judgement on the notability of the subject without a bit more information, but either way these articles are certainly in need of improvement if not deletion. Jay eyem (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Toronto FC II. Interesting information, although some cleanup is needed. Not worth a standalone article, though. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the nominator, but seeing as there are multiple votes for Merge, I am okay with that and then I will try to clean it up with what's relevant. Obviously some of the stuff might be a little too much for a regular article, but I'll try to work it through. I still prefer delete as my primary option though. RedPatch (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. NOTSTATS. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they all violate WP:NOTSTATS. I don't see anything worth merging, as it would just bloat the parent article and add no benefit. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 25 March 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. consensus is the challenges present with sources, they do not indicate notability. Star Mississippi 18:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Enenche[edit]

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

BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- notability of the church is not WP:INHERITED to the person. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, Christianity, Medicine, and Nigeria. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has substantial coverage in reliable sources such as here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a promotional puff-piece to me. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its significant coverage in a reliable source. Just because its positive coverage doesn't mean it should be ignored. "Puff piece " is a meaningless catch all, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is about the pastor of a local church on which we have no article. Despite its name there is no indication of the church's size. I am not doubting that anything in the article is true, but that does not imply notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per MrsSnoozyTurtle. The sigcov presented is almost certainly PR or paid given they contain lines like "Endowed with the double-edged gift of scientific knowledge as a medical doctor and God’s anointing for healing, Dr. Enenche’s ministration is characterised by the deliverance of multitudes from every manner of sickness and oppression." Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 25 March 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. ✗plicit 23:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Lange[edit]

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

Architect does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely WP:INHERITED from Bjarke Ingels Group MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Denmark. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 27 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!} 00:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources per WP:GNG including: Business Insider, Architect Magazine, and Arch Daily. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:13, 25 March 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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 23:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Rasekh[edit]

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

Looks self-promo. WP:GNG Ladsgroup^overleg 13:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Fashion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article belongs to a scholar from Iran and this article had problems and mistakes that were fixed by me, and now all the information of Mohammad Rasekh's Persian Wikipedia has been transferred to his English page. Mehdisefid (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 19 March 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 23:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chouettes Coquettes[edit]

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

The article appears to be entirely non-notable. Of the 7 references listed, 3 are dead, 3 don't mention the topic but instead are blogs or pages advertising gay life or sex workers and only one archived page mentions the group. There appear to be no current RS , so they may be defunct. Even if the group still exists, I can't see that they are any more notable than a local chess club or history society, and even many primary schools fail to make the notability cut. Bermicourt (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Quebec. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 March 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 March 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement for a small club. That people here would probably look favorably on their purposes and emdeavors shouldn't affect whether there should be an article. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The English version of their website is still active, but zero sources for the group, there seems to be a musical act in France called the Chouettes. I'm not seeing notability and there is no article in French wiki either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 20 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 anti-war protests in India[edit]

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

Protests in India against the Russian invasion of Ukraine do not appear to be any more notable than protests happening in many other countries. Any noteworthy details from this article can just be added to Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hemantha (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, no justification for this standalone page. Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just went on this article with the intention of proposing its merge. Glad someone has already AfDed it. Super Ψ Dro 08:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note the existence of the (much larger) article 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. Remember that WP:NOTABILITY of the subject is based on coverage by sources, and not current article size. We have a WP:BIAS for happenings in or near the West, and subjects in the global south and east are underrepresented (I have even seen this fact mentioned in a source, but unfortunately can’t find it), and ought to be given consideration for inclusion. —Michael Z. 14:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac: Thanks for mentioning the western bias and educating us. Please spend some time to read the sources presented in the article. These aren't anti-war or pro/against Russia/Ukraine protests. These were protests to demand from the Indian government, safe evacuation of Indian students from Ukraine. Also, contrary to your notion, DW There have also been protests in India, where anger has been directed at NATO and Western powers.". - hako9 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t get your point (and I can’t tell whether your thanks is sincere or facetious, since it clashes with what else you’ve written). Nothing I wrote has anything to do with the substance of the protests. —Michael Z. 21:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not deserve a stand-alone article and there is nothing of significance for a full/selective merge. It is currently just a list of low decibel run-of-the-mill protests. The sources clearly indicate that most, if not all of them, were protests demanding safe evacuation of Indian students from Ukraine and they weren't pro or against Russia/Ukraine. - hako9 (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BobNesh (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of the content in this article looks similar to the timeline of Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.Marxist-Leninist and Anti-revisionist (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:56, 22 March 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 23:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CLOAK (clothing)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Article has no reliable sources and WP:BEFORE shows nothing about the cloth. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. 2001:4455:364:A800:5DC:1FFF:D6C9:A8C7 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:53, 26 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Ecuadorian general election[edit]

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

A general election that will happen in 2025. There is nothing known apart from the incumbent president being eligible (so not even confirmed to be participating). Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BURO. This is the next election, it's certain to happen, and deleting the article serves no purpose as it will just have to be recreated at some point in the not-too-distant future – it's just creating additional work for someone further down the line. Also, I'd be amazed if there was no opinion polling data available yet; in most countries this is available even shortly after the previous election. However, I have no idea how to search for it in Spanish. Number 5 7 12:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how BURO relates to this? Saying that it'll be recreated at some point (2+ years can't be considered "not-too-distant") is no excuse to keep something that fails the GNG. Also there are no candidates yet so I don't know what polls you are expecting to find. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per @Number 57:, candidate speculation and candidates already ongoing with several headlines, more than nothing known. Lasso recently announced that he might stand for re-election, here was the headline; "Guillermo Lasso will govern Ecuador, however, he is already considering the possibility of a second term in 2025."[1][2] Carlos Rabascall of the main opposition party announced his candidacy to the 2025 election, headline; "Carlos Rabascall announces that he will be a presidential candidate for 2025; Democratic Center supports him."[3] Ex president Correa also talked about the 2025 elections, saying, "I think that in 2025 we can win the elections".[4] Pedro Freile also announced that he will push a new presidential candidacy in 2025 with his Amigo movement. [5] Yaku Pérez that finished third in 2021 also announced that he will stand as a candidate in the 2025 presidential elections.[6] In conclusion, as this article sums it up, many candidates are already eying for president in 2025, Guillermo Lasso (considering), Yaku Pérez (confirmed), Carlos Rabascall (confirmed), Pedro Freile (confirmed).[7] So this is certainly not to soon as it already is a lively topic in Ecuador. Another thing to be considered, 4 years is fine and there are plenty of in future election articles, 2024 United States presidential election, 2024 Taiwanese presidential election, 2026 Peruvian general election, 2025 Norwegian parliamentary election, Next German federal election, Next Japanese general election, 2026 Portuguese presidential election, 2025 Polish presidential election, Next Belarusian presidential election and these are just a few, there are much more. The candidates I listed can be added to the article. BastianMAT (talk) 00:05, 23 March 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. Somewhat weakly advocated by many, but what's clear is that there is no consensus for deletion here. Sandstein 15:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kornbread Jeté[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BLP1E, and WP:ENTERTAINER. First AFD closed as no consensus, but in my opinion there was no basis in wikipedia policy to the arguments made by the keep voters in that discussion and the closer (Star Mississippi) did not properly consider policy and the strength of the arguments. Lacks significant coverage in quality independent sources. Subject placed 12th on the current season of RuPaul's Drag Race, and withdrew early from the competition due to an injury. Sources are either too closely connected to the subject, not in-depth, or fail because of quality issues per policy at WP:TABLOID. There is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the subject with sources revolving entirely around this year's RuPaul's Drag Race reality competition. Nothing to indicate the subject is notable outside of season 14 of Drag Race, and that the subject should have a stand alone article. See source analysis below. Note to closer please consider the strength of the arguments in your close per WP:NOTAVOTE; in particular acknowledging issues relating to WP:BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINED such as the complete lack of significant coverage outside of routine coverage of season 14 of RuPaul's Drag Race. 4meter4 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of currently used inline citations

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
@kornbreadtmfs (January 14, 2022). "🎂• Today I turn 30 years old. 🏳⚧• On this same day last year I started my transition into the amazing woman I am today! I appreciate you all! From friends family and my new family thru @RuPaulsDragRace @WorldOfWonder let's make this year INSANE" (Tweet) – via Twitter.	N	N	N	N	N	Self reported. People in entertainment are not always reliable about self reporting an accurate age. Also fails per WP:TWITTER. TWITTER should never be used to verify content on wikipedia.
Fernandes, Aurelia (December 29, 2021). "'RuPaul's Drag Race': Meet the drag queens all set to compete in Season 14!". Meaww. Retrieved January 17, 2022.	N	N	?	N	N	An Indian celebrity news tabloid. Essentially a regurgitated press release from World of Wonder provided to the media. Press releases lack independence per AFD policy. Further MEAWW often publishes stories for pay by the subject of its articles and works as a PR platform for money; thus anything it publishes lacks independene and cannot be considered reliable.
"Meet Kornbread TMF Snack Jeté of Kornbread Jeté". Voyage LA. August 10, 2020. Retrieved January 17, 2022.	Y	N	Y	N	N	As an interview, lacks independence from the subject and should be used with caution as a way of verifying information. For notability purposes, cannot be used as evidence for meeting GNG.
Kornbread Jeté and June Jambalaya: Roscoe's RPDR Season 14 Viewing Party with Batty and Naysha. Chicago, Illinois. January 28, 2022. Event occurs at 45:03. Retrieved January 29, 2022.	N	N	N	N	N	YouTube can never be used as a source per policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; it's ok to use YouTube as an external link in some instances (see WP:YouTube)
Brown, Kailyn (2022-01-07). "Star Trek Exhibit, Jack Harlow Show, and Other Best Things To Do in L.A. This Weekend". Los Angeles Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-01-07. Retrieved 2022-01-08.	N	N	N	N	N	Promotional advertisement for an event. Lacks independence and has limited reliability (only proves a future event was advertised not that it actually occurred; we need an independent review covering the actual event and published after it happended to verify it.)
Sheehan, John Benutty,Paul; Benutty, John; Sheehan, Paul (2022-01-08). "'RuPaul's Drag Race' season 14 episode 1 recap: Which queen is sent packing in 'Big Opening' part one?". GoldDerby. Retrieved 2022-02-06.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)	N	Y	Y	?	N	This is a routine WP:TABLOID recap of a television episode of Drag Race in which Kornbread was discussed. As a simple recap as opposed to a critical review, I would consider this closer to a primary source rather than a true secondary source. It can verify content about this episode of show and her involvement, but it lacks significance due to WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS for the purposes of evaluating WP:GNG. )
Nolfi, Joey (January 7, 2022). "The best moments from the 'RuPaul's Drag Race' season 14 premiere". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2022-01-08.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is a routine news recap of a television episode of Drag Race in which Kornbread was named as a highlight. This is approaching a positive critical review, but it's such a short article and lacks any significant analysis of Kornbread and her drag (merely stating what she did and not really analyzing why it worked and why it made an impact) that it's not really what I would consider a "review" but a PR puff piece for the TV show. In other words, it's a thinly written news story and therefore lacks significance for GNG purposes.)
"This 'Drag Race' Season 14 Queen Just Pulled Out of the Competition". www.out.com. 2022-02-04. Retrieved 2022-02-05.	?	Y	Y	Y	?	Off all the sources in the article, this is the best one. It's independent and Kornbread is the main subject. But is it really significant? A drag contestant getting injured early in the season and having to withdraw does not leave much of a legacy. Certainly, nothing here that shows Kornbread is significant outside of the reality competition and deserves a stand alone encyclopedia article separate from the article on the television series.
"Login • Instagram". www.instagram.com. Retrieved 2022-01-25. `{{cite web}}`: Cite uses generic title (help)	N	N	N	N	N	A link to the generic login page of instagram. This doesn't verify anything, including the content that it claims to verify where it is cited in the article.
"Kerri Colby and Kornbread Jeté Are Making Trans "Drag Race" History". them. 2022-01-05. Archived from the original on 2022-01-06. Retrieved 2022-01-08.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Promotional article for upcoming 14th season (now airing) of RuPaul's Drag Race. Essentially boils down to highlighting that this is the first season of Drag Race with multiple trans constestants. Given that there have been many trans queens now on the show in past seasons, this seems to be more of a pertinent fact for the article on this individual season of the show as opposed to providing any significant coverage or notability on Kornbread as a drag artist. What did we learn about her other than she is trans, a drag queen, and from L.A. who is competing on the show? Nothing.
Holmes, Juwan J. "RuPaul's Drag Race will have two trans competitors & a cis straight queen for first time". LGBTQ Nation. Archived from the original on 2022-01-03. Retrieved 2022-01-08.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is the second promotional article focusing on the casting of two trans women for the currently airing season (but published before it aired to promote the show) of Drag Race. Again, this doesn't show significant cover of Kornbread Jeté, but significant coverage of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14).
"'Drag Race' Season 14 Queens Say It's Going to Be 'Transtastic'". www.advocate.com. 2022-01-05. Archived from the original on 2022-01-06. Retrieved 2022-01-08.	N	N	Y	Y	N	This is the third article focusing on the casting of two trans women for the currently airing season of Drag Race. Again, this doesn't show significant cover of Kornbread Jeté, but significant coverage of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14). Also lacks independence as an interview.
Currinn, Jonathon. "WATCH: Kameron Michaels Has Released Debut Music Video "Freedom"". Celeb Mix. Retrieved January 17, 2022.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Brief name drop of Kornbread in a long list of drag queens who appeared in this music video. Nothing signficant for GNG purposes.
Scarlet Envy- Is It Me? (Official Music Video). Scarlet Envy. September 2, 2021. Retrieved January 17, 2022.	N	N	N	N	N	ANother YouTube video; primary source. Not usable on wikipedia per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
Orville Peck - C'mon Baby, Cry (Official Video). Orville Peck. February 10, 2022. Retrieved February 16, 2022.	N	N	N	N	N	ANother YouTube video; primary source. Not usable on wikipedia per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
Spectrum]. Jubilee. July 26, 2019. Retrieved January 17, 2022.	N	N	N	N	N	ANother YouTube video; primary source. Not usable on wikipedia per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

We just went through this. Is there a better way for you to appeal the closer's decision than to force editors to have another AfD discussion, just because you didn't prefer the outcome? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, California, and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ Another Believer It was an improper close that didn't address the relevant argument of WP:BLP1E. Neither did the keep votes demonstrate in their arguments how this subject passes WP:BLP1E (or WP:ENTERTAINER for that matter). Without a rebuttal of soundly made arguments based in BLP policy in the first AFD (nobody attempted to directly address BLP1E in the keep camp; thus ignoring the key main policy behind the deletion argument), I don't see how the closer could close with no consensus in good faith. We take WP:BLP issues very seriously at wikipedia. Rather than drag the closer through an AFD review (which would inevitably suggest a renomination) it's just best to renominate, and allow for more community participation. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you consider it an improper close, you should/could use the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review process, not just start the process over again. CT55555 (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could have, but chose not to. Deletion review is stressful for the closer, and ultimately the end result would have likely led us back to a renomination or a re-opening / re-listing of the first AFD. This was simpler, kinder, faster, and permissible under AFD policy. All benefits to doing it this way. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. Belatedly as I just saw this in the overdue log. However should you disagree with a close if mine in the future feel free to talk to me. I never mind discussion as I don't think I'm infallible. I see now that you pinged me. Not sure why it didn't show. Bad wiki, no cookies! Star Mississippi 18:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm revising my !vote from the previous AfD after thinking about the policy basis for the close, the sources I found and added to the discussion, and WP:BLP1E. In my previous !vote, I undermined WP:BLP1E#2 If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, both with the sources and the suggestion that a redirect was appropriate due to the potential for her career development. I also undermined WP:BLP1E#3 by adding sources that focus on the historic significance of Jeté's participation and by suggesting that this significant event could be added to three other articles. Her role also appears to be well-documented, based on the volume of coverage available. WP:BLP1E states, We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met, and from this policy perspective, even though my previous !vote was saying otherwise, it appears the sources and my comments were supporting another outcome. My current !vote is weak because WP:BLP1E also states The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources and how close in time we are to the event. Beccaynr (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She also has continued to receive coverage, beyond Season 14 of RuPaul's Drag Race, e.g. Drag Race stars Kornbread, Kahmora Hall join Hocus Pocus 2 as drag Mary and Sarah (EW, Mar. 15, 2022), Kornbread ‘The Snack’ Jeté Won’t Shantay for Drag Race Season 15 (Vulture, Mar. 18, 2022). And this Billboard interview has some independent context from the interviewer: ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’ Eliminee Kornbread Jeté Gets Real About Her Shocking Departure (February 7, 2022), which adds to her well-documented role on Season 14. Beccaynr (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you Beccaynr for making a cogent argument which highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of this topic under policy at WP:BLP1E. I personally am still of the opinion that your original assessment in the first AFD is the correct assessment and that we do not yet have enough distance or evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass criteria 2 and 3 of BLP1E. It’s WP:TOOSOON to keep the topic, and because it is a BLP we should err on the side of caution as instructed in the opening paragraphs at WP:BLP.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I voted to merge in the very recently closed AfD, but re-reading it, reflecting on the analysis added by Beccaynr above, and in reply to my contributions, specifically this article https://www.them.us/story/kornbread-jete-kerri-colby-drag-race-season-14 I am now persuaded to keep. It is weak because it's not a lot of non-tabloid coverage, but I think it's enough to satisfy the general notability criteria. CT55555 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again? The individual was featured in one season of a TV program and only hyperlocal coverage, nothing national. Although I find a Billboard article published in Feb 2022, might be used to prove notability, still leaning delete. If we can find more sources, I could be swayed to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per argument I made in prior afd and my own distaste for restarting an AFD immediately after the previous one didn't end in the nominator's desired result. Rab V (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This source also seems helpful for supporting WP:BASIC notability: She might live in LA, but SC drag queen Kornbread has roots in Columbia. This is her story. (Charlotte Observer, Feb. 4, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the last AfD, I believe my !vote was a "weak keep", but since that time the subject has only received more coverage. They will be appearing in the feature film Hocus Pocus 2, with coverage from Entertainment Weekly, Gay Times, them, and other outlets surrounding that. Given that the subject is appearing in two high profile projects (RPDR and Hocus Pocus 2) and continues to get coverage, I'm dropping the "weak" from my previous !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't assume notability for future events that may or may not happen.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the subject has already gotten coverage for the project listed, CRYSTAL doesn't apply. The coverage is there. --Kbabej (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Kbabej, the announcement of future projects is not significant coverage. Announced films don't always happen. Last minute cast changes sometimes occur too. We can't assume Hocus Pocus II will get made (see WP:NFF for example of how this impacts articles on films), or if it does Kornbread will be in it. Until it's actually made and released it can't count towards notability. That's policy.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update, it looks like filming already is well underway. So scratch my above comments. Regardless, usually we wait to evaluate the significance of an actor's participation in a film based on whether their performance gets significant coverage in independent sources when evaluating an entertainer in relation to notability. So, I still don't think a cast announcement is useful here for notability purposes. We need critical reviews of her performance in the film for notability.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it counts towards notability with the amount of coverage she's received, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Kbabej (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Beccaynr.Thisisarealusername (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the admin who closed the prior AfD, just noting "for the record" that I never mind having my closes challenged, but wouldn't want to put stress on the nom either. ~~I'd have appreciated a heads up that there was disagreement with my close and we could have discussed how to handle it rather than an immediate re-nomination.~~ Not officially taking a position, but I maintain that there isn't and will likely not soon be consensus to delete this article. Star Mississippi 18:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep.. or whatever the equivalent of "no consensus" is for a !vote. The recent-ish keep votes have sources that basically say that she has somewhere between a supporting and minor role in Hocus Pocus 2. Which is.. better than the sourcing in the article at nom. I really can't say with any certainty at all that she's not notable, but the same goes for her being notable. casualdejekyll 21:04, 27 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Mathieson[edit]

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

Non-notable. Not WP:NACTOR. I did my best to dig up info, but she's basically only done some obscure stuff and coverage is pretty much absent. PepperBeast (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted, can't find much of anything about this subject in independent sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete long list of mostly trivial parts, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks notability as per nom. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:34, 21 March 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. ✗plicit 00:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity, equity, and inclusion[edit]

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

I created this title in November, and it hasn't become an article. It should be redirected somewhere. But where? Or perhaps people will object and write an article now that it's at AFD - so it is here rather than RFD. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic area of workplace diversity is underdeveloped, and what we do have is slanted towards advocacy or how-to. Two plausible merge/redirect targets are Employment discrimination § Employer efforts to balance representation and Diversity (business), both of which need work. (The student essay Removing the glass ceiling from the United States ought to be retitled or merged somewhere as well.) Cheers, gnu 57 18:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every Wikipedia article started out like this, and with time it will probably grow. A short article is still better than nothing. This is the most common term for this concept and it will help to have an article in place for people to write more about it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article's topic is complex. Content is growing and also it is being seen by a few... it needs more precise and specific work in different aspects to be better but just pushing it for deletion is not helpful or very constructive. --Zblace (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is obviously an important enough topic for Wikipedia. Some people seeing the acronym DEI will wonder what it means and search in Wikipedia. It could well be contentious how to define it, describe it, etc., but that just means it will take a while to settle down and may need protection eventually. editeur24 (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is notable, and while complex, it could certainly be turned into a very useful article. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 23 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Icon Records[edit]

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

Prod declined with suggested merge to Universal Music Group, but no non-Wikipedia sources seem to suggest that this was ever under their ownership. The generic name makes it hard to search, but I could only find passing mentions to the label at best.

The label doesn't ever seem to have actually been anything other than a shell distributor for other artists, as search results for "Icon Records" "Duane Steele" show that his albums were actually independent releases for which Icon was a distributor. This was the only source I could find that said anything about the label, and it's just a PR piece about one artist signing. Furthermore, the "DaSilva Group" turns up no further results. Little Big Town and Dwight Yoakam's pages don't even mention Icon as a label to which they were signed, further showing that they were only a distributor for other labels.

Furthermore, the inbound links suggest that there may have even been more than one label by this name, as many predate the label's foundation date of 2006. Given that Big Machine Records also has a Nash Icon imprint, and given that the label was only a distributor, this seems like an unlikely candidate for merging or redirection. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Alberta. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage, mentions that I can find are surface-level or are about working with other artist. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:44, 25 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shoreline Records[edit]

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

Short-lived, defunct record label. Most of the acts signed were red links. The only notable act with releases on the label was Nickelback. Zero sourcing found.

Prod declined with suggested merge to Koch Entertainment Canada, but I've found nothing confirming that Shoreline was ever actually a division of Koch (every search result for "Shoreline Records" + "Koch" just brings up Wikipedia mirrors or omits the "Koch" part entirely). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ontario. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage from independent and reliable Sources. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 25 March 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 Reflections#Bands. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Reflections (Harlem band)[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:NBAND. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No cited sources after 7+ years. —В²C ☎ 18:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect... but to where is tough. They had a couple of singles on their own but were mostly known for backing Melba Moore, so they could be redirected to her article. However, that might be confusing because of the seven different bands (at least on Wikipedia) called The Reflections, and it may make a difference if someone is likely to search for "The Reflections (Harlem band) " specifically. If that is a concern, this article could be redirected to the disambig page at Reflections ("Bands" sub-section). The redirect decision can be made based on whatever policy is relevant, or if that process is unclear, just Delete the search term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete solo Top 40 entry without Melba Moore in The Billboard Book of Top 40 R & B and Hip-hop Hits 2006 page 485 In ictu oculi (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reflections#Bands. I think a sentence or two on the disambig page would be sufficient, given the lack of WP:RS to support a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for consensus on a target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My vote above was to Redirect, but I will support the Merge vote by MrsSnoozyTurtle above, if that helps get this out of no-consensus purgatory after four weeks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reflections#Bands where it is already listed. Adding a sentence similar to the "The Reflections, backing band for Chad Allan, later known as The Guess Who" entry can be a normal editing activity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 25 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danny König[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only 1 quick mention in one source, to announce he was an interim head coach of a third-level team in Germany. Never played top-flight professionally. Article was created by the now-blocked user Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro, who created a bunch of articles on similar non-notable players, some of which have since been deleted. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think he technically meets the current & contested version of NFOOTBALL, by managing in 3. Liga, but GNG is more important. Giant Snowman 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from this particular article, would something like that count if it's only an interim position? Just asking out of curiosity. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, interim or caretaker positions do count - but the claim to notability is arguably weaker, especially if it's an assistant or junior coach temporarily promoted for only a match or two. Giant Snowman 15:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing I can offer towards GNG is this story in a national newspaper. —Kusma (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems he also meets NFOOTY as a professional player in the tier two league of Paraguay. Overall, more interesting than the typical borderline notable player. Given that we're currently tightening the guidelines, I'm not sure whether he makes the cut, though. —Kusma (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, a player or manager needs to meet WP:BASIC, as the recent RfC decided. It doesn't matter that he played one game on a 2nd-division Paraguayan team. He doesn't have "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think he played an entire season, but the sourcing for that is pretty terrible (and I think "only German player on the List of foreign footballers in Paraguay" is his main claim to fame). So it looks like probably the Paraguayan second division shouldn't be considered notable automatically. Mentions on the website of Kicker (sports magazine) for his German career are minimal and routine. So yeah, delete. —Kusma (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Benefit of the doubt re borderline NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY has been thrown out in the recent RfC, so that argument doesn't hold any weight. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY is being reviewed and, until it ever should be "thrown out", it carries weight. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only weight it carries is "significant coverage is likely to exist". –dlthewave ☎ 16:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Regardless of any future updates to WP:NFOOTY, there has been a WP:FOOTY project consensus for the last year or two anyway that articles that scrape by NFOOTY but clearly fail GNG should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SPORTBASIC and GNG due to lack of significant coverage. NFOOTY does not presume notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to delete. I've just been reading the piece found by Kusma above and it doesn't really add anything so I don't think we will find enough. Doubtful about the Paraguay D2, too. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:37, 22 March 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 delete under WP:G11 by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhooj Adda[edit]

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

Dubious article. The references are copied from Mocambo (restaurant) for a start. The initial creation on 17 March had the edit summary 'my restaurant' so there is a clear undisclosed WP:COI here. An Indian source search yields nothing better than a TripAdvisor page with no reviews. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a copy exists at Draft:Bhooj Adda Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 19 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports clubs named after a sponsor[edit]

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

Article has an unclear scope. What constitute a "sponsor" is undefined such as if the parent company of a works team or companies that owns the franchise for teams (such as companies in the Philippine Basketball Association) constitute as a sponsor at all. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm so tempted to do a WP:LIKE because I think the topic is fascinating. But that's an WP:AADD so I'm not doing that. I'll just make a comment to the author: I hope this survives, but have no idea if policy supports this. If it doesn't, maybe you should have and could create an article about corporate sponsorship of sports teams in general, and then include a list. To everyone else, if such an article exists already, and this article doesn't survive AfD, I suggest you move the content to such an article. CT55555 (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't demonstrate that it meets WP:NLIST or WP:GNG, and also probably WP:NOTADVERTISING, as it isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to advertise for sponsors. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It meets WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list to provide information about clubs that are or have been sponsored in their name than otherwise. It also fulfils WP:LSC by being clear about its objectives. If @Hariboneagle927: is concerned that it is ambiguous, then that is not a good WP:DEL-REASON. The better thing to do would be WP:BOLD and change it to clarify (Which I would be happy to do if you'd like me to). @CT55555: Would the policies at WP:SAL assist you in that? @Joseph2302:, It's not a NOTAD case, its just a collection of clubs that changed their name after a sponsor (works or economical). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't consider myself well informed about when lists should or should not be created, but User:The C of E linked to WP:SAL and it seems to meet that criteria. I don't think the points about corporate owned teams is a reason to delete, as that is a different issue and also something that can be fixed if anyone wants to. I made a comment above, but it wasn't a "keep" so don't count my opinion twice please. CT55555 (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the list actually contained every sports team named after a sponsor, it would be unwieldy. Literally every professional cycling team is named after a sponsor, and they change sponsors every 1-2 seasons, so should all be listed. Which is exactly why this list should be seen as too broad and unencyclopedic. If you want to limit it to just association football clubs then that would be fine IMO, but sports teams will leave way too many teams and make the list unreadably long and pointless. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Joseph2302's very good explanation of why this is not at all encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that explanation could be used to inform improvements, rather than delete? CT55555 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Encourages WP:SPAM. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:20, 24 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kishmish (film)[edit]

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

Future film without a notable production per WP:NFF, draftified at Draft:Kishmish (film) and tagged for CSD WP:R2. Copy-pasted from the draft into mainspace. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That plot synopsis, jeez. Then eventually something happens between them. What? TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet NFF guidelines for future films due to lack of significant coverage on production. Draft should be worked on until release. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An unreleased film that does not satisfy any version of film notability. Draftified once, but then copy-pasted into article space in order to contest the draftification. If the author doesn't want the article in draft space, it doesn't have to be anywhere until the film is released and reviewed. The article has been reference-bombed, but a review of the references is not needed to see that the article does not speak for itself and does not establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 20 March 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 heroes of Ukraine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriy Blokha[edit]

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

Nothing is known about him except that he died few days ago and was awarded the Hero of Ukraine. AFAIK WP:NSOLDIER was retired, so WP:GNG/WP:NBIO needs to apply. Uk wiki article has almost no additional information except two sentences about his pre-military life - he was a football coach, and an Ukrainian football portal run a short obit about him (source). Circumstances of his death are not known. With all due respect, I think this merits an entry in a list (for example, of Hero of Ukraine award recipients), but not a stand-alone article. Note that I'd be happy to withdraw this nom if more sources are found. PS. Very similar cases that may merit their own AfDs: Andriy Litun, Yevheniy Volkov. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Notability as per the GNG policy. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of heroes of Ukraine. Painting17 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of heroes of Ukraine per reasoning in nomination. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:53, 25 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anchorage Capital Partners[edit]

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

fails NCORP--- all refs are about funding or mere notices about where they invested their money. DGG ( talk ) 10:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only trivial coverage found, fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't quite get the argument around trivial coverage. Just now, I did a quick search and found two articles about the organisation on the Australian Financial Review website. For those who are not acquainted, the AFR is a major Australian newshead.

Apart from that, I was somehow familiar with the name of the organisation before I read the article, even though I didn't really know anything about the group. They seem to have some prominence, albiet locally Inchiquin (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Routine business announcements such as new partnerships and and product launches and other business deals are considered trivial because they occur for every business. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is mainly routine or 1 line mentions. Not enough to meet WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. 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. So regurgitated "news" that relies entirely on company announcement or quotes/interviews are no Independent. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 25 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haim Gozali[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMA. Does not have 3 fights in a top tier promotion (Bellator was not considered top tier from 2015-2021), nor has he been ranked inside the world top 10 of his division by fightmatrix or sherdog. WP:GNG is also failed, couldn't find any SIGCOV. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, Boxing, Martial arts, and Israel. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gozali passes the WP:GNG. Attaching just a small choice of the sources.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Perhaps what happens when a small country produces a world champion. They become a national celebrity. On Hewiki, this article is requested. gidonb (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily enough coverage to meet WP:GNG with the sources shared above. NemesisAT (talk) 23:34, 25 March 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. ✗plicit 11:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Papazian[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:10, 19 March 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. No deletion rationale provided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Vlachos[edit]

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

This page does not comply with Wikipedia's terms and conditions. Amir cheraghian (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism. Amir cheraghian (talk) 01:33, 12 March 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 March 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Greece. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’ve added three refs after a minimal search and there are obviously many more. The article needs more footnotes but the subject is the founder and long-term editor of Greece’s main conservative broadsheet newspaper so for anyone willing to put the time in that won’t be hard. Notability is beyond question though. Mccapra (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prominent conservative and anti-liberal journalist, publisher and political commentator in inter-war Greece. Many Greek encyclopaedias and biographical lexicons have articles on him. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination for deletion is too vague to justify removal of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a figure of considerable historical interest, for whom sources are available. Amir cheraghian, Vaco98 would you care to clarify in what way this article fails to comply with Wikipedia's terms and conditions? Elemimele (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the argumets above. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the argumets above. Atchom (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article appears notable and has reliable sources too. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 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. ✗plicit 13:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon Y. Nof[edit]

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

He is a published professor but not notable enough for a wikipedia article. Country20 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and plausible case for #C3. Superficial nomination statement shows no evidence of evaluation against WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable enough. I think the article just need some reliable references to back the content. 119.154.171.192 (talk) 11:47, 19 March 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!} 04:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government Intermediate College, Khirerikhal[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment If the school exists then keep. Knight Skywalker (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles for schools are no longer kept just because they exist. There also has to be in-depth coverage about them in multiple, reliable, sources that are independent of the subject. In this case, there clearly isn't such references. So there's zero guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 21 March 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 delete (A7) by Bbb23. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 13:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Argia Transformers[edit]

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

Pure spam; no independent sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 19 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List Of The Tallest WWE Wrestlers[edit]

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

unnecessary page. wikipedia is not about everything. 晚安 (トークページ) 04:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. 晚安 (トークページ) 04:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of tallest people if any of them aren't already listed there. Note that they do get coverage for their height, so this would be a valid page if the information was not better off in the other article. Dream Focus 05:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely indiscriminate info, unlikely to serve any purpose if merged Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTATS WP:LISTCRUFT WP:FANCRUFT Dronebogus (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all of the above. WP:TNT it. What's more, the WWE is particularly bad for over exaggerating the heights and weights of its performers. A lot of the performers wear lifts in their boots. As there's no sourcing, can't be merged. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate depiction of the very real hight of a very short WWE wrestler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El_coloso.jpg Dronebogus (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Article creator is certainly one of the more curious SPAs I've seen in a while. Hopefully no one needs to ask for an explanation of who Robert Wadlow was. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with list of tallest people. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 11:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hansen Sebastian: @Dream Focus: as stated the hight information provided by the WWE is probably unreliable, and in any case only the top three have a truly remarkable purported hight (i.e. similar to the top listed people on the tallest people article). It’s also debatable whether pro wrestling can be considered a “sport” to count in the sports section. In other words, there’s really nothing to merge. Dronebogus (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the names I checked are already in the other article. Just need reliable sources to confirm information. As to how you label it, just discuss that on the talk page of the other article. Dream Focus 11:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NLIST or WP:LISTCRUFT, take your pick. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, nothing to merge -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 25 March 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!} 04:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Holyoke Lyons golf[edit]

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

Not pass WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Amir cheraghian (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America. Amir cheraghian (talk) 01:10, 12 March 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 March 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Golf, and Massachusetts. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 22 March 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. ✗plicit 03:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corvair Fitch Sprint[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable. All the refs I'm finding via a google search aren't reliable and 3 of the ones currently in the article are primary. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:19, 19 March 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. ✗plicit 11:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Lawrence Isherwood[edit]

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

Failed a Google test. Almost, but not quite abandoned. Very low quality article. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There’s a full published biography of him 1 as well as substantial coverage of him at 2 and 3 as well as lesser coverage in dictionaries of artists and the who’s who of artists. Mccapra (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is in bad shape, but should not be deleted, as he clearly meets WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. He was the subject of a BBC documentary. He has work in several permanent collections of notable museums (three collections + citation added to the article). It seems that the nom may not have performed a WP:BEFORE search. Netherzone (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, the museum collections, and an entire BBC documentary. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the argumets above. The right response to an article being low quality is to improve it not to AfD. Atchom (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator writes three sentences, none of which contains a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep I tried to clean up the article and removed the items I could not find sources for. I could only find sourcing for the year of birth and death. No evidence of being in the collection of Prince Charles. No evidence of a BBC documentary (but I marked that as citation needed rather than remove). After reviewing the available information online it looks like the same info and phrases are used on various gallery websites and seem promotional. I did however added inline citations for "Benezit" and "AskArt" which nudge him towards WP:NARTIST. And the recently added museum collections (ArtUK) citations contribute to notability too. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have tracked down the first BBC broadcast in the Radio Times and cited it. I note that some sources just refer to him as "Lawrence Isherwood". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sources pointed out by Mccapra and Netherzone. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:03, 23 March 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!} 00:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eva y Ale superstars[edit]

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

Advertorialized article about a pop music duo, with no properly sourced claim to passage of WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is essentially that one song exists, which is not enough in and of itself to secure inclusion in Wikipedia, and the sourcing is a mixture of short blurbs, blogs and primary sources (MusicBrainz, Spotify) that aren't support for notability at all, which doesn't add up to enough coverage to secure passage of WP:GNG in lieu of having to accomplish anything that would actually satisfy NMUSIC. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which musicians are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their debut single recursively verifies its own existence on Spotify — there's simply nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to accomplish more than just recording one song, or from having to have more than just a tiny smattering of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-argued nomination. firefly ( t · c ) 11:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To be generous, it is too soon. Note that the name of the group is Eva y Ale, and "Superstars" is the title of the one song they have self-released so far. The article was created by a user who has done nothing else beyond this group in Wikipedia, and while new editors are always welcome, this person is clearly unfamiliar with our article structure and (more importantly) our notability requirements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: having lived in South America for more than a decade, I know how hard it is to find any quality reliable sources on even the giants of Latin American music, as the kind of in-depth music journalism that we're used to in the US and UK simply doesn't exist in these countries. Even though most of the sources in this article are real and reputable daily newspapers, here we have a classic example of the type of coverage given to musicians in Latin publications: promotional fluff, and flattering softball interviews also masquerading as promotion. That said, all we are talking about here is two Instagram influencers who have released just one single to date, which doesn't appear to have charted anywhere, so this is probably WP:TOOSOON and could be deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 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!} 00:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India that is Bharat (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, a WP:BEFORE search produces a number of interviews of the author and lots of promotional material but nearly no reviews in a source that is both independent and reliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the deletion. The book has received wide attention from both public and academia. The interviews, OP is talking about are indeed promotional material organized by the publisher, as is the case. The book still is one of the best selling books in Amazon India (#37, as of now). It has also been included in the official curriculum of an Indian University polsci course. HemaChandra88 (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: HemaChandra88 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Quick note: Amazon sales rankings won't count towards notability on Wikipedia. There are a number of reasons for this. The first is that the rankings are very dynamic and prone to change. Another is that since they're dynamic, it's possible for someone to manipulate the rankings - something that can and has happened on Amazon pretty regularly. I'm not saying that this is the case with this book, just that this type of manipulation is so common that this invalidates Amazon rankings as notability giving. Finally, there's often little to no coverage of Amazon sales rankings outside of the author and their publisher and Amazon itself typically doesn't cover everyday sales rankings. It's actually not included unless the ranking is pretty heavily covered in independent, secondary coverage in reliable sources. Even then it's usually not included, to be honest. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although WP:NBOOK criteria 4 allows books to be deemed notable if they are the subject of study at schools, it explicitly excludes textbooks. In other words, when a poem like To India - My Native Land is used in school, the subject of study is the poem itself, whereas when a history book is used in school, the subject of study is history. So, appearing on the curriculum does not help the notability case here. We'd need to find reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage. No review by reputed publisher or author. Promo type coverage or interviews are dependent coverage and do not count towards notability. Venkat TL (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews from Firstpost and the Centre for Indic Studies seem to be independent and significant enough to meet WP:BOOKCRIT #1. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CIS is not a reliable source. Venkat TL (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It claims to be a research wing of a college. WP:BOOKCRIT#1 is not met. Please check it to see what is required. The author is a lawyer writing about history. I am not surprised that critics worth their salt are not reviewing his work. Firstpost is a reliable source, but the tone of the FP review is clearly promotional of the book. In my opinion paid news.Venkat TL (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did read WP:BOOKCRIT #1, and I still don't understand why the review shouldn't apply. The author of the review is independent of the work and the author, as an associate professor of history, has the credentials as a reliable source.

Even discounting the CIS source there's another independent review at The Hindu Business Line. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Author of HBL is mentioned as Sai Deepak. It will not count as independent. Venkat TL (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sai Deepak is listed as the author of the book being reviewed not the article. The formatting on the HBL site is weird, but the Proquest entry lists the author of the review as Nanditha Krishna. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: as source quality discussion is still ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:RS simply mean to understand if the material published on that source is fact checked or not. That's the fundamental of it. For reviews, it is complicated because reviews are not facts but opinions. Center for Indic studies, to me, doesn't look like a website that does reviews a lot or publishes news. It does host books which is different. I am leaning towards NOT counting that as a source for notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BOOKCRIT gives this book an easy pass - two or more non-trivial published works on the book have appeared in sources unrelated to the book.

Book Review by Nanditha Krishna, Indexed by ProQuest/WP Library, published by Hindu Bussiness Line;WP:THEHINDU (link)

Book Review by a History professor at O.P. Jindal University (link). The same review was republished by CIS, Indus University (Gujarat) (link). As a result, we can count it as one.

Book review by a first-year law student at National Law University, Jodhpur (link). - Hatchens (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BOOKCRIT #1 per reviews published by Hindu Business Line and Firstpost. Positive coverage does not necessarily mean promotional coverage. It counts towards GNG when the source is independent and reliable. POV issues can be addressed per WP:BIASED and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV but that should not affect the notability of the subject. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Since WP:BOOKCRIT is easily met, and per above comments. This is the first time in my life I am seeing the reliability of the above mentioned sources called into question.--N Ø 18:38, 25 March 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. valid opinions on both sides regarding depth of the sources Cunard identified Star Mississippi 18:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Silu[edit]

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

Currently sourced with a single, unreliable source. Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass notability. Would have draftified, but this editor has an issue with draftification, so here we are. Without better sourcing, which I can't find, does not appear to meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Per nom. Perhaps an actual discussion resulting in draftification might change their mind, seems like the most logical choice for an article with nowhere near enough sourcing. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 18:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Gusfriend (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chinese version has only one source as well. No help from there. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here are the sources I added to the article:
1. Wang, Liqun (2020). 成語裏的家風（一）家庭倫理篇 [Family Tradition in Idioms (1) Family Ethics] (in Chinese). 中華教育. p. 32. ISBN 978-98-88-67502-9. Retrieved 2022-03-18.
2. 宋涛, ed. (2013). 荣宝斋书谱·古代部分·颜真卿·颜勤礼碑 [Books of Rongbaozhai·Ancient Parts·Yan Zhenqing·Yan Qinli Stele] (in Chinese). Beijing: 荣宝斋出版. ISBN 978-7-5003-1598-8. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
3. 拜根兴 (2016). 唐代朝野政治与文化研究 [Research on the Politics and Culture of the Tang Dynasty] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. ISBN 978-7-5161-7640-5. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
4. Guanqun, Shen [zh] (1988). 中国教育家评传, Volume 1 [Commentary on Chinese Educators, Volume 1] (in Chinese). Shanghai: Shanghai Education Publishing House [zh]. p. 453. ISBN 978-7-5320-0647-2. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books. {{cite book}}: Check |author= value (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
5. Knechtges, David R. (2014). Knechtges, David R.; Chang, Taiping (eds.). Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature (vol. 3 & 4): A Reference Guide, Part Three & Four. Leiden: Brill Publishers. p. 1794. ISBN 978-90-04-26788-6. ISSN 0169-9520. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
6. 顏氏家訓 [Yan's family motto] (in Chinese). 2019. ISBN 978-98-69-70360-4. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yan Silu (simplified Chinese: 颜思鲁; traditional Chinese: 顏思魯) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further analysis of Cunard's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on User:Cunard's sources. Atchom (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Amazing unresearched voters and nominator ! Minister of the royal court automatically passes WP:NPOL. How much do you need? VocalIndia (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Indefinite block for personal attacks. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of the refs provided by Cunard are in-depth about this subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
onel5969 So how you know? you can read Chinese? pls someone report onel5969 for WP:IDONTLIKE case on historical figures. Court minister is auto notable on Wikipedia and higher than member of parliament. Minister is not a joke. He living 400 years ago that is quite a lot of detail including a multi-page biography that someone wrote about him. More than sufficient for a historical figure. The article is already improved by Cunard. VocalIndia (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no I don't speak or read Chinese. However, one of my business partners was born and grew up in Shanghai and is quite fluent. I had him take a look at the sources, which is why it took me so long to respond to Cunard's post. Nothing but brief mentions. And the personal attacks are wearing thin. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depth is contextual. Classical Chinese is a notoriously terse form of verbal expression and that has to factor in. Atchom (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I come back this afternoon, I will translate them. I have a intern in my office who can speak and read this. Classical Chinese sources may be notoriously terse, but that isn't a substitute for depth or significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dude is not into today. He has been shirking, so tommorrow lunch time, if we can keep it open until then please. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would give significant leeway to historical figures as online sourcing might not be the best especially as we are mainly sourcing through a website that is banned in China. I can see that the online sourcing is already enough to write a Start-level article about him which is enough in my opinion. Jumpytoo Talk 17:41, 24 March 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 OpenStack#Distributions. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RPM Distribution of OpenStack[edit]

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

No references have been added to this article since the banner asking for refs has been placed in december 2021. One out off the two refs is a primary one. Nattes à chat (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure why someone ever thought it would be independently notable. At best, a quick mention in the OpenStack article might be worth it, but there is none. Amused that the article says it should not be confused with the Red Hat OpenStack Platform (which presumably is the commercially-supported version?) but never explains how they differ. W Nowicki (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Poor or confusing article is not the basis for notability. "Reliable Source" availability is?

Re No references added: No surprise; No or slow editing is status quo for such articles. Did anyone else follow the "find sources" links at the tags (see below)?
Re "...mention in the OpenStack article might be worth it, but there is none." False? Is this not a mention there? In 2012, Red Hat announced a preview of their OpenStack distribution,[29] beginning with the "Essex" release. After another preview release, Red Hat introduced commercial support for OpenStack with the "Grizzly" release, in July 2013.[30] Year 2013 aligns in both articles. Yes, there may be confusion between "community-supported" and commercial versions, but the connection looks clear enough, and is not a reason for deletion, IMO.
This source[19] from that OpenStack article excerpt may parrot the press release source, but it is independent recognition and coverage, if brief.
Another source[20] has significant coverage of RDO OpenStack in context of a person and another project, TryStack.
Coverage in apparently independent books (2 at least)[21][22]
Several citations in publications at Google Scholar[23]
Seems like more than enough, if someone wanted to expand the article. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OpenStack#Distributions. The current contents of the article aren't really worth merging, but Yae4's sources suggest our coverage might grow. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:04, 25 March 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.