Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 26	March 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Roffo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as it is sourced entirely to databases and fails to put data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that there were only 2 teams in the 1900 Olympics, and that he was on the loosing team. Also the gold, silver and bronze medals were not actually given out until the 1904 Olympics, medals before that are retroactive later impositions. Beyond this we lack anything approaching significant coverage sourcing. Before 1908 for sure, it is not reasonable to assume anyone competing in the Olympics, no matter how they perform, is notable unless we actually have good indepth sourcing on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert, only two teams and not even wining, failed to find any in-depth sources to show notability. KylieTastic (talk) 13:36, 3 April 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 23:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle McMahon[edit]

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

Lots of weak references that I don't think add up to WP:BASIC. Being a guest on a show that won an Emmy is not the same as winning the Emmy. He touts himself as a musician but I aside from joining a band on tour, I don't know what his musical skills are. His main claim to fame now seems to be as a podcaster but his bio is really all over the map, with periodic columns on websites and listed "appearances" which I don't think can establish notability. I guessed at what categories to assign for deletion sorting as he mainly seems to be known for being known. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: After reading through the previous AFD, which I hadn't seen, and the earlier article which was deleted, I see that he is a singer but has not released any records, just one music video on YouTube. I wasn't familiar with the band he went on tour with for a few dates but apparently they were a boy band from the 90s so that would fit with being a singer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appearing in films or TV shows that happen to have been Emmy or Oscar nominees or winners in other categories tangential to the subject's own participation is not a notability freebie — to derive notability from Oprah's Lifeclass getting an Emmy or Selma winning an Oscar, McMahon himself has to have personally been the recipient, which he wasn't in either instance. But nothing else here is "inherently" notable enough to clinch guaranteed inclusion in Wikipedia without having to get him over WP:GNG on his sourceability either, and none of the sourcing is actually getting him over WP:GNG: it's mostly primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, directory entries, blogs, podcasts and staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers — and once you discount all of those, the few things left are just glancing namechecks of McMahon's existence in coverage of other people, not coverage about McMahon for the purposes of getting him over GNG. Absolutely none of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a promotion for someone whose main activity seems to be self-promotion. He did indeed appear on Oprah as the face of fatherless boys, and I suspect that the blog site fatherless.co is his because the majority of the articles are about him. Many of the links here are pretty much junk - one is that he is credited with a photo; the huffpost link says that he is a contributor, which makes him one of many many thousands. The Rotten Tomatoes link comes up zero. There are a few articles BY him (none in major venues), which don't provide notability. The 111 records link is dead and the discogs site for it does not list the recording by McMahon that is cited here. Also, I see nothing that links 111 with Warner - presumably it could have been owned by Warner but I don't think that would change the fact that it was a small, defunct label. I agree with NOM that this has been engineered to make him look much more important than he is. Lamona (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Don't bother going to the newspaper link. It appears that every small town in America had a high school football player named Kyle McMahon. 5 pages of them. Lamona (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He might meet WP:ENT as a host on iHeart radio show.Zeddedm (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... but note how that guideline uses the terms "significant", "innovative", and others. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If he can make a living as a relentlessly self-promoting jack of all media trades, good for him but he does not merit an encyclopedia article that serves no purpose except as yet another promotional vehicle. His reliable media coverage is typically just minor listings as being present in someone else's productions, and otherwise he is visible in sources that are numerous but unreliable, and largely created by himself. (Off-topic: I am also a "fatherless son" but few people know because, unlike this guy, I don't promote myself by whining for sympathy.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 31 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 23:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandan Robertson[edit]

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

This article fails on several notability counts–two of the four sources are written by the article's subject–and both of the other sources fail to suggest the subject is notable outside of two failed initiatives. The notability banner has stood for over six months. I think its time to pack it in. Pbritti (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would seem that a substantial number of the edits to the page suggest that it is a self-promotional work. Check the more recent IP addresses and biographical information included on previous revisions that do not match sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sexuality and gender, and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an article on his activism that appeared in Rolling Stone in 2021 here; Time has an article from 2015 when he lost his book deal (this source currently appears on the WP article) here; Church Times has a positive review of his book Our Witness here; Publisher's Weekly has a reivew of his book True Inclusion here; Catholic Answers hosted him for a discussion on the topic of homosexuality being sinful here; and those are just some of the obviously notable sources. There are also a myriad of church/religion/etc sources that discuss his work as well. --Kbabej (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not discounting the reliability of CA, but I would be hard pressed to consider that with regards to determining his notability. However, the Rolling Stone article is good, as is the Church Times one. I think that he's on the cusp of the notability standards with those and I'll take care of adding them if a discussion turns up a keep result. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. In the spirit of WP:THREE (an essay), you've already agreed the Rolling Stone and Church Times articles meet the sourcing requirements. As a third, what about the Time article? Time is listed on WP:RSP as a good source. Thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: I concur. I will trim some of the non-RS material. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources identified in this article such as Time, Rolling Stone, Church Times and Publishers weekly so that WP:Basic is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kbabej, enough to show notability, but could do with those sources actually being added. KylieTastic (talk) 14:22, 3 April 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. As much consensus as we will get Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Alzheimer's Disease Association[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I ran a Google search for news sources in Arabic over the years since the organization's founding year, 2009. I ran about a dozen of them through Google translator. For the most part, they seem to be reporting on events to take place or that had just taken place that were sponsored by the organizations, and not so much coverage of the organization. In one case it was a passing mention. It all might be press releases or routine event coverage, but I can't really tell. Largoplazo (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Saudi Arabia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 21 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!} 22:13, 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 speedy delete per WP:A7 (see: this log). (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Doobie Others[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. nearlyevil 665 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one-sentence article about a tribute band has no sources other than their own website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This one-sentence article is a stub that I was planning to expand. I'm not sure why anyone would thinks that deleting such an article is appropriate when additional source material is readily available with a quick Google search. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion // Internet Esquire (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Netesq: I couldn't find any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete preferably speedy as this is basically an a7. Aside from that, plans to expand it are irrelevant given the total absence of sources to be found here or elsewhere. They simply aren't notable. CUPIDICAE💕 00:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: It should be SD for an A7.Akevsharma (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7. I've applied a tag to the page; the sole sentence offers no indication that the band is important. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per speedy request A7 'No indication of importance' Jeepday (talk) 13:25, 28 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 23:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nouns DAO[edit]

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

Non-notable project, possible UPE, cannot establish WP:GNG, no SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. nearlyevil 665 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The project is non-notable and might be paid. I agree it is failing WP:GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👻👻) 05:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, I would like to explain a few things and ask you to reconsider.
1. I was not paid to write the article (this one nor the one about Hyalinobatrachium nouns) and I as an individual am not a member of the organisation, not am I financially invested in it in any way (although I do follow it very closely).
2. This is one of a few DAOs that is influencing the world outside of just cryptocurrencies and the internet, mostly working with charities and non-profits (donation to the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, rainforest and animal conservation, revitalising skateparks and donating skateboards to children in need, ...).
3. It pushes the boundaries and tries to explore ways yet untraveled - e.g. first decentralised organisation with a big traditional company /BudLight/ as an active member, first DAO with animal species named after it, exploration of public domain (the whole project and all its assets released under Creative Commons 0 license /no rights reserved/, etc.
The actions the org. took so far does not suggest that it would work in anything but good faith, it does not promote anything illicit nor does it encourage people to invest in anything (unlike most cryptocurrency or NFT related projects). I understand your concerns about the lack of press coverage, but given that this project operates in a very small and specific niche and does not spend money on marketing campaigns (which would result in more attention and coverage), the lack of coverage from traditional media might be better understood. I do not think this outweighs the good impact of this project via its charitable actions nor its relevance, given the points highlighted in (3) - collaborations with BudLight, Brave, The Rainforest Trust, The Skatepark Project and David Horvath (all of which also have a dedicated Wikipedia page).

Would it help if I made changes to the article to highlight the "Notable actions" more and focus less on the "Artwork" and "Governance" which from the point of the greater public might seem less relevant? I specifically refrained from mentioning the size of donations and the DAO´s treasury, is that something that would increase notability?

If you still insist on proceeding with the deletion, is it possible to somehow archive the text so we can revisit it when/if there is enough coverage from secondary sources? Maty.eth (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet notability criteria. Also creator has ETH in their username, please be careful about WP:NPOV. Tow (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Names ending in .eth are the hallmark of names registered in the Ethereum Name Service. Duckmather (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Per nom it might be a case of UPE. DMySon (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing the notability here. Written more like promo. KylieTastic (talk) 14:31, 3 April 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!} 21:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Varney Sando[edit]

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

Sourced only to databases; fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the player passes WP:NFOOTBALL with an appearance for the Liberia national football team. This is much more significant than passing the criteria with a small WP:FPL appearance, because playing for a national team is a high-profile achievement. Additionally, sources about Sando exist, such as this, this, and especially this. Most likely plenty of offline sources missing as well. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL, ongoing career - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current international. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY international player.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Per above keeps. 2603:7000:2143:8500:454C:4914:BC97:487F (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment - Please note that NFOOTY only tells us significant coverage is likely to exist; there is no presumption of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 00:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the issue here is that you do not appear to have looked for sources as required by WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 08:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Kpddg ^(talk ^• ^contribs) 04:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks to pass WP:GNG based on the sources listed by Paul Vaurie. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is an international player and perusing google-news results there is some coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 12:16, 30 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!} 21:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad engineer cap[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is mostly paraphrased from one source. Ironmatic1 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Ironmatic1 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ironmatic1 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Train driver. Not notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable clothing. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👻👻) 05:54, 29 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 I'm Not a Gun. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Nishimoto[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for possible lack of notability and as needing more sources for verification since 2011 [sic]. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. It was deleted via the PROD process in 2021, but restored upon request by an editor who has, however, not added any sources or anything else since then. Bishonen | tålk 20:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I'm Not a Gun. I can find nearly nothing about this person as a performer that is not directly tied to his collaboration that records under the I'm Not a Gun moniker. There is one AllMusic guide review of a solo album and I found a very brief "Breves de Arte" concert listing in a Spanish-language Los Angeles newspaper but that is essentially it. No evidence is apparent in the article or in searches that the subject meets the GNG or any applicable SNG as a solo artist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I'm Not a Gun, agree with above editor. Zeddedm (talk) 02:21, 31 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. Its clear the sourcing has not improved in GNG terms since the previous deletion and DRV consensus and, based on that, and the rough consensus here this is a clear outcome. I do feel that those editors declaring a possible interest should respectfully be accorded less weight then uninvolved votes and some of the other keep votes were bare assertions or not grounded in a policy based argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monisha Shah[edit]

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

Procedural nomination since the page was previously deleted following a deletion review. In my opinion the sourcing has not improved since the last time the article was deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Archived link of old article: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/oq4LJ . The article has improved since then in terms of prose, but the sourcing has not. The previous article was deleted for lack of significant sources, and it has not improved. Rlink2 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am correct in saying the version of the article where it was nominated for deletion is here and the version deleted at the conclusion of the XfD is here. As such there should be no need to point peoples at archives of alternative Wiki's which would never be regarded as an acceptable source. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. At the very least, per WP:GNG there is significant independent coverage in both Broadcast magazine and on the website of the charity Diversity UK. The first of those was not cited in the original article. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the subject's current roles, namely chair of Wikimedia UK, is a role I occupied some years ago. I have never met Shah nor interacted with her in any way. MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Google news suggests she is very notable, and I saw two citations that provided in depth coverage about her https://www.asianexpress.co.uk/2015/12/indian-born-advisor-appointed-to-pm-panel/ and https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/shah-to-leave-bbcw/5012950.article for example CT55555 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last AfD. There was a solid consensus there that Shah, while accomplished, is not notable. This was upheld at a well-attended DRV. Since then yes, the prose has improved, but as far as I can tell only four new independent sources have been added: the Broadcast Now and Asian Express articles that were already discussed at DRV and did not change the outcome;[1][2] a single-line mention in a blog post from the Institute of Art & Law;[3] and a Who's Who entry,[4] which per WP:RSP is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. These do not make any difference to Shah's notability, nor does padding the article with reams of primary sources that just say "we appointed Monisha Shah to our board". I'm usually all for giving deleted articles a second chance in draft space, but I have to say this time it seems like it has been used to subvert the consensus at AfD+DRV. And given the COI concerns in the last AfD, I don't think it's a "good look" that WMUK people have already showed up to circle the wagons here. A job with a WMF affiliate should not come with an exemption from Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. – Joe (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: The sole purpose of your penultimate sentence appears to be to denigrate a fellow editor, namely me, without advancing any argument. Please be good enough to strike it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelMaggs: I'll clarify then. My argument is that editors with close ties to an organisation should not be editing or voting on biographies of that organisation's leaders. That kind of thing sullied the last AfD and DRV, and it'd be great if we could just have neutral editors discussing the actual article and sourcing this time. – Joe (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe I didn't ask you to "clarify" that sentence – which is purely intended to denigrate – but to strike it. Read it again. The sentence clearly falls within WP:WIAPA: "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read to the end of that bullet point? Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. – Joe (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe Of course. But you didn't question me, you said that I "already showed up to circle the wagons". Had you asked, I could have told you that my interest in this article has nothing to do with any affiliation. While updating Committee on Standards in Public Life, an article I have worked on significantly over several years, I noticed that Monisha Shah was one of the few individuals (perhaps the only individual) personally appointed by the prime minister to that committee who did not have a Wikipedia article. I wondered why that was. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe:: You, an administrator, are opined one or more people have used draft space to subvert AfD+DRV: One of those people would undoubtably be me given my contributions, so it is difficult to see how I am not being alleged of being a subversive. I believe I made reasonable attempts to comply with Daniel's mainspace entry requirements at the DRV: and if I read that right re-entry to be via either AfC or DRV#3, whichever was likely to cause the least drama. I chose to go with AfC, at least initially, despite the wait. Deletion discussion were rightfully added to the talk page with an {{Old XfD multi}}. Full article history is present. Additional sources were presented on the talk page and were commented on by the original AfD nominator Smartse who particularly challenged me on one source to which I supplied at alternative (albeit unsigned for a long while). AfC reviewer Ingenuity accepted at AfC with congratulations to myself and removing the notability tag from the article. While MichaelMaggs did not initially place a COI declaration on he did respond quickly to a {{uw-coi}} template I placed on his talk page to quote which states "disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI)": given his declaration determining if he has a COI is a coin matter but with the declaration in place my understanding he is perfectly entitled to comment and !vote. It is also unclear to me if a procedural nomination was in order if the matter was not discussed first with the AfC reviewer. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct. It's illegitimate, in my view, to warn off from this page editors who have already expressed an opinion that the subject is notable, pre-emptively writing them off with advance allegations of "CoI" or "subversion". How can their actual arguments be heard and weighed properly against the policy requirements of WP:GNG when an admin does that? MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We discourage and flag COI edits because there is an assumption of tendency to bias, regardless of their content. This is policy. – Joe (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have looked through the sources given. While some of them just make a passing mention, there are several which provide sufficient detail for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Roe. Despite the article having expanded, there still isn't enough in-depth and persistent coverage which is specifically about her. A short article - or even a single sentence - saying "we appointed X to this position at Y organisation" (or, in the case of the Broadcast source being held up as important above, "X has left Y organisation") simply don't cut it. Black Kite (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Interesting – I wonder if you saw the whole Broadcast article? (All apart from the first sentence becomes hidden by default if you visit the site more than once. You can either register, or try again from another computer). The article covers a lot about her work at BBC Worldwide as well as providing an independent source for Trustee of Tate, appointed by the Prime Minister in July 2007; and elected Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2009. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even that is a short bio of which most is listing what she did for that organisation. I'm sorry, this seems to me like an attempt to get someone an article by flinging every mention of her on the Internet at the article and then claiming that the totality of it adds up to notability, and I don't think it does. Black Kite (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Held a number of significant roles in major companies/organizations, plenty of media coverage: Monisha Shah to head BBC Worldwide Africa, South Asia, Shah to leave BBCW, Monisha Shah joins board of Cambridge Imaging Systems, New Board appointments for Ofcom, Women knocking on the boardroom door. Even The Times has listed her a number of times in their "Birthdays today" list eg The Times; London (UK) [London (UK)]. 11 Sep 2020 Piecesofuk (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable figure in UK public life, as shown by the sourcing. PamD 11:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the last AfD: Shah is so obviously one of the current "great and the good", perhaps helped by appointing groups desperate to increase diversity, that if we delete this article I doubt it will be too long before we find she's got a life peerage and we're re-creating it for a member of the House of Lords. If she was doing anything scandalous, being booted off these committees ahead of normal expiry times etc, she'd be getting the media coverage which would more clearly make her "notable" in WP terms. As it is, we just have numerous official, reliable, sources, which substantiate her work in various positions ... Ah well. I think she'll be back, even if deleted this time. PamD 11:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toss a coin and maybe fallback to a big brother candidate? Probably not due to 790498507 and as the're RSing she's a Banda at the BLPN but I'd need a librarian to help me cite it. Got the skirt at Wallisdown to the bemusement of skittlers jockeys. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the last AfD, fails GNG. Also fails SIGCOV. The vast majority of the coverage is passing mentions. Article gives a strong impression of Puffery by WP:REFBOMB. The close comment at the DRV noted that this could be draftified and returned to live space "If and when there is sufficient significant reliable sources that addresses the AfD (& DRV) consensus regarding non-notability" and that doesn't appear to me to have been satisfied with this current live version. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the new sources are a one-line mention and Who's Who, which clearly don't resolve the issues from the last AfD/DRV. I don't understand how this got through AfC. Levivich 20:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Roe and Black Kite. firefly ( t · c ) 21:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems notable enough to me based on her CV and the range of sources about her. --Dan Carkner (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same fundamental problem as before: lots of verifiable facts, but notability is thin. Likely a valuable cog in the bureaucracy, but that's not notability, no matter how many times it's recast as "deserving" of such. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article still lacks proper sourcing specifically about that person. Nothing significant has really changed since last time. The result of the previous AFD and DRV should be upheld. Delete.--Darwinek (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I was a trustee of WMUK many years ago - I've never had any contact with her) a plethora of significant public & private roles, none perhaps individually creating notability, but together I think they do. Independent coverage adequate, & will no doubt grow. As Pam says above, she'll no doubt be in the House of Lords before long, & then even the most die-hard anti-WMUK voices will have to concede notability. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I take issue with the WP:ASPERSIONS that people arguing for deletion are anti-WMUK. Can we comment on content, not on contributors, please? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Roe and Black Kite. I restate what I said at the previous AfD: Sources are trivial at best and non-contributory at worst. This is like the articles of many non-notable marketing professionals that litter the archives of AfD. WP:ANYBIO, which I think applies to this article and WP:GNG are not met. Plenty of mentions of this person but little about them. The addition of the sources that one-line mention the subject have the appearance of REFBOMBING. This is a board member with plenty of assignments and appointments, but lacks the strong secondary coverage to demonstrate notability. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the board of the Tate and several Quango's. A senior civil servant, do-gooder, insider type. More than borderline. scope_creep^Talk 20:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Since when did membership of a government board give a free pass on notability? AusLondonder (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: This seems an awful lot like WP:ILIKEIT and WP:Clearly notable. OrgoneBox (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I am a "do-gooder". Do I deserve my own Wikipedia article?--Darwinek (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:DOGOODER. Obviously more than borderline. Begoon 12:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the AfD and DRV five months ago. Nothing has changed. Recreation so soon is a subversion of process and community consensus. The sources presented note that she has been appointed to various organisations (many look more like press releases frankly). The sources fail to cover her as an individual in significant detail. I endorse concerns expressed by other editors regarding perceived conflicts of interest and reference bombing. AusLondonder (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically no improvement since the last AfD except some Ref bombing with minor mentions and primary sources. Someday, as a couple people keep saying, she may become part of the House of Lords. THEN we can write an article about her, not before. See WP:CRYSTAL. OrgoneBox (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not substantially improved from the the previous AfD. As Levivich pointed out it's hard to see how this got beyond AfC. Begoon 15:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: delsort India just added which is reasonably necessary to avoid systemic bias in the discussion. It doesn't mean there is significant bias, but it is not unreasonable to believe that the view of work in India might be differently weighted; not to include this lays the discussion open to accusations of bias. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The discussion so far has been fairly vaguewave on sources from both sides, not perhaps helped by the "procedural" nomination but that may be a discussion for DRV with the issue in particular the the AfC was likely not consulted first. Regardless of that we're now into sources, a rolling WP:THREE usually being the best process. I'm a little rushed at this point. (Rosser, 2010 The Broadcast article), (Unwin in the Evening Standard 16 March 2012 and from WP:BLPN#Monisha Shah there is apparently Business India in its May 14–27, 2001 edition on page 160 which apparently said "Take the case of 30-year-old Monisha Shah who was BBC Worldwide's London-based territory manager for South Asia. In less than 16 months this Bandra girl has been promoted to director of BBC Worldwide India Pvt Ltd and her new responsibility is to handle non-news business activities across South Asia." Those wishing delete also do not seem to have considered the possiblity of merging to the article on Samir Shah, her brother. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: The two sentences in Business India are a passing mention. Not nearly enough to contribute to a claim of notability. The Evening Standard piece is an interview, which makes it a primary source... sources must be secondary to count towards notability. OrgoneBox (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions are often inappropriately claimed. I must confess I have not seen the Business India piece myself and cannot be sure if those two sentences in the quote were a bulletpoint entry or part of a wider piece, perhaps Uncle G is able to elaborate. However as the quote starts "Take the case ..." I read the implication more analysis of the content is to follow. Investigative journalists usually select a subject and research background on them and then provide interview quotes making it very clear which is which; and while the interview contents are SPS the other content can be RS. Her author work relating to the significant Hindi "Yes Minister" is reviewed at (Parthsarathy, 2001 (Frontline)) and at (Navqi, 2001) arguable scraping NAUTHOR alone due to uniqueness of that work. It's now difficult to see how Rosser is not regarded as undisputed RS; not how delete !votes couldn't accept the merge but I'd suggest that would be a controversial result viewed outside Wikipedia and might lay claims to systemic bias on a gender basis. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:21, 4 April 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Moeen Nawazish[edit]

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

The subject of the article is primarily known only for a WP:SINGLEEVENT of formerly holding a record for the number of A-Level school exams taken. The article is written like a promotional page. The subject's journalistic career is not notable per WP:JOURNALIST. A shadowy figure (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, Television, and Pakistan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of Prof or GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. 39.45.166.55 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is much improved now after the above nomination. Fixed and updated many references. Removed all dead links and unsourced content and trimmed it down. This person was awarded the Pride of Performance award by the President of Pakistan for his achievements. One would think his achievements were extraordinary to deserve news coverage from The Independent (UK newspaper), BBC News and the Associated Press of Pakistan. Ngrewal1 (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving the article. I remain unpersuaded that the subject is notable for reasons in the nomination and which others have mentioned.

1. The news coverage is of a single event.

2. The Pride of Performance award is not so prestigious as to justify inclusion per se without further notability, and it is not one of the top decorations awarded in the country (Civil decorations of Pakistan). It is irrelevant that the award is nominally given in the name of the President of Pakistan.

3. The subject matter of the achievement, namely high achievement in school, tends to be non-notable. As WP:PROF states, "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." There are no articles on other people who have received top grades on similar exams in the United States and China. It is worth noting that "A" grades are not even the highest grade attainable on A-Level exams.

A shadowy figure (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of Ngrewal's edits and improvements. Mar4d (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single event of receiving good high school grades does not convince me of lasting notability, even with the Pride of Performance award for it. The coverage seems to have been very localized in time. No other sign of notability, at least as of yet. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many athletes win medals only once in their lifetime, yet they are remembered for their extraordinary achievement all their life. This young man did that. This article is supported by many reliable sources. Kent Warfield (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: This is definitely a big achievement, and it has certainly been covered well in reliable sources. ([5], [6], [7], [8]) However, those arguing that he is only notable for one event are correct. WP:BLP1E gives three criteria for when we generally should not have an article about a subject, and I'd argue that he meets them. While this is a great achievement, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Bsoyka (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject might be famous just becuase of one event but it was still significant enough to receive coverage not just locally but internationally as well. He scored 22 As in his A Level exams which was a world record at that time. Jamalahmadpk (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no evidence for the assertion "The Pride of Performance award is not so prestigious as to justify inclusion per se without further notability". The year Nawazish received the award, he was one of just 58 people - in a country of 175 million people at that time. Passes WP:ANYBIO c#1. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:03, 3 April 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) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Feng-Zhou[edit]

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

Ad and Notability Newbamboo (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Newbamboo (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Taiwan. Justi yaya 17:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find reliable sources that provide coverage to the subject, zh-wiki article existed but deleted per 2021 afd (in Chinese) doesn't seem to meet WP:POET Justi yaya 17:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is the lead of the article:
Deng Feng-Zhou (simplified Chinese: 邓丰洲; traditional Chinese: 鄧豐洲; pinyin: Dèng Fēngzhōu; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Tēng Hong-chiu; born October 10, 1949, other names Deng Chang-dao 鄧昌島 or Shanyangzi 善陽子) is a Chinese poet, local history writer, Taoist Neidan academics and environmentalist.
I did searches for the subject's various names and could not find significant coverage about him. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 10:09, 28 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) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CypherDen[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG.

The all of the sources listed here are either primary, or trivial mentions. Sources include the secondary sources listed here: 1 , 2. These are somewhat reliable, but again, they're just trivial mentions.

For another example, the article lists her personal portfolio and college newsletter as sources. A personal portfolio is a primary source and doesn't necessarily credit notability and a college newsletter is a trivial publication at best.

I tried to search for some media publications on the subject but I couldn't find any that is a verified publisher or meets the notability standards (most of the sources being primary and trivial mentions). This article cannot be expanded as a result, as there is a severe lack of in-depth coverage to establish notability. Sparkl^talk 16:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sparkl^talk 16:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sparkl^talk 16:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable youtuber and does not have reliable sources.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👻👻) 05:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails the GNG. The only independent sources cited in the article are clearly no more than passing mentions, and my search was unable to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Possibly too soon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:29, 3 April 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. TNT close, please recreate based on the RSs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ghasera[edit]

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

Some (maybe all) of the sources look very iff (and one or two do not even seem to support what they are being cited for). Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment* This was actual a siege and not a battle in traditional sense. The sources given are not mostly not reliable but there exist some reliable sources which mentions this battle. I will share these sources shortly, as I don't have access to those right now. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be more than just passing mentions (which most of what we have seems to be). Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That I agree, let me see what I can find. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Agreed that the page has citations that do not even support the information and majority of the citation seem questionable and needs to go through WP:RSN for general opinion. Its better to have this article deleted and then rewritten with reliable citations which should go through the review process before being finally posted.MehmoodS (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IF there are source(s) concerning this siege, and those source(s) are reliable, why not simply move the article to Siege of Ghasera and (re)write the article inline with the source(s) available? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed, this is also an option.MehmoodS (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: Yeah it can be moved to siege of ghasera. Historian and Prof Dr PC Chandawat mentions the event in quite detail in his book on Surajmal. Another historian R.P. Vyas also briefly mentions the siege in his two volume book on Modern Rajasthan history. But both of these sources are in hindi. One good source in english language is well known historian Jadunath Sarkar's four volume book Fall of Mughal empire. In the book he mentioned the event in second volume and its aftermath alongwith other related event in first volume. These are the reliable sources I could find for now. I can re-write the article in a day or two if its agreed upon. I can get the relevant passage translated in english it needed be. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It still has to be more than a brief mention. Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most detailed version is given by PC Chandawat and it covers three pages, if its not enough then I am afraid I can't find more than that. Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three pages is certainly sufficient for PC Chandawat to count, but "multiple sources are generally expected" as per WP:SIGCOV. The sources being in Hindi is fine: English language sources are generally preferred when available, but "citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed" per WP:NONENG. How long are the relevant segments by Vyas and Sarkar? I also noticed that this siege/battle is mentioned in Ghasera Fort, cited to Major General S. D. S. Yadava, 2006 Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India, Lancer Publishers, page 51-52., but I'd need someone more familiar with Indian publishing houses to chime in about whether that's reliable or not. - Ljleppan (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ljleppan I didn't notice that earlier but its an in-house publishing company for military officers to publish their books from an "Indian viewpoint". And the author is a major general in the army and not an expert in history. An in-house material is unreliable I believe.MehmoodS (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ljleppan: @MehmoodS:, vyas and sarkar both have almost a page dedicated to this event. And regarding S.D.S. Yadava's book, I agree with MehmoodS, and want to add that it is most likely a caste promotion book, the writer also belongs to Ahir caste which claims ancient Yadava origin and he used quite a lot of Yadava ancestry boasting, in the preface the author explains how he relied on newspapers and articles etc. Do read the preface of the book, I wanted to discuss the book at WP:RSN but i am little busy these days hence couldn't. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but move to Siege of Ghasera. Above, Sajaypal007 has described that the available sourcing includes three texts, of which one (Chandawat) is approximately three pages in length and two others (Vyas and Sarkar) are approximately one page in length. While not massive coverage, I believe these are sufficient to reach the more than a trivial mention, [without needing] to be the main topic of the source material standard of WP:SIGCOV even if this remains somewhat borderline. My !vote is also weak as I'm unable to personally assess the sources, and merely assuming good faith that the descriptions are accurate. I'll reconsider my !vote if concerns regarding the reliability of the three sources listed above are raised. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Ljleppan, I haven't searched about the subject, but I did look at a couple of sources mentioned in this discussion. Both of them are reliable and have a healthy coverage of the siege.

Dr. Chandawat's book mentioned by user Sajaypal007^[1] covers the details of the siege from page nos. 84 to 87. As the book as well as the WorldCat mentions, it is a revision of the accepted PhD thesis of Dr. Prakāśa Candra Cāndāvta. It has 3 pages on the seige which covers its all major aspects in depth. The book is available online. So at least the native speakers of Hindi can easily check the details.

The book by Dr. Aijaz Ahmad has also good coverage of the siege. Note that Dr. Ahmad is an Associate Professor of History: see here and here. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cāndāvta, Prakāśa Candra (1982). Mahārājā Sūrajamala aura unakā yuga, 1745-1763 (in Hindi). pp. 84–87. OCLC 566074739.

Keep but move to Siege of Ghasera. I do not know the subject, but we clearly have at least two potential RS on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 3 April 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 11:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yongbuk Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable private intermediate school. PepperBeast (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried searching for sources but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Although the article says that it's established since 1949. Afzlfc (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Secondary schools are not presumed to be automatically notable. In this case, I can find no reliable sources that prove notability. Also, the article is poorly written in some places and will need some work if it's kept. Bsoyka (talk) 22:44, 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 keep. An article rewrite is called for, incorporating sources presented in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted totalitarianism[edit]

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

This is a non-notable concept that one scholar has used and which a string of non-RS (like Truthdig and Chris Hedges books) have mentioned. The page is a glorified blogpost for the scholar's rambling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coimment: It does seem like the article is written like a promotion/ad more than a balanced article. If the article is to be kept it's going to need a major rewrite. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The nominator is asked to consult WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion in the future. Wolin's thesis of inverted totalitarianism is widely considered as one of the most notable criticisms of the post-9/11 era in US politics, and the increasing tendency of global superpowers like China, Russia, and the US to actively suppress democracy as a result of the merging of corporate and state power. Wolin's thesis in particular is supported by dozens of other scholars in their fields, such as Nancy MacLean and writers like Jane Mayer, who have spent decades accumulating archival evidence going back almost a century. The use of this term in the literature is widespread, and can be found in almost every modern critical work of democracy. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep independent RS include: [9][10][11][12][13][14]) The underlying concept meets GNG so deletion is inappropriate and there seems to be enough material to justify a separate article. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It is a long standing article, and the sources provided above by buidhe should be incorporated into the article asap.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Within the set of species-of-totalitarianism, this one is wholely relevant and notable. It would be benificial to add sources to which Viriditas refers. Johnfreez (talk) 20:33, 2 April 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) 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ego Pharmaceuticals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article about non-notable company, by ovious company representative The content is a list of brands and thhe customary cute opening story about how they got started. The justification in the previous AfDin 2007 for reasons expanded on the article talk page as : <tq> The uniqueness of Ego in the pharmaceutical industry being Australian owned and Australian made for more than 5 decades (one of only about 5 companies) The single focus of Ego on being the specialist in dermatology only. The staff of Ego living the company values which are embedded throughout The reputation of Ego throughout pharmacy across Australia. Ask your pharmacist in Australia or New Zealand about Ego. .</tq> with the note<tq>NB The author has knowledge of details of Ego and vouches for the accuracy of this data.</tq> DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 13:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very promotional article, might have to dig a bit to find sources. One company history form a newspaper in 1987 [15]. Might possibly find others. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Awarded for exporter of the year, but reading up on that, appears not to be "significant award" as required in WP:CORPDEPTH. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I was surprised I couldn't find more RS on the company-- certainly their products are in every pharmacy (and most bathroom cabinets) I've ever been in. I couldn't find much via Google or Newsbank unfortunately. I'm mindful that a lack of sources is not a reason to delete-- it's a reason to improve the article. I'd like to see the page stay, but I couldn't easily find RS to help. Cabrils (talk) 02:00, 29 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:42, 30 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 WHO (AM)#Personalities and programming as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WHO Radio Wise Guys[edit]

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

All primary sources, not seeing any review or commentary on them by independent sources. Slywriter (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-market local radio shows are not "inherently" notable under WP:BCAST, but this article is referenced entirely to the show's own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence whatsoever of notability-building coverage about it in WP:GNG-worthy media outlets independent of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a one-market radio show, and worse yet, I see little coverage in the Des Moines Register. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WHO (AM)#Personalities and programming. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. A sentence about the defunct show in the article will do. SBKSPP (talk) 00:29, 3 April 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) 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Madeena Cherpulassery[edit]

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

Football club article which is unsourced and a WP:BEFORE search yields very little. Google News only has this article, which is only a trivial mention of the club. An Indian source search comes up with plenty of social media accounts for this club but nothing else other than the same trivial mention from Google News. Potentially fails WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Draft The creator of the page has removed the AFD tag from the page. I searched the club with different keywords but was unable to find references. I only found one reference which is already shared by the nominator. I'm suggesting to move it to draft space only because if the club really is 24 years old then the creator of the page should have some reliable references available. FBedits (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)sockstrike[reply]

Draft:Al Madeena Cherpulassery already exists. Neither version is really any better than the other. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my stance, I oppose moving to draft unless someone can prove that the sources exist. I also suspect WP:COI/WP:UPE due to the behaviour seen here. As of typing this, two accounts have been indeffed because of their behaviour around this article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - both the article creator Bobanfasil and Sharafudheenkvkavu have been blocked due to suspected sockpuppetry. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that I have confirmed the sockpuppetry, as well as blocking another sock that showed up on the page. Above, I have struck through a !vote cast by the confirmed sock of a blocked user; as far as I am aware, them showing up here was coincidence, I have no evidence to connect the two cases. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing to pass GNG or football notability. nearlyevil 665 22:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG. Kpddg ^(talk ^• ^contribs) 02:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, does not appear to be notable at all. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. I've found only a mention in this https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2020/apr/20/covid-19-lockdown-puts-african-sevens-football-stars-in-a-spot-in-kerala-2132506.html news. Mommmyy (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Non notable Onmyway22 talk 09:12, 3 April 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) 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anukul Charan Munshi[edit]

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

Searched in multiple places but can't find anything to pass WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG or even WP:V. See Google, Google Books, DDG etc. Draft:Anukul Charan Munshi already exists so unable to send to draft. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found. Father of a frequently deleted artist, Manu Munshi. Manu is already blocked from re-creaction. There is a new draft waiting. I suggest blocking this one as well (and maybe wait for moderator closure even though this will be consensual). gidonb (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - persistently disruptive editor who seems unaware of needs for references. This one fails WP:GNG being unreferenced. Very close to being a CSD candidate. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources for this. No biographical information in the article - not even a birth or death date. Certainly fails WP:NARTIST. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Un-referenced article does not pass WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 15:49, 31 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) 11:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Gombe State[edit]

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

List essentially pulled from this blog. No notable entries so nothing to merge to List of schools in Nigeria. Wikipedia is not a place for exhaustive lists of non-notable schools in any given area, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Not seeing reliable sources covering this topic per WP:LISTN, blogs are not WP:RS. PROD not appropriate as 3 active users have recently edited this article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical WP:NOTDIR WP:MILL cruft. Dronebogus (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NOTDIR. Not a single notable entry. Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. None of these are blue linked and there's zero evidence that they are discussed as a group or set in multiple, reliable secondary sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Should be a category once the schools have their own articles. Gusfriend (talk) 11:49, 29 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) 11:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Riobamba[edit]

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

Looks like an exhaustive directory list of non-notable schools which violates WP:NOTDIR. Notable schools already covered in List of high schools in Ecuador and List of universities in Ecuador. I don't see any justification for why this city needs to have a stand-alone list article for its schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and Ecuador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 01:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. None of these are blue linked and there's zero evidence that they are discussed as a group or set in multiple, reliable secondary sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:20, 28 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Centre in Gombe State[edit]

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

Seems to be a list of mostly non-notable football stadia. I would argue that WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also struggling to see any significant coverage from reliable and independent sources regarding the topic of sports centres in Gombe State for WP:LISTN. Are they really any more notable than sports centres anywhere else? Not seeing why this needs an article. Thought about using PROD but the article creator is still active so would contest it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Lists, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significance and adds no value. Seems to be a list for the sake of making a list. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with all the above comments. QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. List of non notable places with no encyclopedic value. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as above. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see this a notable article at all. Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 11:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable sports centres. Gusfriend (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Pointless list absent of list members, unlikely every to have many more if any 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete ASAP, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 12:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What No Great Shaker said were my thoughts exactly. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:26, 2 April 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!} 20:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angel TV[edit]

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

This channel fails the general notability guideline. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... This looks like the subject of the article (not linked as it's apparently blacklisted) swarajyamag.com/politics/vaccine-is-mark-of-a-beast-evangelicals-in-tamil-nadu-are-running-a-misinformation-campaign-to-derail-the-fight-against-covid-19, but these three are all from Ghana, and likely a different network entirely. I confess, finding RS on non-English media is quite challenging. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
archived link (so you can click on it) of above article: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/qV5IF . This does seem to refer to the Angel TV being discussed above.

I can confirm the Ghana Angel TV is different from this angel TV, see http://angeltvghana.com/ Rlink2 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a note to Jclemens and Rlink2, Swarajya is blacklisted because it's unreliable (it's co-owned with OpIndia). I have created Angel TV (Ghana), since it does seem there is a GNG claim for it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it turns out that the Indian network is NN and deleted, the Ghanaian (had to look that one up) network should be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and move Angel TV (Ghana) to the primary location. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 21:03, 29 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 Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Addington Symonds[edit]

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

Nearly everything are unsourced, fails WP:GNG. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion rationale makes no sense, no evidence of WP:BEFORE, and one of several similarly unusual deletion nominations by a new editor. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 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 Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Blyth[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines and written like resume. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion rationale makes no sense, no evidence of WP:BEFORE, and one of several similarly unusual deletion nominations by a new editor. Jclemens (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why Blyth fails notability. Harry Blyth's stories have been reprinted several times over the last hundred years. He also created Sexton Blake one of the most popular detectives of the early 20th century. I have added multiple publications that reference him in the Further Reading section. Furthermore, the list of Blyth's works is the most complete ever compiled. It would be of use to anyone researching his work.

Speedy Keep, Blyth is certainly notable, both if one looks at the sources in the article and more importantly if one researches his notability (even briefly on the Internet). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 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 Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Nelson Lee Library[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines and written like resume. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion rationale makes no sense, no evidence of WP:BEFORE, and one of several similarly unusual deletion nominations by a new editor. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Very unusual deletion nominations. Feels more like a personal vendetta than someone who has competently assessed the articles' merits. Nml25 (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Nelson Lee was a key character in popular fiction in the early 20th century. The Nelson Lee Library was a highly popular British Boy's Story Paper of the early 20th century. I have added three references to the Further reading section that attest to this.

Turner, ES (1948) Boys Will be Boys History of British boys' weeklies from Victorian times up to the 1950s.

Andrew, Lucy (2017) The Boy Detective in Early British Children's Literature. Palgrave. page 96

Watt & Green (2017) The Alternative Sherlock Holmes: Pastiches, Parodies and Copies Nml25 (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Nml25 (talk) 09:02, 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. Sandstein 07:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's High School, Majuli[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution, no indication of Notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fails WP:NSCHOOL. From what I can tell it doesn't even pass WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:30, 28 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. Sandstein 07:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarjuna High School[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. No indication of Notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A previous PROD was contested.-MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find reliable sources that give significant coverage Justi yaya 09:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a couple of news article that name drop the school, but that's about it. So I can't think of a guideline based reason to keep the article. I'm happy to change my vote to keep if someone can find WP:THREE in-depth, independent references though since it's possible I just missed them. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 29 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 Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Lee (detective)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines and written like resume. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Nelson Lee was a key character in popular fiction in the early 20th century. I have added three references to the Further reading sectionthat attests to this.

Oppose deletion. The way it's written might be improved, but it's cited to six reliable secondary sources, so clearly a notable fictional character. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion rationale makes no sense, no evidence of WP:BEFORE, and one of several similarly unusual deletion nominations by a new editor. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Very unusual deletion nominations. Feels more like a personal vendetta than someone who has competently assessed the articles' merits. Nml25 (talk) 09:00, 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 Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sexton Blake Library[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines and written like resume. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion rationale makes no sense, no evidence of WP:BEFORE, and one of several similarly unusual deletion nominations by a new editor. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Sexton Blake Lee was a key character in popular fiction in the early 20th century. The Sexton Blake Library was a highly popular British Boy's Story Paper that ran from 1915 to 1968. Stories in were the basis of films and radio plays. I have added three references to the Further reading section that attest to this.

Turner, ES (1948) Boys Will be Boys History of British boys' weeklies from Victorian times up to the 1950s.

Andrew, Lucy (2017) The Boy Detective in Early British Children's Literature. Palgrave. page 96

Watt & Green (2017) The Alternative Sherlock Holmes: Pastiches, Parodies and Copies Nml25 (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Nml25 (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Nml25 (talk) 09:08, 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 Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Hamilton Teed[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines and written like resume. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion rationale makes no sense, no evidence of WP:BEFORE, and one of several similarly unusual deletion nominations by a new editor. Jclemens (talk) 07:56, 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. Sandstein 19:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orania (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film with only three sources, two of which are the film itself and a singular appearance at a film festival. Desertambition (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bsoyka (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Assessed the current references in the table below. Can any of the sources listed at http://www.orania-film.de/press.html be tracked down to check their reliability? Bsoyka (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Bsoyka
Vimeo	Trailer/teaser to promote the film	value not understood	~	✘ No
Raindance Film Festival	~ Selling tickets for viewing the film	value not understood	~	? Unknown
Orania	The film's website			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best it should be covered as a single sentence mention on the main page about the town. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orania, Northern Cape#Works about Orania as it is mentioned there and I don't think it's notable enough for a separate article. Suonii180 (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sources. No time for editor who don't reference, in relatively modern article. scope_creep^Talk 18:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. No need to redirect, in my opinion, as it would be very unlikely for someone to enter a disambiguated article title as a search term. --Noahfgodard (talk) 19:25, 4 April 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahananda (2022 film)[edit]

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

Mahananda (2022 film)

Article about an upcoming film that has two problems. First, it does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines. Second, none of the references satisfy the English Wikipedia's guidelines on independent reliable sources. This film is scheduled for release on 8 April 2022. Neither the article nor the sources say anything significant about production, only who did it (and every film was produced by someone, unless it wasn't). None of the references show any independence; they are all from the filmmaker, composer, or other associates. Most of them are Times of India, which is not considered reliable, but reliability is not sufficient, because a reliably reported puff piece and an unreliably reported puff piece are both still puff pieces.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Reads like a press release. States that filming had resumed.	No	Yes	No. See WP:TOI	No
2	Indianexpress.com	Interview with filmmaker	No	Yes	Probably	No
3	Timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Puff piece about music in film	No	No	No.	No
4	Timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Interview with filmmaker	No	Yes	No	No
5	Timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Same as 3, puff piece about music.	No	No	No	No
6	Timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Announcement of release on 8 April	No	No	No	No

As of about 0500 GMT, 20 March, there are both an article and a draft that have been tagged for history merge. The article was moved to draft space by User:DaxServer as not ready for article space, but was then copy-pasted back into article space, and the two pages have been tagged for history merge. The move to draft space has obviously been contested, so that AFD is the alternative to an alternative to deletion.

The current article is not even worth keeping in anticipation of the release of the film, because none of the sources are independent, so that it is just a pre-release promotional item. A Soft Delete is in order. Blow this up so that another editor who isn't trying to rush stuff into article space can write a reasonable article when the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 20 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!} 03:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify until actual, reliable sources exist. It's not overly promotional, but that doesn't give it a free pass to bend RS. Lastly, I'm not quite sure the article has a claim to notability. Toadspike (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF, with the potential that the film could receive some independent coverage after release. BOVINEBOY2008 18:36, 2 April 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 11:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPT Sports Management[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Sports. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 20 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!} 03:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is about a defunct company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.

Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

An analysis of the refs reveals a couple of mentions-in-passing, Press Releases and announcements, all fail CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Almost a WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:52, 31 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 Research#Research ethics. Even though the subject has potential, there was a consensus that its current incarnation is not suitable for an article in the mainspace. SpinningSpark or any other user may expand the redirect once more suitable content has been written. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morality of science[edit]

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

Superfluous non-article consisting of a single, unref'd line and a grab-bag of links. Basically untouched for more than a decade. Alternately, could be redirected to Morality or Ethics of Science and Technology. PepperBeast (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PepperBeast, for the page to be superfluous, it needs to be superfluous to something else. Your suggested redirect to Morality is ridiculous – that page does not use the word science even a single time. SpinningSpark 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely WP:OR. Nothing here to preserve. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Ethics of science and tech article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such article as Ethics of science and technology. The nom was suggesting a redirect to a category. SpinningSpark 18:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had this undeleted with the intention of doing some work on it (admittedly, I wasn't going to go very deep). But since the nom has chosen not to wait to see what I do with it, I will put that on hold for now. This is a broad-concept article that is unarguably notable with a great deal written on the topic. To give just a couple of examples there is The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values and (presenting the diametrically opposed argument) Science and the Good. Since article content does not determine notability but rather, is determined by what that article could become, we should keep the page and allow it to grow. SpinningSpark 18:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, the title is slightly off, it should be renamed Morality and science. SpinningSpark 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want you to think I'm against writing about this area, but if what you want to do is write a different article with a different title, you should probably do that. PepperBeast (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to write a different article, I want to improve this one. In any case, I am for keeping the page regardless of whether or not it is worked on immediately. SpinningSpark 20:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Research ethics. On the one hand, I think there is potential for a broad-concept article at this title, incorporating research ethics, ethics of technology, nuclear ethics, etc. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of keeping useless articles around on the off-chance that someone will improve them someday. If this is made into a redirect, SpinningSpark or anyone else can easily recreate it with different content if they feel so inclined. (As a side-note, though, I think the article SpinningSpark wants to write is science of morality, which already exists.) Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. That is what the sources I provided are about, but that was just by way of demonstrating the notability of one aspect of the broad concept. On another aspect there is The Morality of Weapons Research. Everybody seems to need to tell me what I want to write about. I'm the one who knows what I want to write about. SpinningSpark 19:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per NOM, this is just a list of wikilinks. To be an article this would have to have content about the topic, and it has none. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list of wikilinks. SpinningSpark can write a draft article and then we can decide whether that can be moved to this title. --Bduke (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Though the article has great potential, it should probably be returned to draftspace until it can meet the GNG> Spinningspark, I respect your work and ambitions, but this is not yet ready for the mainspace. Toadspike (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify: I don't disagree that this topic is notable. However, while article content does not decrease notability (as stated above), being a new creation does not protect an article from being nominated for deletion. (WP:NEWARTICLE) If this is going to be worked on, it should be done in the draft or user space. Bsoyka (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Research#Research ethics with possibilities, and work there for the time being. SWinxy (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere until something has been drafted that is not embarassing to have in mainspace (actually I'd suggest Philosophy_of_science#Values_and_science). One waffly sentence and a vaguely related link list cannot be defended as useful. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:40, 4 April 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wants (band)[edit]

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

non notable local band thath asn't received any major coverage or critical reviews and has never charted. CUPIDICAE💕 18:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is notable coverage of the band published by international sources. NME, a British publication, published a review of the band’s debut album, Container. [16]. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a single review. I have a hard time believing a band with only a few thousand followers and virtually no coverage aside from one publication is notable. The metacritic reviews are aggregate including a rehash of the NME and from blogs. CUPIDICAE💕 19:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: You shifted goal posts. You nominated this article because you said that the band "hasn't received any major coverage or critical reviews". I provided you a piece of major coverage - which is NME (a well-known piece of music journalism). One is better than none. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, unfortunately there was an edit conflict and I don't care to rewrite my entire argument, but the band has been routinely covered by music critics to the point they are on Metacritic for receiving enough critical review/coverage. Rylesbourne (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's easily enough coverage around to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear whether GNG is met if NMUSIC is not
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an odd one. The sole RS coverage is a glowing review in NME, but it doesn't add up for a band that seemingly exists on a small level with a small following, garnering small time recognition among non-RS. My only guess is at least one reviewer for a notable source was impressed enough to write about them, but there needs to be more than one such example. I'm not convinced the editors voting KEEP have truly investigated the sources or clicked on the links to read the nature of the coverage. Or perhaps doing a google and confusing coverage for the two other bands with very similar names as coverage for this band. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's hard to find good sources with a name as vague as this, but after multiple different search parameter checks I turned up little more than interviews, show announcements, and industry standard "they released a track"-type press. The NME page isn't a bad source, but it takes more than one solid article to demonstrate notability, and I'm genuinely not finding anything. Primefac (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of material in these cited Metacritic reviews. Meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Metacritic list reliable sources, they don't just add in anyone, they make certain they are a legitimate source of reviews. Significant coverage found there. Dream Focus 12:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm really on the fence about this. While the other stuff on Metacritic may not be great, this article seems okay [17]. This puts us at two decent sources and a motley group of mediocre/unverifiable sources. However, I lean against deleting, since I cannot verify the April 2020 Uncut and Mojo mentions on Metacritic, either of which would easily put the subject over the GNG. I would appreciate it if someone with access to those could share their thoughts. Toadspike (talk) 04:18, 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 redirect to Brian Ferriman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Records[edit]

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

Yet another defunct Canadian record label. Deprodded with suggested merge to Warner Music Canada, but I could not find anything suggesting that this was ever actually a division of theirs. Searching "Savannah Records" + "Warner Canada" or "Savannah Records" + the names of the listed artists only turned up Wikipedia mirrors and Discogs. The closest I found to coverage was a 1985 ad for the Canadian Country Music Awards in Billboard which merely listed Anita Perras as a nominee. While most of the artists signed were notable, they all seem to be notable for releases on other labels and not so much for their Savannah Records work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:50, 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?)} 16:50, 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)} 18:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would probably need a deep dive in off-line sources, I can't find much online. A few mentions in GBooks, mostly a mention in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: I searched worldradiohistory.org, which archives music magazines such as Billboard, Radio & Records, and even the Canadian RPM magazine. None of them gave the label anything more than the most passing of mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warner Music Canada, former subsidiary, possible link/search term, not enough for a stand-alone article, but bears mentioning. --Jayron32 12:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any references to support it should be merged to Warner Music Canada - Jayron32 did you find something?
- In the context of record labels, "in association with" doesn't imply that Savannah was a subsidiary of WEA; it implies that Savannah was an independent label that had a distribution agreement with WEA, which isn't the same thing at all. So we can't just treat it as if it was actually a WEA subsidiary in the absence of proper verification to that effect; Ferriman is the better merge target, since his role with the record label is both (a) more straightforwardly sourceable, and (b) the most important thing about this record label anyway. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brian Ferriman as ATD and below. Delete Unless Jayron32 has found something to suggest a merge is justifiable and since 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⁺⁺ 14:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the article states "Savannah Records, in association with WEA Canada..." Mentioning the existence of a subsidiary within the Warner Canada article does not require independent notability. GNG, NCORP, etc. are only criteria for stand-alone articles, not for text in Wikipedia articles. The advantage of merging/redirecting is that it leaves a proper blue link, as Savannah Records is a likely search term/link target given that there were notable artists on the label. --Jayron 32 14:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to merge with WMC. From this page (translated) it says that a subsidiary of WMC, Chappell Publishing, acted as a distributor. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternate idea, perhaps a merge to Brian Ferriman, the label's founder, is in order. While his label may not be notable, he might be, and therefore that would also be a good target. --Jayron 32 14:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go along with a redirect - I've changed my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brian Ferriman. I ran a ProQuest search for older coverage that may not have Googled — but while I got a lot of glancing namechecks of this label's existence, I found absolutely nothing about this label for the purposes of getting it over WP:GNG. Ferriman's article also needs improvement, but he does have a strong notability claim in his own right and his role with the label is what's most important about the label. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 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 merge to List of mice by Apple, Inc.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-mouse controllers by Apple, Inc.[edit]

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

List of non-mouse controllers by Apple, Inc.

There are at least two problems with this list article. First, and most basic, it has no references, and so is not verifiable. Second, it is list cruft. It consists of a list of things that have very little in common except that they are not computer mice. It was moved to draft space by User:Buidhe as not ready for article space, and it was not ready for article space because it had no references. It has then been moved back to article space with the edit summary: "this content has been live for over a decade and is not draft material. if it is deemed inappropriate, AfD it properly". It is inappropriate because it has no references, and because the originator apparently doesn't care about that, or would have added references before moving it back to article space.

If references are provided, the next topic of discussion can be whether the list is useful or is list cruft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication that RS treat these items as a unified whole, thus failing WP:NLIST. (t · c) buidhe 18:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was split from list of mice by Apple, Inc. primarily to focus that article on a more concrete subject; the content had lived there for roughly a decade. For some reason, Buidhe decided to move it to draftspace, and template me, as if it were some raw submission. I don't care in the slightest for the content, but given that it's undoubted that these products exist and that the original parent is not currently having its notability questioned, it seems likely that at least the same degree of secondary sourcing exists for the subjects here. But again, my motivation here was cleaning up the parent, and my primary objection here was what I saw as a stealth-deletion of longstanding content by disingenuously treating it like a new user submission. At least a proper AfD will give it closure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Special:Diff/1067513691 is where the long standing content was erased, by you not by anyone else. This is the classic sweeping-it-under-the-rug pattern for undesired content, including the whole "I don't care" attitude towards the newly created article with the undesired content in it, and the "I was cleaning up." statement. It happens perennially with "in popular culture" lists, where people claim to "clean up" lists by merely copying them, verbatim, to another page. Here, it has happened with a list of Human Interface Devices that aren't mice, on an article that for "roughly a decade" (2008–2021) was Apple Mouse, after Apple Pro Mouse had been moved away from that title. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is unclear why splitting tangential material to its own article (still in articlespace, in broad daylight) is a literal war crime, but subsequently deleting it is not; however, I do not have inclusionist brain. I'll add "stuffing random things into otherwise-notable articles" to the list of the common tricks. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable OR, and an organic failure at LISTN-level. SN54129 19:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful counterpart to List of mice by Apple, Inc. Apple's contributions to pointing devices are widely cited by scholars—they popularized the mouse in PCs and pioneered the trackpad in portable computing. Failing a keep, Merge contents to List of mice by Apple, Inc. and rename that article to List of pointing devices by Apple Inc.. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk:List of mice by Apple, Inc.#Requested move 8 May 2021 had Apple pointing devices. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying problem here is articulated in the 2021 talk page discussion. Until that point Apple Pro Mouse was about the product and Apple Mouse was about all of the mice products, that would have been known simply as an Apple mouse in their days, and similar Human Interface Devices, sold by Apple. The fact that Human Interface Device existed as an umbrella name for these suggests an obvious idea that was ignored, alongside Apple pointing devices (another obvious idea per pointing device), in the move discussion in favour of Apple mice. After some "cleanup" that was in reality verbatim cut and paste, here we are. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Apple, Inc. peripherals is also available, but seeing as that this discussion has highlighted that one portion of said peripherals is notable and the other isn't, I'm leaning towards the current consensus to keep the notable half. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reliable sources giving importance to such a list. desmay (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of mice by Apple, Inc. and rename that article. The general concept of Apple pointing devices is notable, and this is appropriate content for an article on that topic. BilledMammal (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. A merge simply leads back to the previous state where there is half an article of well-referenced material, and another half on a tangential subject referenced to nothing more than editors' own memories. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NNC would apply. BilledMammal (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BilledMammal. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:57, 1 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Percival[edit]

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

Biography of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors do not all get an automatic free pass over NACTOR #1 just because the article has a filmography list in it -- actors having acting roles is literally the job description, so the notability test hinges not so much on listing roles as on the depth and quality of the media coverage that can be shown to support the significance of at least some of their performances. But this is referenced entirely to IMDB, the cast list of a single television episode in which he had a one-off bit part on the self-published website of the program's own network, and a Twitter tweet -- none of which are notability-supporting sources at all.
As I don't have access to any archive in which I could personally retrieve British media coverage from the 1960s to 1990s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find proper sourcing to support the article -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any third party media coverage about him and his performances. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, I don't find reliable sources, he appaers to only have done minor roles. Oaktree b (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well reasoned argument of the nominator. There is not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he passes WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" See for example the British Film Institute and Theatricalia. He played the "trendy master" Mr Mitchell in a number of episodes of Grange Hill: The Stage - Thursday 16 February 1978 "Only a teacher or pupil could assess the authenticity of the classroom scenes. but Michael Percival, at once acerbic and matey as the form-master, and his charges, diverse in size, colour and nature. seem just about right." Reading Evening Post - Friday 21 February 1997 "Thrilling Role for Michael Percival" It's a piece he would like to direct one day for, in a career stretching over more than 30 years, he has always alternated acting with directing. Indeed he holds some kind of record as England's youngest professional theatre director, being still in his teens when he was asked to do a rep company production. Even as an actor there are two distinct sides to his work — "on stage I play psychopaths and on TV loveable cuddly people. An exception to this is the sinister lawyer he plays in the TV drama The Sculptress. His widely known TV role was as the dim-witted MI5 agent in three series of The Piglet Files" Piecesofuk (talk) 08:40, 18 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!} 23:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being part of the "Grange Hill" franchise surely passes as notability. Was also in 17 of the 21 episodes of "The Piglet Files", showing he was a regular in another show. Also being the partner of a Doctor Who assistant might help things. I've been through and tried to link his name where it appears on various articles.2A00:23C6:D885:8501:28D5:864B:ACCB:AAEA (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NBIO only establishes that someone is likely to be notable. In this case, whether we consider their roles significant or not, it is clear that they fail WP:GNG and are not notable. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 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. ✗plicit 05:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos State Sport Commission[edit]

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

Organisation does not seem to meet WP:NORG- coverage in independent sources is WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Nigeria. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NCORP. I checked five refs at random, not one of them mentions the thing at all. This and several other recent similar pages about administrative organisations in Lagos State could sensibly be redirected to Government of Lagos State – except that that is a redirect to our page on the state. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as others have pointed out, the sources seem to be unreliable and not SIGCOV. Toadspike (talk) 04:23, 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 keep. Demonstrated to fail NPOL but pass GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Birdwell[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL - mayorship of small town and county judgeship aren't high enough offices to ding the auto-notability criteria. I wasn't able to find sufficient sourcing (indeed any at all save what's in the article) to indicate a GNG/ANYBIO pass. Being the first of something only confers notability when sourcing reflects the importance of that achievement, which isn't borne out by the sourcing available here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't able to find relevant sources. Thanks Jamalahmadpk (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a very low level judge for less than a year. He later was mayor of a small place. Not even remotely closing to passing any politician notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Undoubtedly, there will be a first X of Y for every Y, but this is indeed too low-level to be of importance on that score. BD2412 T 17:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the nom that these aren't positions that confer inherent notability under WP:NPOL, but a bit of digging finds enough sources for a WP:BASIC pass, in my view. Thanks to Newspapers.com, we have a front-page article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (pt. 1; pt. 2) discussing his appointment in detail, national and international press coverage from various wire services [18][19][20], information about his ouster by the voters ([21]), and other briefer mentions. I wouldn't call this an open-and-shut case, but on balance I think the sourcing is satisfactory, particularly given WP:BASIC's advice that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" as well as the fact that there's likely pre-Internet-era coverage only available offline. (In particular, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't coverage in the Dallas Morning News, which would be the single most relevant paper for this area: I don't seem to have access to their archives, but per WP:NEXIST we ought to at least consider the possibility that there are sources that can't easily be found online.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:36, 19 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!} 23:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found writing about him in google books and on google scholar and added it in. He's also mentioned in Time magazine. I think he's notable based on this, in addition to what was already in the article. CT55555 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can this be added to any LGBTQ+ lists for deletion sorting, it seems like his sexuality is the key thing that makes him notable? CT55555 (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I was about to dig through all the newspaper archives I have access to when I realized that Extraordinary Writ had already done so. I won't list them again, but there are plenty of sources to show notability, the article simply needs some expanding to reflect that. Toadspike (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per above Rlink2 (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to easily pass the general notability bar with the newspaper sources listed above. Bsoyka (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Passes WP:GNG. Blakesmith11 (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Extraordinary Writ and CT55555. Passes WP:GNG with the additional sources cited. Sal2100 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 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.

[PCC-1] Cāndāvta, Prakāśa Candra (1982). Mahārājā Sūrajamala aura unakā yuga, 1745-1763 (in Hindi). pp. 84–87. OCLC 566074739.

[1]