Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 18

Guide to deletion

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) 00:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

French American Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles

French American Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NORG. A BEFORE search in English and French finds little more than trivial mentions. The French Morning article is the exception, but a single news story about a new organization is insufficient to establish notability under the deliberately strict NORG guideline. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Minimal third-party sources are coming up in my searches. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NORG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I can find no additional sourcing that would raise this local chapter above the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete 7 sources are from Facclosangeles.org. , so this leaves 4 total unique srouces, not enough for notablity. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

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 (see discussion at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Time to close AFD)Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan

Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This wrestling promotion does not appear to meet WP:NORG. All the sources in the article are either self-published or based on press releases, and I'm not finding anything better through Google. I note that the article creator is a blocked sock who has previously tried to promote non-notable Pakistani wrestling content. I am also nominating all articles in Category:Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan, which are even less notable than the parent organization:

PWFP Ultimate Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PWFP World Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PWFP World Wrestling Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

– Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment One of these must be the pro wrestling outfit and must be kept. So which one is it? scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Scope creep: What do you mean it must be kept? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2021

  @Lord Bolingbroke: Well one of them will the pro league for that country and should be coverage for that league and there should be an attempt to find references for it. scope_creep^Talk 14:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't follow your thinking. Just because the organization has "pro" in its name does not mean it is automatically notable. I did attempt to find references, and all I came across were blogs, press releases, and self-published material. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yip, that could be the problem. Is it a new sport across there? If it is, it will probably need some sportsman/expert type who can separate the wheat from the chaff. I don't know enough about it, but I'm sure one must be recognized in the country as the usual professional league. I would be surprised if there wasn't some kind of professional league. It might not be in this list. scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  PWFP Ultimate Championship, PWFP World Heavyweight Championship, and PWFP World Wrestling Champions are all championships within the Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan. They are not different leagues, as you seem to be suggesting. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  If you look at the history of these articles, you will see they were all created by the same sock. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting article about a federation that I never heard of I must say. I must check this out before I vote. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, after reading through this article I now see that it is a successful wrestling federation in Pakistan, and surely is viable as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Davidgoodheart: Can you explain how this wrestling federation meets WP:NORG? According to the pro wrestling WikiProject, that is the standard that wrestling organizations need to meet to be notable. As it stands, this !vote does nothing to show this federation's notability. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Lord Bolingbroke: It says it is featured worldwide, that's notable to me. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Source? This article was created by a blocked sockpuppet and is full of unsourced and promotional claims. Taking the article's claims at face value as an indication of notability is ridiculous. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  I may change my stance in a bit depending on how the voting goes. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be a fairly notable fed at least in Pakistan, and unless I’m missing something, we have pages for the specific championships which aren’t up for debate? Copper1993 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  They are. I bundled them with this AfD. Do you really think that fewer than 8k followers on Facebook and 2k followers on YouTube is "fairly notable"? Regardless, your comment doesn't present a policy-based reason to keep, namely how this federation meets WP:NORG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable organisation, a single piece in The News based on a media announcement (so press release based coverage) doth not WP:GNG pass, let alone WP:ORG. Also take on board that the articles were created by an indeffed user. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Smear campaign. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Discrediting tactic

Discrediting tactic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

At first glance, this seems like it might be deserving of an article (possibly notable), but there do not appear to be any sources for it. A Google search comes up with less than 1000 results. Maybe there's another term for the concept that is more widespread? As of right now, I am saying this does not meet WP:GNG, but even if we could get pass that, this article is a candidate for deletion per WP:TNT. It reads like an essay and is what many people would call a WP:COATRACK article. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep for now. On the one hand, Wikipedia is not a WP:Dictionary of phrases, and a lot of results I found in this search gave me five reliable articles using the term but not discussing it, making them passing mentions. On the other hand, Scholarly literature, which Wikipedia has a huge crush on, does use this phrase a heck of a lot more to accuse institutions and leaders and other stuff, and it's not like what this phrase means isn't a commonly-done behavior, especially in higher-up places. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per other comments. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Scholarly literature would have the right name for a propaganda technique though. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• The motivation for this was the prevalence of articles (back then) on Goreism, Goreisms, Gore-ism, Gore-isms, Bushism (AfD discussion), Bushisms, and so forth, including List of Bushisms, Strategery (AfD discussion), Potatoe (AfD discussion), Misunderestimated, MAKE THE PIE HIGHER (AfD discussion), and Suicider (AfD discussion). We seem to have eventually solved that in a different way. Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge into smear campaign which is the more common name for this political technique. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep this seems to have meanings outside of the political realm of smear campaigns (sources do exist to attest for this, ex. [1]; [2]), for example in legal cases ([3]); and also manifest in regular political debates (Interview with a Harvard professor about this). I think that's enough sources that discuss the concept and not just the term for this to be kept and expanded. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Smear campaign, which has examples of legal cases and other areas that are "outside of the political realm" so I'm confused by the suggestion that smear campaigns would be limited to that and discrediting tactics are a separate concept. Combining these overlapping names would be a good way to expand this. The opposite merge of smear campaign into this article would also work if sources have a greater focus on that, but I fail to see what would distinguish these names. HumanxAnthro, were you aware of the other article when you !voted? Reywas92^Talk 18:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Can't say I was, but now that I know about I have change my !vote to Merge. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think smear campaign wouldn't be an accurate title for topics which are outside of the political realm (a lawyer discrediting a witness at a trial is not a "smear campaign", it is in some cases unethical but it is nothing like what can be seen in politics); but that might be an issue for WP:RM and not AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Riversong Technology

Riversong Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough sources and promo content. Setreis (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Despite having a number of references, not many are reliable. –Cupper52^Discuss! 08:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete : No reliable sources found. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 14:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note to others: This user is a suspected sock of ProudMallu. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man Metedeice (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Striking comment from blocked sockpuppet. Cunard (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As per featured in notable reliable websites like The Economic Times, The Financial Express, Deccan Herald, Yahoo News, Business Standard, The Telegraph, National Chronicle, Business Line etc. Metedeice (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Coverage is available in WP:RS. Meets GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and the Keep !voters above appear to be referencing GNG and not NCORP. Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment There are more than enough sources available to pass this article for both GNG and NCORP. Some of sources can be seen below.
• https://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/in-other-news/020617/riversong-gears-up-to-take-the-indian-tech-industry-up-by-storm.html
• https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/riversong-air-x5-plus-review-an-airpods-look-alike-that-costs-only-rs-2999-8333701.html
• https://www.telegraphindia.com/science-tech/earbuds-for-crisp-and-clear-bass-sound/cid/1719777
• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/riversong-bets-big-on-india-eyes-rs-100-cr-revenue-by-2020/69244614
• https://in.style.yahoo.com/riversong-technology-appoints-gurbinder-sodhi-sales-director-085506438.html
• https://www.asianage.com/technology/gadgets/030919/riversong-motive-review-budget-apple-watch-rival-for-the-smart-consumer.html
• https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/riversong-wave-s-smart-and-stylish-fitness-band-at-an-affordable-price/2060304/
• https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/specials/technophile/riversong-motive-plus-smart-watch-wearable-review-price-specs/article31518280.ece
• https://www.digianalysys.com/riversong-launches-wave-o2/
• https://www.deccanherald.com/business/technology/realme-c20-c21-c25-series-with-mediatek-soc-launched-in-india-971931.html
• https://download.cnet.com/RS-Motive/3000-2129_4-78133044.html
• https://digitalterminal.in/news/riversong-technology-appoints-mrmanvendra-k-chandola-as-new-ceo-for-india-operations/14816.html
• https://www.adgully.com/riversong-technology-appoints-mr-manvendra-k-chandola-as-the-ceo-for-india-operations-82860.html
• https://www.bisinfotech.com/wearable-technology-becoming-mainstream-in-the-healthcare-sector/
• https://www.mobilityindia.com/riversong-aims-to-be-the-leading-mobile-accessories-brand-in-india-driven-by-a-robust-growth-and-strong-partner-network/
• https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/riversong-technology-appoints-gurbinder-sodhi-as-new-sales-director-118031500611_1.html
• https://www.techpluto.com/riversong-india-is-aiming-to-become-among-the-top-three-players-in-the-future/ Metedeice (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Response There is nothing in either of GNG or NCORP that says that the volume of sources is an indicator of notability, so your comment that there are more than enough sources available carries no weight. I posted the relevant sections from NCORP and emphasised CORPDEPTH and ORGIND in the hope that an editor would avoid posting links without providing any valid rationale.
  • Deccan Chronicle is PR from a product launch, fails ORGIND. No in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Firstpost is a product review but the topic of this article is the company, not the product. No in-depth information provided about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Telegraph is a product review, fails for the same reason as above
  • Economic Times India relies entirely on information provided by the CEO, fails ORGIND. Also provided no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Yahoo is a company announcement, fails ORGIND
  • Asian Age is a product review, fails CORPDEPTH for the same reasons as the other product reviews. The topic is the company, not one of their products.
  • Financial Express is another product review, fails for the same reasons as above
  • Hindu Business Line another product review, fails for the same reasons as above
  • DigiAnalysis is yet another product review, fails for the same reasons as above.
  • Deccan Herald (second article) fails to even mention the topic company, no idea why this was included
  • CNET Download written by the topic company, primary source. No idea why this was included.
  • Digital Terminal company announcement of a new CEO, fails ORGIND
  • AdGully company announcement of new CEO, fails ORGIND
  • BISInfotech entirely relies on a Q&A with the CEO, fails ORGIND
  • Mobility relies entirely on an interview (or interaction as it is called) with the CEO, fails ORGIND
  • Business Standard company announcement, fails ORGIND
  • TechPluto interview with CEO, fails ORGIND

Not a single reference comes close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability, they're all "echo chamber" articles which rely on interviews and information provided by the company, or they're product reviews which don't provide any in-depth information on the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, Noting in the article proves the notability of the company Alex-h (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable and lack of reliable sources. 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:69F9:FD38:CB6C:FB95 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and consider rename to Riversong Technology products or List of Riversong Technology products. Metedeice (talk · contribs) has posted numerous reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Riversong Technology's products through reviews. The products meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article should be retained and possibly moved to a title that represents what the sources largely focus on: Riversong Technology's products.

  Cunard (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Better than nothing but all sources look like rewritten press releases or fail SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Esteghlalish Blue (film series)

Esteghlalish Blue (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails Wikipedia:Notability 90 TV (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 90 TV (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 90 TV (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 90 TV (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 90 TV (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note: Some Iranian news agencies have covered this film with advertising labels on the text-footer. 90 TV (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, or perhaps mention at Esteghlal F.C. at most. GiantSnowman 09:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes point to the number of fc matches, but do not show the in-depth sources that should go with this. Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1955)

Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1955) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan) 9 FC matches, but as usual with Pakistani cricketers we're struggling to find sources of significant coverage. Coverage may exist on him offline or in local language sources though. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and could possibly have been BOLDly redirect to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the youngest first-class debutants ever [4]. StickyWicket (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

And you know his age is fake. Everyone knows how they recorded age back then. Störm (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Any sources which contradict the ACS info? StickyWicket (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable cricketer. Fails WP:NCRIC. Though CricketArchive is saying that the player played 9 FC matches, I can't find enough sources of significant coverage that tells that the player is notable. Besides, the article is fully unsourced, and reliably sourcing is a very important aspect on Wikipedia. Also, there is no profile/stats page of the player in ESPN Cricinfo or any other stats website except CricketArchive. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 13:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete If his allegedly young age at debut made him notable we would be able to find reliable sources that discussed this. My search turned up nothing. So asserting that this makes him notable would be orginal research on our part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. First class cricketer who played 9 fc matches. Tintin 17:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Tintin1107, So what? I wrote 9 blog posts and ate 9 candies today. Random number, random activity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Played in 9 F/C matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails GNG/NBIO. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 09:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Tacoma Mall shooting

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tacoma Mall shooting
• Articles for deletion/Tacoma Mall shooting (2nd nomination)

Tacoma Mall shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

2013 AfD closed as no consensus. Especially because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, is not encyclopedic to include an article about a failed shooting. This event fails WP:EVENTCRIT and a review of the sources yields only local and regional publications. If there is no consensus to delete, redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States. KidAd • SPEAK 21:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep. NPR's 2013 article "Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman" discusses Dan McKown, who was paralyzed by the gunman. It was also the subject of a Call 911 episode.[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep – it has enough sources to pass the GNG, so it's good in my opinion. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep RS'es continue to cover the shooter when he does something newsworthy. Even if it didn't, WP:NTEMP. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, I doubt McKown, who to the best of my knowledge remains paralyzed thanks to his choice to intervene, would call it a "failed" shooting. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

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. This has been an advertisement for a decade, exhorting the reader in the second person and speaking in the first person. And when it hasn't been that it has been vandalism criticising the advertising. I've revoked the single-purpose account's editing privileges. Then there's the small matter of much of the content being copy-pasted copyrighted non-free content from the subject's own WWW site, cleaned up over and over, and put back in over and over. Uncle G (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hayfield University

Hayfield University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article concerns a private university in Fullerton, California. The article was created in 2011 yet for the last decade has cited no sources. The article is also in incredibly poor shape with broken English throughout and an extensive discussion of trivial or promotional matters. And looking at the history, it seems highly likely that a major contributor was someone with a COI. But most importantly, in conducting a BEFORE search, I was unable to find any reliable sources demonstrating that this university meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. So, for all these reasons, I think this page should be deleted. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Rao Tularam Rajkiya Sarvodya Vidyalaya (Surhera)

Rao Tularam Rajkiya Sarvodya Vidyalaya (Surhera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Utterly non-notable school, poorly sourced and search finds nothing beyond the usual social media and directory listings. Yet another example as to why educational institutions really should have their own speedy category. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Appears WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing useful found on my WP:Before. Happy to change my vote if somone comes up with some good sources. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, i cant find anything to show the school is notable Alex-h (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Non Notable and search for sourcing came up empty Redoryxx (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable School. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Mahendra Muni Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir Madhupur

Mahendra Muni Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir Madhupur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable school; fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. I previously moved this to drafts, and publication was subsequently rejected at AfC; this is just a recreation (copy & paste?) of the same content yet again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - there doesn't appear to be much else out there other than the school's own website, social media and the usual profile pages on indiscriminate school database websites. I did, however, find a passing mention in the news here. Would support redirect if an appropriate target is available, otherwise, delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable School. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Deaf culture with proper sourcing. Sources that may make the content wp:verifiable are available here and on the article talk page.

There is no consensus to delete the content outright or keep the content standalone. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hearing (person)

Hearing (person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced article that serves no purpose. All people are "hearing persons" unless they are deaf, there is no such term to refer to people that have normal hearing as "hearing persons". We don't have articles on "seeing people", "walking people", or "talking people". Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• You probably could find sources if you looked for them; the academic discourse on disability and especially deafness is weird. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete with fire. "someone whose sense of hearing is at the medical norm" is a made-up definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable topic that is studied at depth in deaf studies. Studies abound on hearing persons and their interactions with those who are deaf, e.g.: 1. Efficiency of a hearing person learning sign language vocabulary from media versus a teacher, 2. Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States, 3. Deaf Parents and Their Hearing Children, 4. Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: Biological constraints and effects of experience, 5. Participation in a Global Hearing Culture: Hearing Mothers’ Translations of Their Childrens’ Deafworlds, 6. Deaf Community Culture components and its relation to Hearing culture. The hearing culture is nearly alien to deaf culture, and doesn't make use of coherent visual communication, and studies of the hearing from a deaf perspective are significant.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  The deaf and hearing divide is different from most other categories (e.g. blind / seeing), as deaf people have their own languages (Sign languages which are totally distinct from the verbal languages of the countries their are based in) and as a result a separate, sometimes closed, culture. This is very different from, say the blind, as while Braille exists it is essentially a font that renders the verbal language. Sign languages have their own distinct written forms (SignWriting, si5s) and the language itself is separate from the regional verbal language (e.g. American Sign Language, Auslan, and British Sign Language are not mutually intelligible).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  A hearing person is a person who can hear. Is this a simple description or is this some specially recognized category in the deaf community or academia? I don't see anything in the articles you've cited that suggests the latter is true. Also, I don't see what your last comment has to do with the topic at hand. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Non-signing hearing cultures (perhaps this BBC piece on the effect of the hearing on the deaf) are distinctly different from deaf cultures. Being able to hear is not a simple description here, as the consequence is that non-signing hearing people use a different medium of communication (voice as oppose to visual) and have different languages and cultures. Hearing people, and their cultures, are the subject of significant study by deaf cultures and the wider deaf studies.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• 'All people are "hearing persons" unless they are deaf'. Right, just like all people are men (unless they are women), all people are adults (unless they are children), and all people are white (unless they are some other race). That is a ridiculous argument. Being the unmarked term does not render a category beyond consideration. Added: Most likely merge to Deaf culture, but it's possible that it could be expanded to an article. What is there at present is an essay without cited sources. A quick search found some sources, which I have listed on the article's talk page. It's not clear whether this topic is notable in and of itself, beyond consideration of Deaf culture, but it is possible. In any case, I would argue that the page be kept in some form, either expanded in its own right or within Deaf culture. Cnilep (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC); amended 08:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Baby hands that move to the rhythm of language: hearing babies acquiring sign languages babble silently on the hands for instance studies hearing babies, contrasting hearing babies that were exposed to speech ("speech exposed") to those who were exposed to sign ("sign exposed"). The "sign exposed" hearing babies exhibited "babbling" behavior with their hands (2.5Hz vs. 1Hz for linguistic activity with hands).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  That is a ridiculous argument. No, it's a solid argument and you just made a bunch of false comparisons. all people are men (unless they are women) its roughly 50-50 all people are adults (unless they are children) 25% of the world's population are children all people are white (unless they are some other race) Most of the world population isn't white. But, almost all people can hear, making this article and your defense of it ridiculous.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that's not a valid argument, but academia definitely wouldn't see it that way. Since we have articles for cissexual and endosex, I see no reason not to have this article, at least as an explanation of an academic concept. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Like Cnilep, I find the nom's argument bizarre. The unmarked ("normal") member of a conceptual opposition doesn't automatically become non-notable just because it's unmarked. This has nothing to do with the relative proportions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Do not delete because it's a valid encyclopedic topic, and sources have already been brought forward. I have no opinion on whether the topic is best treated in an article of its own or as part of another article. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge into Deaf culture per Cnilep's argument. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep. Subject is definitely notable as a term among the deaf community. Erinius (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It is an unsourced essay-like article, at best it could be a paragraph or two at Deaf culture - with references to suitable sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Deaf culture with redirect. It is a reasonable search term, but IMHO doesn't need to be a stand-alone article. --Slashme (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Mohd Syazwan Kassim

Mohd Syazwan Kassim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Alleged two appearances for Kuala Muda are unsourced and I couldn't find a source to verify them. Soccerway and Tribuna are the only reliable databases that list him but there are only a few second tier appearances, nothing more.

Google searches and Malaysian searches came back with nothing about the player. There is clear consensus now that such players must meet WP:GNG to be kept. The player has no ongoing career; there is no reason to believe that they are notable or likely to be notable any time soon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete fails GNG and NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, Fails notability and WP:NFOOTBALL. Alex-h (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Syafiq Rahman

Syafiq Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Taking this to AfD as Syafiq has played 1 min of professional football five years ago but done nothing of note since. The weakest possible passing of WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough when WP:GNG is not met. It is worth noting that Soccerway and Tribuna have no top tier appearances recorded and Playmaker Stats has the one.

Searches of Syafiq Rahman and Syafiq Abdul Rahman brought back only one passing mention in BH. The rest were just the usual database pages and Blogspot pages, which do not count towards notability. Clear consensus that such players aren't notable unless they meet GNG. 1 minute of football isn't enough to ignore that. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Worth adding that he doesn't appear to have an ongoing career and doesn't seem to have played football since 2017. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom, 1 min is by far not enough, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator Fails GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Native Americans in film. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hollywood Indian

Hollywood Indian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reason for this to be separate from Native Americans in film - the article doesn't even spend that long talking about stereotypes! I would also question that there even is one "Hollywood Indian" stereotype - that the article says "the stereotype has undergone significant changes from the beginning of cinema to the present day" is an indication that we are not dealing with one stereotype but several. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Native Americans in film for the same reasons as above. Mukedits (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Native Americans in film. There is plenty of content here that needs merging, not just redirecting. While we don't need two articles on what is essentially the same topic, and the 'Native Americans in film' name is more clear, this really should be just a regular merge discussion, not an AfD listing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Native Americans in film. Notable topic, with solid referencing, but as stated above the two articles are basically on the same topic. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

B-17 Flying Fortress No. 42-29532 Memorial

B-17 Flying Fortress No. 42-29532 Memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Training crashes happened all the time during WW2; this one was no different. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and WP:NOTMEMORIAL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or Draftify There is a slim chance the park is somehow notable, which is the only reason I include draftify as an option. Otherwise doesn't meet GNG. Intothatdarkness 18:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not relevant here; that applies when Wikipedia itself is being used as a memorial. As a physical memorial and memorial park, this falls under WP:NBUILDING: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Since this only has local significance, it does not pass the bar. I suggest that an entry be added to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1943–1944). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

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. There is a clear consensus to keep the article (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Alycia Pascual-Peña

Alycia Pascual-Peña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Simply, fails WP:NACTOR. Doesn't also appear to pass the GNG. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The article already cites profiles of this actress in sources including Entertainment Weekly, Teen Vogue, and Vulture.com. That would seem to cover the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as I believe Moxie and the Saved by the Bell remake are both notable productions and she has had leading roles in both, i.e. "significant roles in multiple notable" per WP:ENT. I don't know whether complex.com is a reliable source but this article contains biographical details as well as an interview. There are over 240 matches for "Alycia Pascual-Peña" on NewsBank - I've glanced over a couple of dozen of them, many of which are incidental mentions or focus on the productions rather than her specifically, but there does seem to be plenty to support additional content in the article if it's kept. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As per all meets WP:NACTOR as her role is notable for well known notable productions. Zackdasnicker (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Tom Windle (baseball)

Tom Windle (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There was some strangeness regarding PRODs and redirects in late 2020, so bringing this to AfD - no issue if this is redirected. I agree with the PROD: non-notable minor league baseball player, fails WP:NBASE/WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable minor league player. Can be restored if he is ever called up.-- Yankees10 17:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't meet any of the WP:NBASE criteria. And other than being traded around by some teams, not many sources about him to meet WP:GNG. Agree with Yankees10 to be restored if he ever reaches the majors. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 00:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Only articles about him are trades and college statistics. If he plays games in the majors in the future the article can be restored.WP:TOOSOON. Mukedits (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Coverage is passing mention in transfers and databases, nothing at all demonstrating GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Kepler 1606

Kepler 1606 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. No published papers primarily this star or a small number of stars including this one. No lay coverage. See also Kepler-1606b, the only English Wikipedia page that links to this one. Lithopsian (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I made a very minor English correction today that doesn't affect the suitability for deletion, about which I have no opinion. Athel cb (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2016. The star itself is non-notable per WP:NASTRO and lack of studies. The planet article at Kepler-1606b is probably also non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see the point of making an AfD for the star separately. If the exoplanet is notable, the consensus is to merge with it. If the exoplanet is not notable, both should be deleted. In this particular case, there only two papers that mention the exoplanet [6][7], and only in a big list, so both articles should be deleted. Tercer (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just nominated the exoplanet for deletion. I deliberately didn't bundle them in the same discussion to avoid the situation of one being notable and the other not leading to a confused outcome, and also because I wasn't sure about the notability of the exoplanet. Now I guess we'll find out. Lithopsian (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I know it's more work for you, but it would be better for everybody else if you researched the notability of both before bringing the matter to AfD; then either the planet is notable and the articles can be merged, avoiding AfD altogether, or both should be nominated in a bundle. Tercer (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable star with non-notable exoplanet. Tercer (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lithopsian and Tercer.PopePompus (talk)

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) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Alex DiBranco

Alex DiBranco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Regular academic without doing anything significant, possibly pursuing Doctorate as it appears from this source. Fails to pass WP:NACADEMIC.Chirota (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• weak Delete fails WP:NPROF. she has written two books one book chapter and a paper that have no citations so far on GS and no reviews on JSTOR. So far notability it not evident, her other publications are for a think tank and not an academic journal and this website describes her as a PhD candidate. However, she is mentioned in 20+ news segments including reputable newspapers (Chicago Tribune, Guardian etc), however none of them are about her but interviews about her work / current events so I would say she still fails WP:GNG at this point. --hroest 18:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. With only single-digit numbers of publications and numbers of citations per publication in Google Scholar, her citation record is not enough for WP:PROF#C1. I don't know what the "two books" mentioned above might be (her Yale profile lists only shorter selected publications) but with no book reviews there is no case for WP:AUTHOR. And there seems no other claim to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• sorry, I fixed that above. She did write a book chapter and a paper according to GS. --hroest 19:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - too few citations to pass WP:NPROF, and the occasional press interview is inadequate to meet the GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Normally I avoid disciplines that aren't well-suited to Scopus citation metrics, but this case was clear enough from just a brief glance at her GS cites and (lack of) JSTOR hits. Way, way too soon. JoelleJay (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. This is too soon for NPROF, and she doesn't meet GNG.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as others have said. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Khari Waithe-Alexander

Khari Waithe-Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't read The Southern articles in the article, but a newspapers.com search brings up precious little and he's not mentioned significantly in any other papers apart from being listed as an underclassman who declared for the draft. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Chirota (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. My searches also fail to turn up SIGCOV required to pass under GNG. And his collegiate accomplishments (as reported here) do not bring him within NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH; playing Southern Illinois Salukis football doesn't attract notability. The Southern Illinoisan is the Carbondale local paper so it wouldn't establish WP:SIGCOV by itself anyway. --Closeapple (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs)
• Delete. Coverage isn't in depth enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ebun Feludu

Ebun Feludu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:GNG or any known notability criteria. A before search fails to turn up anything concrete. All I could observe were unreliable sources such as this, this & this all of which are unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, the references are no way near WP:SIGCOV. Chirota (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Unreliable sources. 81.131.132.199 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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. On the basis of a lack of SIGCOV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Tyler Williams (soccer)

Tyler Williams (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The NASL was technically fully professional, but he played only 200 minutes in 8 appearances, mostly as a sub. The only sources are to Soccerway and the team's website, and I can't find any other WP:GNG-qualifying coverage - all I can find is transactional agate. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - meets NFOOTBALL by some way. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• That doesn't really matter - the NASL wasn't the best covered league in the world and from what I can tell, he doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with SF here. 200 mins of WP:NFOOTBALL isn't enough when GNG isn't met. In my own search, I found a couple of YouTube videos where he is interviewed and then some minor mentions on the NASL's own website, like this, I have no doubt that SF already did a much more comprehensive WP:BEFORE search than me. This article, in its current form, is just synthesised from the bare minimum stats coverage and there's no indication that it can be meaningfully expanded in any way from the sources available. I'll happily change my vote if significant coverage is brought to the discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant coverage about the subject so he fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete despite passing WP:NFOOTY there does not appear to be any significant coverage of the individual, and they appear to fail WP:GNG. Additionally, as the player appears retired from the sport, they are unlikely to re-attain that presumption of notability. Since GNG ostensibly takes precedence over NFOOTY, I think deletion is the more clear decision. Jay eyem (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. GNG is the relevant criterion at AfD, not NFOOTY, and SIGCOV has not been demonstrated whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

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. No delete !votes apart from mine, and the sources added to the article demonstrate WP:GNG is likely met. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

West End AFC

West End AFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A PROD was removed in 2017 since the club technically has played in the New Zealand cup. Coverage I found included a local league write up [8] and another local write up featuring their reserve team [9] but both are WP:ROUTINE and so the article fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - playing in the national cup is a general guideline to notability. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, but the discussions going on over at WP:NSPORT continue to demonstrate that articles can/should be deleted if WP:GNG isn't met. New Zealand isn't a country where sources would be unavailable, either - they might exist, I might have missed them, but I certainly can't find them. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• NSPORT doesn't apply to sports teams, see WP:NTEAM. GiantSnowman 11:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• NSPORT specifically says Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline. WP:FOOTYN says Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, teams are required to meet the general notability guideline. The following guidance may indicate at what level teams generally have enough coverage to meet the GNG. Therefore, a "general guideline" just means "likely meets GNG," but I don't think this particular team does meet the GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - It is just a matter of knowing where to find the sources, I have done a bit of a decent update of the page around their Chatham Cup history using a couple of Football Project reliable sources in RSSSF and the Ultimate NZ Soccer website. There will probably be more Stuff write-ups as well. I have added some already, as well as from the Otago Daily Times.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Found all the following that can be added into the article as well. I will try and read through and add what I can at a later point from the below.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 09:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/103869270/defending-champions-west-end-undefeated-in-south-canterbury-football-league
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/97072453/coaching-not-about-the-accolades-for-west-ends-damian-gawne
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/95958423/west-end-increase-competition-lead-with-tight-victory-over-northern-hearts
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/96464043/west-end-secure-first-south-canterbury-football-league-title-in-18-years
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/94279047/west-end-earn-bragging-rights-in-table-topping-battle-with-northern-hearts
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/91105414/karens-cox-trophy-returns-to-west-end-after-son-bags-double-in-win
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/96201024/northern-hearts-and-west-end-keep-league-chances-alive-with-victory
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/97035067/west-ends-tyler-cox-and-roncallithistles-ruby-anderson-scoop-major-football-awards
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/91909580/west-end-too-clinical-for-cross-town-rivals-thistle-in-chatham-cup-qualifier
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/92299373/daniel-campbell-double-sinks-timaru-boys-high-as-west-end-win-league-thriller
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/91005264/west-end-out-to-win-back-karen-cox-trophy-in-timaru-city-clash
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/94049031/west-end-deliver-cox-perfect-birthday-gift-with-win-over-timaru-boys
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/92123012/womens-footballers-back-scoring-goals-at-west-end-football-club
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/96573359/west-ends-connor-allnutt-completes-successful-transition-to-goalkeeper
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/84085852/west-end-and-meadowbank-to-clash-for-south-canterbury-cup

Most of the Otago Daily times ones are more passing mentions but carry result information

• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/three-cup-games-anzac-day
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/abandoned-match-after-injury-be-replayed
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/eight-teams-cup-ties
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/tech-drawn-meet-rovers
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/football-major-southern-clashes-first-round
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/first-blood-minnows-top-teams-prevail
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/head-clash-takes-gloss-queenstowns-win

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) 00:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

GeorgeNotFound

GeorgeNotFound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Youtube who is mentioned in various articles about the Minecraft community, but I'm not see sufficient depth-of-coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO criteria. The TechTimes article used as a reference in the article is more about him being banned for an unusual reason (harassing himself via an alt account) than anything else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment:, the article in question was previously a redirect and was being discussed here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_15#GeorgeNotFound.JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This article is a stub, with very few information, and it is not marked as one. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Burgundian Feudalism:, stub classifications do not matter in AfD debates, as we only care about notability. Similarily, an article may have a million cleanup tags, but if it is notable (meets WP:GNG), then it is kept. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, but there are barely any information in this article. Compare that to an article on Dream. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Burgundian Feudalism No one prevents you from tagging it as a stub while the article being discussed here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. After taking a good look at the sources, there isn't much if any significant, reliable, independent coverage of this particular person. Also of note is the recreation of this article 7 times (3 CSD'ed, 4 via usurp the redirect). Serious salt should be applied. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 18:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Search results talk more about his proclivity to getting banned than about him and those that are about him are not WP:RS. –Fredddie™ 18:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is mostly just fancruft and WP:BLP violations (personal life only containing something about color blindness). This article also appears to have been recreated many times, so I'm going to recommend WP:SALT as well. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - having searched, I haven't found significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so I believe that the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above (seems to be a bit WP:TOOSOON), but don't WP:SALT. Instead convert back into a REDIRECT to Dream (YouTuber)#Career as a "related topic", redirecting to an article on a YouTuber whom this individual's notability stems from. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete There has been no significant coverage of this person, unlike Dream (YouTuber), I think that the redirect should be deleted to avoid allowing the recreation of the article to bypass AfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • While I am personally against keeping the redirect, you could only do it by having it have Extended Confirmed protection, and then have this article incubate in draft space (so it gets submitted to AfC). JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 12:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per above, nowhere near enough high quality sourcing to write a BLP, repeatedly recreated and deleted. Any attempt at writing an article should go through AFC. I oppose redirecting to Dream (YouTuber), as the entire coverage of GeorgeNotFound there consists of In a video from January 2020, Dream and another YouTuber, GeorgeNotFound, connected an Arduino board to an electric dog collar which emitted an electric shock whenever a player lost health in the game Minecraft, which is nowhere near enough content IMO to justify redirecting to another youtuber. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. A redirect won't do since this is not a case of WP:INHERIT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: per above. No reliable sources. I believe this shouldn't revert back to a redirect. Although Dream makes content with George, this shouldn't be redirected to Dream. Edl-irishboy (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Fails WP:GNG. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and partcipating in this discussion! Missvain (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Vladyslav Yeromenko

Vladyslav Yeromenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Discovered when going through notability tags. I'm not super familiar with the boxing SNG but that doesn't matter since this article fails WP:GNG, it's sourced only to a statistics website and I cannot find any significant coverage in English or Ukrainian in a WP:BEFORE search which would demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: I could only find passing mentions of results in English and nothing in Ukrainian. – ².O.^Boxing 10:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Apart from the arguments above, the subject does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NBOXING. Nsk92 (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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. Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Mati Zata

Mati Zata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Discovered this article while going through articles tagged with the sports notability guideline. Zata played 21 minutes over 3 games in the Scottish League One, which is two divisions below the only fully professional division in Scotland (he did have eight cup appearances with four starts over three years), and has been released by Dumbarton and is currently without a club, failing WP:NFOOTY. There has been some local coverage of him mostly as a pre-debut youngster, so I didn't PROD this in case there's an argument he meets WP:GNG, but I also don't think that's met. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant as above. RockOften (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. Sonofstar (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Has not played at a high enough level either at Dumbarton or Dundee United, where he only played in Challenge Cup ties, to meet notability standards. Dunarc (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Lovitt Records

Lovitt Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

advertisement masqueraded as an article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Recording labels/companies do not fall under WP:NBAND, but rather NCORP, so appears according to a most recent discussion on this matter at WT:Notability#Appropriate_SNG_for_record_labels/recording_companies and there seems to be no overruling sustained consensus that it should be evalutated otherwise. Graywalls (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. There is this and this, but they do not amount to significant coverage. Mukedits (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note that a new editor has added these and other sources to the article. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I do not know any of these bands, but if any have significant accomplishments, then perhpahs this label should be kept. The way it is, it doesn't appear so. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note that several of the bands have significant accomplishments. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me why deletion (i.e., redlinking) would be preferable to merging into the page for Dischord Records, this (genuinely influential) label's distributor. There is encyclopedic value in being able to interlink, and thereby show a relationship, between The Mercury Program, Division of Laura Lee, Engine Down, and the myriad other bands associated with each other by the fact of having all been signed to this label. Chubbles (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete the article is about a non notable independent label, plus it heavily lacks sources. --K. Peake 11:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note, the article no longer heavily lacks sources. Another editor, who has not weighed in at this AfD, has added a large number of new sources to the article. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Given the recent activity shoring up this article, I am changing my !vote to Keep, as the article now demonstrates independent notability such that merging is no longer a better option. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

comment Chicago Tribune, Chicago Reader, and Washignton City Paper, Paste Magazine, Indy Week are not significant coverage. As for DCist, Multiple coverage by the same journalist/publication is considered one source, and this source is not independent since much of the contents is based on interview with Lovitt. In order to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, there must be significantly, intellectually independent, secondary coverage in multiple sources and thus far, this article fails this criteria. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - according to [10], the label was featured in magazine Punk Planet, pages 58-61, no. 23, March-April 1998. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Further comment - [11] indicates the label is long-established as important to the Washington D.C. music scene. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  comment ok, although I'm not seeing what amounts to significant coverage in the context of WP:SIRS. The coverage needs to be significant, intellectually independent, reliable and secondary (does not include "dependent" secondary); and there must be multiple such sources to satisfy the absolute minimum requirements of NCORP. It's possible that Punk news could be too narrow of a focus for WP:AUD satisfaction and it could be an industry magazine? (see ORGIND). Graywalls (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  I reiterate, as you do to the contrary, that I do not believe NCORP is the most appropriate standard for record labels, as NMUSIC #5 has been the lonstanding precedent. NMUSIC #5 is very clearly met in this case, but I also do not believe it the only notability standard that should be considered. The mentioned disussion was very poorly attended and did not include editors familiar with the topic area. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Personally, I believe that WP:ORG and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH are the perfect examples of where WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP has overrun common sense. As far as I am concerned, WP:ORG should simply now not be used, ever, and we have to evaluate notability of organizations directly based on WP:GNG. However, in this case, the sources given in the article are too weak to support the kind of significant coverage addressing the subject directly and in detail that WP:GNG requires. The only possible exception is the DCist ref[12]. However, that's an interview with the label's producer and we generally consider interviews as not counting towards notability. The other possible source (not currently cited in the article) is the 1998 Punk Planet piece mentioned by 78.26 above. I found this source online[13] and it turns out to also be an interview. All the other sources that I could see provide coverage that is either too brief or too indirect or both. I don't think there is a plausible case for passing WP:GNG here. Regarding the WP:NMUSIC argument, I am somewhat sympathetic to it (and I don't view the talk-page discussion reference above [14] as establishing any sort of consensus on the matter). But until and unless there is a more clear determination of whether and how WP:NMUSIC may be applicable to music labels, e.g. via an RfC, I think we have to assume that it doesn't, particularly based on WP:NOTINHERITED principle. In particular, I really can't see how NMUSIC #5 (a criterion which talks about a band's records being released by a major label) could possibly apply to a record label itself. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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. Appears to fail WP:NORG and WP:GNG (Artist doesn't really make sense to compare, FYI.) Missvain (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The Centre of Attention

The Centre of Attention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable – I can't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: I added a couple of references after the recent PROD but being one of 49 groups presented in a curated show does not seem sufficient for WP:ARTIST notability. Their earlier Viva la republique show gets mentioned in career lists of other participants, but that would fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. Unless more can be found, this fails WP:NORG / WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. The entity exists but does not appear to be encyclopedic (NORG/GNG fail). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Hank the Cowdog. After two relists, there is still a weak consensus to not keep the article. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Drover's Secret Life

Drover's Secret Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lack of notability, was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate. As it stands, the article relies on a Google books entry of the book itself, and an entry on Fantastic Fiction, a database of fiction novels. Waxworker (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect, to Hank the Cowdog , per WP:PLOT. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Gentle Angels School

Gentle Angels School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced article that has horrid writing style as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Zero coverage in reliable sources; fails the GNG. The writing style is sufficiently promotional that a G11 might be possible. No redirect target is apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Del per nom. Article history dates its creation in 2011, with an unencyclopedic, narrative, and seemingly promotional tone with the original intent of promoting the school (IMO), thus violated WP:PROMOTIONAL. It was later fixed but still didn't address the issue on lack of references, and at some point it was tagged with Notability template but someone seemed to have removed this tag. Up to now, no references and no sufficient evidence of coverage by independent and reliable sources. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Blessed Hope Christian Academy

Blessed Hope Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A non-notable school. SBKSPP (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and above. HouseBlaster^talk 16:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Missvain (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

P. Terry's

P. Terry's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Logs: 2017-05 move to → P. Terry's Burger Stand, 2015-02 ✗ G11

• Weak delete: mostly cited to promotional materials from the company, no significant coverage outside of local media and the Daily Beast. If other susbstantial coverage in independent reputable sources is found, it could stay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, coverage limited to press-releases and their rewrites about business-as-usual except Daily Beast's coverage but that's not so much about the company but about how its labor practices are different from some bigger competitors. Not enough to make the company notable IMHO. The source and fact could be reused somewhere in the article about labor practices in the USA, and that's really the only place the company deserves a mention in an encyclopedia, if at all. Nothing encyclopedic here, just a business listing. WP:CORPSPAM... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

James Manyika

James Manyika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Business executive does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from McKinsey & Company management consultancy. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• He is notable in his own right because of the work he has done. While McKinsey provides a platform, Manyika seems to be a big figure in current thought around technology, automation, and the future of work, in a way that can't be blamed solely on his position. The New York Times brought him in to speak on the topic, and he's often interviewed on subjects in that area. Moreover, I'm pretty sure he meets point 3 under WP:AUTHOR just for his work on the recent Race in the Workplace report, which isn't even in his main field. He played a major role in writing it, the report is significant, and it has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles. GenomeFan92 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create

• Keep - I'm supporting the keep of this article as the subject is regularly featured as a subject matter expert in major news publications, as mentioned by GenomeFan92. That works for me as passing WP:GNG. Saying you can't work for a business and represent that business in decent media coverage is sort of irrelevant. It would be like saying a Michelin-starred chef who gets interviewed about food a lot is not relevant enough to have her own article because the interviews always mention she owns the famous restaurant. Missvain (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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 and redirect to Emotes. {{R from plural}}. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Emotes

Emotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject lacks notability at this stage, with reliable sources neither cited nor discoverable through a quick online search. Possible conflict of interest, as page creator and major contributor both appear to be single-purpose accounts. Meticulo (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

and also posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Children's_literature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meticulo (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to emote as {{R from plural}}. Current article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. I can't find anything out there to establish how this series meets NBOOK or GNG. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Millward Brown

Millward Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The appropriate guideline for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP. While there are a lot of references listed in this article, none meet the criteria for establishing notability as they either fail WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Logs: 2009-04 ✗ G11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment These three sources perhaps together perhaps satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, [15] (detailed coverage in local newspaper), [16] (detailed coverage in national newspaper), [17] (three pages of critical commentary about one of their products). I used to work for them many years ago so I'll not vote in this discussion, although this isn't a topic I can get particularly excited about.----Pontificalibus 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 11:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

List of South East Coast Ambulance Service stations

List of South East Coast Ambulance Service stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page seems far too much like a directory and seems to be completely unsourced (there is one link provided which is broken). I don't think a list article like this provides any value. Elshad (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - even if this list were sourced and included in the parent article it wouldn't add any significant encyclopaedic value. --10mmsocket (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are no sources cited other than the service's own web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing more than a list of linked towns. No sources, no notability. Ajf773 (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Port of Tyne#Police forces. Thank you User:Ninetyone for merging the appropriate information! Missvain (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Tyne Improvement Commission Docks and Piers Police

Tyne Improvement Commission Docks and Piers Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Possible WP:ATD would be a merge to River Tyne Police, but I'm not sure it is worth adding. Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge (to keep the redirect categorised) to Tyne Improvement Commission - the police force was a department of the Commission and did not have an existence independent from the Commission. The River Tyne Police were a separate body maintained by a separate public body, until they took over the responsibility for the duties of the TIC Police. ninety:one 18:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Port of Tyne. As the creator many years ago, I can't see any value to Wikipedia in deleting information, but I don't have a big problem with a merger. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge per Ninetyone. Mccapra (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge assuming User:Ninetyone can covert the current general ref into footnote for verifiability? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The one ref on there looks verifiable but it is deep in a National Archives store somewhere. I've added some refreshed content to Port of Tyne#Police forces using a WP:RS I have verified - the article is ready to be redirected to Port of Tyne#Police forces now. (I've also significantly expanded River Tyne Police while I was at it, for which far more RSes exist.) ninety:one 17:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Missvain (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Muhammad Bahadur Khan Tanoli

Muhammad Bahadur Khan Tanoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Had been deprodeed, originally in the Lead only presented as a father. None of the given sources are verifiable, WP:BEFORE gives several results for Bahadur Khan, a common name obviously, nothing which points to the subject CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion include the History and Ruling class of India and History of Hazara.Talk User talk:MbIam9416

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Logs: 2021-04 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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. There is consensus that there are valid grounds to delete (criteria 4 under deletion policy, per the promotional content. No consensus on notability should the article be rewritten and recreated. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Neil Lazarus

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Neil Lazarus
• Articles for deletion/Neil Lazarus (2nd nomination)

Neil Lazarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Extensive conflict of interest in the creation of the page; notability seems low Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

keep the article needs to be completely re-written WP:TNT but there seems to be enough coverage in RS to meet WP:GNG. --hroest 00:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm concerned that I was unable to verify any of the sources in the article, which otherwise look like they ought to be verifiable. I'll point out that there's another Neil Lazarus (b. 1953) in post-colonial studies who shows some signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Lazarus does appear to have clips of relevant sources on his website FYI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I am concerned that it seems like the article has included promotional language since its creation (possibly self-promotional), and by the great amount of promotional content one has to sift through in order to find relevant sources. It makes it harder to assess the sources that do exist. My hunch is that there's a marginal case for notability here, but I'm not sure where I land yet... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. So heavily promotional that it could be a case for WP:CSD#G11, it is not obvious that any of the sources present in the article are in-depth, neutral, reliable, and independent, and good sources were also not obvious in searching. I'm not convinced that he doesn't pass WP:GNG, but I'm also not convinced that he does, and in any case WP:TNT applies to the current text. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Udwadia–Kalaba equation

Udwadia–Kalaba equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It strains credulity that one would invent a new method for dealing with constrained motion in classical mechanics in 1992. Indeed, a peer-reviewed comment [18] (mentioned in the talk page) on the original paper says that they are just reinventing the wheel. It also does not seem notable. There are two references that are not by the authors themselves [19][20]; they are absolutely fawning, but I call into question their reliability. One is published in the European Journal of Physics, a borderline journal, and the other in the Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering. I'm not familiar with this latter journal, but it's not where I would expect a revolutionary new method in classical physics to be reviewed.

Also, the article was largely written by the IP users 68.181.88.3 (talk), 207.151.58.242 (talk), and 76.169.152.33 (talk), which all geolocate to where the authors are based. Originally it was written in a very promotional way, but other users toned it down. Tercer (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator I would like to withdraw this nomination, as the source found by RainerBlome, together with the others already present, suffices to establish notability. It appears that I'm not allowed to do so, however, by WP:WDAFD, because other editors have supported the nomination. I would appreciate though if they would reconsider their !votes based on the new source "Flexible Multibody Dynamics". Tercer (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete In the absence of better sources evaluating whether there is anything sufficiently novel here, we shouldn't have an article about it. It sure looks like the wheel has been reinvented; at the very least, we need better documentation to the effect that it hasn't. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep We have what looks to be three admissible references now: two papers (with overlapping author lists) and a section in a textbook. That might be enough to scrape by, though I'm not convinced that the available coverage gets us beyond the "section in an article on a broader topic" level. XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree, Wikipedia would be better served having this material as a section in a larger article about constrained system. But (a) I searched for a bit, and couldn't find an article into which it would fit and (b) If the article doesn't violate Wikipedia policy and there's an editor interested in maintaining it, we should live and let live. Tercer (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment the EJP is nowhere near borderline. That specific article may not rise to make it notable, but EJP isn't a journal for crazies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection of seeing some pretty bad papers in EJP. But a vague recollection is not good enough, and I don't want to research further, so I'll defer to your judgment and strike out that comment. Note that it shares a couple of authors with the paper in the Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering. Tercer (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There's bad papers in pretty much every journal. EJP isn't immune to that, but Nature also had bad papers in it. Anyway, the general point of this not being mainstream is still valid even if there's one paper claiming otherwise. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Note the existing, non-formal deletion discussion at Talk:Udwadia–Kalaba equation#Non-notable and suggest deletion.

I repeat point 8 from there: My understanding is that the defining novel element is the use of the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse.

Regarding "reinventing the wheel": The letter said "a rearrangement of known facts". In my understanding, the method is not a "rearrangement", it is a combination of known methods, producing a new method with very different properties than the established methods. If the method is new indeed, I call this an advancement. It is not "reinventing the wheel", it is "inventing a new kind of wheel".

The method is notable in my view because it is a basic and broadly applicable technique in its field.

If you claim that the method is not novel, please provide a reference to where it was already established.

If a review is fawning, it may be because the review author is close to the inventor. Yet, it may also be because the reviewed item is actually better in some regards than what was available before. Has anyone actually read any of the reviews in their entirety and can actually judge their quality?

As an aside, note that Udwadia and Kalaba did not call the method after their names, others did that.

Yes, it surprises me a bit too, that something this apparently basic should have been devised only in the nineties. But keep in mind that the pseudoinverse is relatively new, and that application of the pseudoinverse has only become economical since the widespread availability of computers.

My guess is also that the established alternative methods of solving the equations of motion are firmly entrenched in the education pipeline. This has two effects: Little motivation to look for new methods (why invent a new one?) and making it difficult to establish new methods (why learn a new one?).

Also, for computation in general and specialized areas in particular, new mathematical methods are being invented all the time, and as far as I'm concerned this is a specialized area. In this regard, the method is in good company.

--RainerBlome (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What matters are what the reliable sources are saying, you have given none. What we have here is support from a single research group, this is way too little, specially compared to the extraordinarity of the claim: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Constrained motion in classical mechanics is taught at pretty much every university on the undergraduate level; heck I was taught that in my undergrad! If a great new method had been invented in 1992 shouldn't it be mentioned in a couple of textbooks by now? Or at least awakened more widespread interest? Or at least someone other than the authors would have bothered to write an Wikipedia article about it?

The Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse is nothing new: about a century old if you count by the original discovery, and about seven decades if you count by the rediscovery. It's also the obvious thing you would try if you wanted to generalise the inverse: keep the kernel as it is, and do the inverse in the range. Tercer (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Would it improve Wikipedia if this article is deleted? I argue that deleting would harm WP.

Deletion is a last-resort measure, if the article is not salvageable.

The reliability of existing references has been explicitly questioned. That needs evidence, which I do not see. There are at least two non-U-K sources, "European Journal of Physics" and "Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering". The claim that EJP is "borderline" has been contested already.

The CJME journal is published by Springer. From my observation, in particular the Springer publications available to me, Springer publications are very reliable sources. So none of these sources has been shown to be unreliable.

If the article needs better references, let us add them.

Has anyone actually clicked on the links provided in the notice box "This article is being considered for deletion"?

Clicking on the JSTOR link yields nothing, because JSTOR is too dense to understand the em-dash in the link. Remove the em-dash and you get some results.

Clicking on Google scholar yields 583 results (I mean the number at the top of the result page). Those are all, I think, by *other* authors referring to U&K (since they themselves did not call the method after their names). By the way, searching for "Udwadia–Kalaba equation" would not yield better results, because citations use the words "equation", "approach", "control", "dynamic", "formulation", "method", "theory" exchangably.

So yes, within the scientific community the topic appears notable to me.

> The Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse is nothing new

I just meant that as basic as the U-K method may seem, it could not have been discovered earlier than the pseudoinverse. But we are not talking about the pseudoinverse itself here, we are talking about a possibly novel use of it.

I quote to the response of U&K to the criticism by Bucy:

"We have carefully gone through the references cited in Bucy (1994) and nowhere have we found the close connection between generalized inverses and constrained motion as described in our paper."

> If a great new method had been invented in 1992 shouldn't it be mentioned in a couple of textbooks by now?

Yes, it should, but it does not have to be. Whether a method is "great" (your wording) depends on your requirements. I can imagine all kinds of reasons why this is not taught more widely.

"Can be found in a couple of textbooks" is is my view not a requirement for Wikipedia inclusion. Requiring this would instantly put a lot of valuable articles in jeopardy.

Note that the first reference in the article *is* a textbook, by U&K themselves (so it is not independent), "Analytical dynamics: a new approach", published by Cambridge University Press, which I consider reliable. According to Google Scholar, it has been cited 550 times. Not too shabby.

I know of no independent textbook.

It would not be the first time that people take their time adopting new ideas. Compare Grassmann algebra. Also see Clarke's three laws, especially "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

--RainerBlome (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - The subject is not sufficiently acknowledged in the literature. Not yet notable. Moreover, the claim that this is a new method needs strong evidence/documentation. --SimoneD89 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding notability, see above.

Regarding novelty: Novelty can't be proven, only disproven. So no, it is the other way around: Claims of plagiarism and non-novelty need strong evidence. As far as I can see, there has only been a single attempt to disprove the novelty, the letter by Bucy. U&K have responded to this, see above. --RainerBlome (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I confirm my vote because of the notability guidelines. I don't see enough secondary/tertiary, independent, and reliable (i.e. published in reasonable journals + have an acceptable number of citations) sources. If it is a recognized method, it should be simple to find sources or chapters in classical mechanics textbooks. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether the method is new or not. The argument was that since we are talking about a new method of an old and very established theory, one expects to see more evidence (i.e. reliable sources) that shows the acknowledgment in the literature. --SimoneD89 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree that it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether the method is new or not. Please note that the deletion proposal brought this up, and to me it sounded as if you supported pursuing this. I'm glad if we can drop this aspect.

First, please note that "A New Perspective on Constrained Motion" has been cited over 400 times. Yes, that's a primary source, but I want you to be aware of this. I think this is an indication of notability, if not of reliability.

Second, the U&K textbook itself is a secondary source. It has been cited 550 times. Yes, that's not an independent source, but I want you to be aware that the number of citations does lend credibility to the work and some notability to the article topic discussed here, because the article topic is the main point of the work.

Third, above I have already linked to the Google Scholar page that lists over 500 citations of "Udwadia-Kalaba" by other authors. About one hundred of those sources have been cited a dozen times or more. Several have been cited more than a hundred times. This is strong indication that we are not in fringe land here.

Fourth, take for example "Analytical Mechanics: A Comprehensive Treatise on the Dynamics of Constrained Systems" by John G Papastavridis (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=papastavridis+%22Analytical+Mechanics%3A+A+Comprehensive+Treatise+on+the+Dynamics+of+Constrained+Systems+%22&btnG=).

To me, this is a secondary source. It cites the U&K textbook three times, and cites three of U&K's articles. According to Google scholar, this secondary source has been cited 256 times. Reliable enough?

--RainerBlome (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, finally, that's what I've been asking for, a reliable source! Let's look at it, shall we? The author is a professor of mechanical engineering [21], it's not a coauthor of Udwadia and Kalaba, and the book has been published by Oxford University Press, so it does count as independent and reliable. The citation number you gave is not for the book, it's for a review; the book itself has 21 citations [22], but that doesn't matter, we don't use citation count to establish reliability. But the important thing is, what does it say about the Udwadia-Kalaba equation? Well, I got the book from the Russians, and the answer is, nothing. I doesn't even cite the paper where Udwadia-Kalaba introduced their method. The mentions in the text are all to the textbook, there are three: For further details, see books on computational/multibody dynamics; for example, Nikravesh (1988), Udwadia and Kalaba (1996).., also for Gauss' principle, in particular, see, for example, Udwadia and Kalaba (1996). and See, for example, Girtler (1928), Lilov and Lorer (1982), Lilov (1984), Vujanovic and Jones (1989, chap 7; this also contains a ‘‘complementary’’ formulation of Gauss' principle where the accelerations are kept fixed and the impressed forces are varied), and Udwadia and Kalaba (1996).

This is pretty damming for the notability of the Udwadia-Kalaba equation. Even a textbook that cites the authors completely ignores it. Tercer (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

My impression here is that "only the strictest standards are good enough". I disagree, see below. Whoever did it at the time, it was damaging to put those promotional passages in the article, but that issue has been at least mostly solved. I'd say the article content is neutral enough. Do you agree?

(EDIT: Yes, page views can not establish notability, I know that. Wikipedia:Pageview_statistics But they do give us an indication of what to expect.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainerBlome (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Before we continue our search for better references, please note that the article has hundreds of page views per month. In the period between 2015-07 and 2021-03, there have been over 50 000 page views attributed to users (as opposed to visits by web spiders and other automated clients). https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&start=2015-07&end=2021-03&pages=Udwadia%E2%80%93Kalaba_equation

I did a little experiment. I clicked nine times on "Random article" and added all those to the page view tool query: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&start=2015-07&end=2021-03&pages=Udwadia%E2%80%93Kalaba_equation%7CKonrad_Wolf_Prize%7CW%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_K%C4%99dra%7CRay_Terzynski%7CJes%C3%BAs_Esperanza_(cyclist)%7CThe_Little_Emperors%7CLiuji_Township,_Henan%7C2011%E2%80%9312_West_Coast_Conference_women%27s_basketball_season%7COakton%E2%80%93Skokie_station%7CMicrocotyle_furcata

This experiment gives an impression of the level of page views for random articles, and by extension of the level of notability that these articles have. Yes, I think that we *can* (but don't have to) honor page views as an indication of notability. We do this here for *our* readers, not for the authors and readers of secondary sources. If an article is often viewed, it means that readers *want* a good article at that address. If we delete such an article, we are sending them away and telling them "What you are looking for was not good enough to let you read it" (or improve it).

The article deletion process says to also use common sense. Common sense says: Wikipedia is good the way it is. Yes, not every part of it is good, and yes, every part could be better, but it is already good as whole. In particular, Wikipedia does *not* primarily suffer from too many articles. It does suffer from bad articles, but this is not one of them.

As far as I can see, the point of the U&K textbook is to thoroughly expound the method. Do you agree with this? If an author cites a textbook, they *note* the textbook. They note that the book says something and they implicitly say that it's worth noting this. So yes, they found the textbook to be notable. They don't have to reiterate the content.

There may also be economy at work here: The primary sources are freely available, and there seems to be a dedicated textbook available. Both of these shrink the market for other secondary sources, which may explain why we have not found better others so far.

--RainerBlome (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed reference: The first entry of the Google Scholar page for "A new perspective on constrained motion" is "Flexible Multibody Dynamics" ISBN 978-94-007-0335-3, a textbook by Olivier A. Bauchau, published by Springer, making it reliable. It lists this in the table of contents:

11.2.7 Udwadia and Kalaba’s formulation, p. 444;

11.2.8 Comparison of the ODE formulations, p.445.

Section 11.2.7 exclusively describes the U-K method, on about one page. It references several of U&K's primary sources, using them to illustrate the primary authors' development of the subject. https://archive.org/details/flexiblemultibod00bauc_818/page/n467/mode/2up?wrapper=false&view=theater&q=Udwadia

Section 11.2.8 compares the method to other ordinary differential equation (ODE) methods covered in earlier sections.

Quoting the comparison section: "Udwadia's and Kalaba's formulation presents a number of advantages over the other formulations. The Moore-Penrose generalized inverse ... always exists whereas the other formulations require a full rank constraint matrix. ... U–K ... is capable of dealing with ... rank deficient constraint matrix ... such as those involving redundant constraints."

This is analysis and evaluation of the primary sources, making it a secondary source.

I have not found an easy way to check if Bauchau is independent of U&K, but my impression is that he is. Any help appreciated.

--RainerBlome (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, this is a good source. It is a textbook, published by a reputable company, the guy is a professor of engineering [23], and I checked his list of publications, he is not a coauthor of Udwadia and Kalaba. This establishes that it is reliable and independent. Now, the crucial thing, it actually talks about the subject, unlike the other source you gave. It reviews the Udwadia-Kalaba formulation, compares it to another method, and says it's good stuff. There you have it, notability is established, I'll withdraw the nomination for deletion. The article should be renamed, though, as the subject is not an equation, and it is not referred to as such, but a method, or formulation. I propose "Udwadia-Kalaba formulation", following this source. Tercer (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for checking the author. Yes, the word "equation" is less than ideal here, which is why I have systematically used other words. I agree that "Udwadia–Kalaba formulation" would be better. "Formalism" might be an alternative, but "formulation" seems to be the preferred word in this area. "Method" would be slightly more general, but I would avoid being less specific than we can. --RainerBlome (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(←) Weak keep Changed to weak keep per Tercer's comment. I still think that the sources are too few. --SimoneD89 (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, no secondary coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day cautions people against writing Wikipedia articles about their own inventions. Even if someone close to U&K edited here, the article is not "written by them". The article is now 12 years old and there were about 30 authors. The "is not" page lists many reasons. Many of those do not apply here, because there have been scores of people using and citing U&K, which is secondary coverage. Since you cited the rule page, which reasons do you mean specifically? --RainerBlome (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 11:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Matt Hargreaves

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Matt Hargreaves
• Articles for deletion/Matt Hargreaves (2nd nomination)

Matt Hargreaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, Google gives only self-published and/or non-reliable results plus a fictional character with this name CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like a good candidate to just Draftify, as it was only just created. But certainly we should not have unsourced BLPs in mainspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This was speedy deleted in 2016 and nothing seems to have happened since then to make the subject notable, so I’m not sure draftifying us appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is was speedied as G5. Unless this version was also created by a blocked/banned user, that has no bearing here. As an aside, a past speedy isn't an indication of notability that would be relevant to a later determination thereof; it's an indication of other problems. Of course, none of this is to say that I think the subject is notable; only that it was only just created and makes claims to significance so draftifying seems like a fine way to go. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails NACTOR by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a search does not bring up any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 11:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ghost Hunt Weekends

Ghost Hunt Weekends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a Ghost Hunting company. Before is difficult to carry out because of the generic name. All but one of the refs in the article are dead. Having visited their own website the company appears to be small and non notable. The article was created by a SPA and has been tagged COI and Advert since 2013. Desertarun (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Not seeing enough to pass WP:NCORP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Created by a SPA and pretty much ignored since 2013 let it go. Sgerbic (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hog Farm _Talk 04:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Belwarganj Estate

Belwarganj Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Same story fails WP:GNG, created probably by same group of socks, who have been blocked. Citations are frivolous and simple google search gives only website like facebook, bike wale.com, means advertisement and spam website -Only. Also, 3 4 sources which are here, have either no or passing reference. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Very few reference are present I searched on Google also but I didn't got any good reference so I think Wikipedia should delete this User:Himanshu Kushwaha Blocked for sockpuppetry. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, as failing verification. The existence of a place called Belwarganj is probably verifiable, but this is about the supposed Zamindari which is not.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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 History and culture of substituted amphetamines. Anything worth merging is still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Benzedrine in popular culture

Benzedrine in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article consists of pop culture trivia which is largely only passing mentions of the drug. There is also some reliance on primary sources, such as citing the book itself for the drug's mention in fiction. I also don't think that Benzedrine doesn't have the same representation in media as something such as marijuana, which has a rich cultural impact. Waxworker (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• The edit history is bizarre. This was originally our benzedrine article in 2004. It grew an "In popular culture" section twice, the first time being split off into Benzedrine in popular culture in 2007, which was then deleted alongside Amphetamine in popular culture (AfD discussion). The second time gradually became what we see today, with cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing overwhelming the original content about benzedrine. The article was as a consequence progressively renamed to history of Benzedrine and then to its own original sub-topic where it is today. The "History" section in 2021 is little changed from the full benzedrine article Special:Permalink/105768542 from 2007. And it was all because of Special:Diff/205323093. Uncle G (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• And for what it is worth, here is what I would do if it were solely up to me: Since there's useful discussion on the talk page, both about duplication with amphetamine and about the laundry list of popular culture references, and since there isn't anything particularly useful in the redirect at benzedrine and its talk page, I would rename this back to its original location (without leaving a redirect) at benzedrine to retain the edit history, and redirect the thing to amphetamine as it started out and should have been re-redirected 17 years ago. Uncle G (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I recently re-organized the article because it was very poorly structured. It is still a mess of an article that was amassed over only the last six years by countless users and IP editors sporadically adding unsourced and insignificant allusions. It is clearly not the result of a focused examination to properly represent the pop culture landscape of Benzedrine. I agree with WaxWorker, Benzedrine had its place in culture but it was largely of passing mentions rather than a substantial and persisting element in creative works. Thus, I don't believe a proper article could even be developed. I too noticed the article's bizarre revision history. As such, Uncle G has sound reasoning and I support their above proposal to move the article back and then redirect it. Οἶδα (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to History and culture of substituted amphetamines, where this topic is sufficiently covered without a giant unsourced/primary sourced list of trivia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to contact me if anyone wants to use some of this content in other articles. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Chemical chirality in popular culture

Chemical chirality in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Excessive pop culture trivia - original research, and I don't think that a highly niche list of a trait in chemistry in popular culture is encylopedic. If sources were found for the entries on the list, I don't think they would mention chemical chirality specifically. Waxworker (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Yet more trivia.TH1980 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge a couple of the stronger entries, Lewis Carroll and Arthur C. Clarke, to a new section: Chirality (chemistry)#In fiction. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as there are many entries of interest, but remove some trivial entries. At least add Dorothy L. Sayers to the couple mentioned above for merging. --Bduke (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, and modify as suggested by Bduke. There are clearly people interested in this article, to which I was directed only a few days ago after I referred to Lewis Carroll's example in a UseNet group. Athel cb (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a completely unsourced list of trivia. Many of these example amount to nothing more than "the concept was mentioned in this book/episode". If someone wanted to expand the main Chirality (chemistry) article with sourced content of its use in fiction, that may be possible, but nothing from this article should be merged or kept as, again, it is completely devoid of reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - completely unsourced trivia. Wikipedia is not tvtropes.org, where this content would be right at home (and I would encourage anyone to copy it with attribution). There was a time when Wikipedia would host lists of whatever theme individual editors found in pop culture, but the standards for notability have increased since then. We actually need sources about the subject of "chemical chirality in popular culture" rather than derive a subject from synthesizing examples. Also oppose moving unsourced material into another article. It would be WP:OR to decide, in the total absence of sources, which entries are more important than others when including in the main article. If secondary sources can be found, I've no objection to adding it there (but would defer to editors of that page to decide whether such trivia should be included). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - A bunch of original research, no secondary sources demonstrate the notability of this topic in "popular culture". -Indy beetle (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Zero sources, and no indication of WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Do not recreate without reliable sources about the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 09:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I Wayan Arka

I Wayan Arka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I spent a good while umming and ahhing about this one, but in the end decided to move an AfD to see what more knowledgeable folks make of it. The article is highly promotional in nature, written by a SPA with possible COI issues. It does read quite impressively, but that said, much of the contents are completely unsupported so difficult to say what's true and what's not. There is a good deal of refs (to the point of bombing), but they mostly support this chap's publications, etc., and in any case all of it is primary sources and mostly quite close (and a search finds nothing better). Google Scholar gives h-index of 20, but I don't know how much that tells us, for or against. I'm contending WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC failure, but quite happy to be proven wrong. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep While I think that the article has to be radically trimmed down to a few key points, maybe little more than a stub (the current page is overall a WP:PEACOCK embarassment for the subject), I believe that I Wayan Arka meets WP:NACADEMIC. He is virtually the only Indonesian linguist with an international standing in his field, and has done valuable research to improve our understanding about the languages of Indonesia, especially the Lesser Sunda Islands. He also has an important role in getting local and international research connected. This of course just my perspective from the same wider research area; I will try to find supporting secondary sources. –Austronesier (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you @Austronesier: precisely the sort of subject-matter-expert's views I was hoping for in this AfD. If you can find good secondary sources (I couldn't), that's great, but WP:PROF notability on academic grounds would also suffice. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree, secondary sources would be great but even some perspective on citations in the field would be helpful, 1400 citations would be very little in biomedicine but if you are working on a niche language that seems like a lot to me. Also I found 4 book reviews [24] [25] [26] [27] which in general is sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF together with a decent number of citations. --hroest 14:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Austronesier and DoubleGrazing: These critical feedback points are perfectly reasonable. I have loosely revised the article in a new section page based on my understanding of the feedback so far. Of course this is just suggestive, but in any case it's good practice for me in the event I create another Wiki academic profile in the future! I'd be happy to continue making more objective revisions if you guys think the current revision is heading in the right direction. Charbel.el-khaissi (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Charbel.el-khaissi: You can go ahead and implement your proposed new version as a first aid. Per WP:EDITATAFD, this is good practice and will help others to evaluate the key question of the subject's notability, cleared from other issues which DoubleGrazing and I have raised. –Austronesier (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• keep based on Austronesier and the book reviews from JSTOR which should make him pass NAUTHOR. --hroest 14:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Austronesier, DoubleGrazing, and Hannes Röst: Thanks all again for your collective feedback. I have made substantial revisions to the article. It has been trimmed down, the writing style is less promotional/puffery and more informative. Where possible, I have tried to remove unsupported information and reduced reference/hyperlink-bombing. I have refrained from highlighting the subject's notability to avoid potential bias, but it would be nice to include some of the points captured by @Austronesier: and @Hannes Röst: RE subject's notability above in this thread. Charbel.el-khaissi (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

MyTeam11

MyTeam11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet CORPDEPTH. The coverage is routine and trivial, such as press releases, product launch reports, partnership/sponsorship announcements. M4DU7 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This draft has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. This gives me nothing but non-substantial news pieces talking about number predictions for each week. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Fenix down (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Wu (soccer)

Daniel Wu (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Author deleted prod; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. JTtheOG (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete speedy as a (very likely) unsourced BLP; if ultimately sourced, still delete on GNG grounds, NCAA soccer players are rarely if ever notable on their own. SportingFlyer T·C 10:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Per SportingFlyer (talk · contribs). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Unsure why @SportingFlyer and ArsenalFan700: believe he is eligible for a speedy? Being unsourced is not grounds for speedy, and sources are easily found from a quick Google search... GiantSnowman 11:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Should have been a BLPPROD which was removed without adding a source, which is improper, but it was just a normal PROD. But it's fixed now. SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yeah, that was uninformed from me, saw no sources, one line, and thought that was enough for speedy. My mistake. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.-Poppified ^talk 11:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - It is possible that there are some sources out there about him, a short search showed that he won the NCAA championship in 2019 with Georgetown, scoring a goal in the championship game, and was named to the All-Tournament team. I'm not convinced that he passes GNG but at least not a speedy delete. Alvaldi (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of any WP:RS addressing Wu directly and in detail Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Zackdasnicker (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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 09:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Richard W. Goode

Richard W. Goode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL notability. Rusf10 (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Melbourne FL is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL just because they existed, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It doesn't meet WP:GNG as not referenced anywhere about the subject. Zackdasnicker (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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 09:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I. Kimbell Hicks

I. Kimbell Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No claim of notability. Fails WP:NPOL Rusf10 (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Melbourne FL is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL just because they existed, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass WP:NPOL #2: the article is referenced 6/7 to unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, such as primary source genealogical records on FamilySearch.com (which we are not allowed to use as sourcing on here at all!), and the one that actually comes from a real newspaper isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete the article reads well, but is slapped together from sources which don't meet WP:GNG as Bearcat notes. A quick WP:BEFORE search of archival newspapers doesn't bring up anything helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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 09:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Lock Davidson

Lock Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL notability guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Messy, skimpy article built mostly on unreliable genealogical websites. The one claim about renaming Palm Bay, while perhaps interesting, probably doesn't even suffice as WP:1E territory. My WP:BEFORE is turning up records congressional testimony (which lots of US municipal officials have given over the years), a mention in a record of business litigation (routine court documents/decisions), brief entries listing his business, and an alumni publication of a frat that lists him as a member. None of this is significant coverage in secondary sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Melbourne FL is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL just because they existed, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It doesn't meet WP:GNG as not referenced anywhere about the subject. Zackdasnicker (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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 09:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Richard A. Lawrence Sr.

Richard A. Lawrence Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Mayor, councilman, and municipal judge = zero claim of notability. See WP:NPOL Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - FindaGrave and a genealogical website are not reliable sources, the Orlando Sentinel is a reliable source but the "article" is just a routine paragraph-entry obituary, which doesn't demonstrate notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Melbourne FL is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL just because they existed, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It doesn't meet WP:GNG as not referenced anywhere about the subject. Zackdasnicker (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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 09:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Vernon L. Dicks

Vernon L. Dicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NPOL, other than obituary, not much on him. Rusf10 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Nothing on him. Wikipedia is not a memorial. This article has not changed in any way since its 2013 inception. All I could find with a Legacy.com obituary, and Find my Grave and Legacy.com are not reliable sources. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, all of the sources are genealogical websites and FindaGrave, which are not reliable. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• weak Delete he was the mayor of a major city, so saying this is just a WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a bit harsh. Still, there is not enough there to justify an article and should be listed under the history of the city. --hroest 18:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Melbourne FL is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL just because they existed, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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 09:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Joseph F. Mullins Jr.

Joseph F. Mullins Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. All mayors get local media coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Melbourne FL is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL just because they existed, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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 09:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

John A. Buckley

John A. Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. An obituary and a few articles in the local press do not make a mayor notable. Rusf10 (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Melbourne FL is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL just because they existed, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Kathy Meehan

Kathy Meehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL notability guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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

• weak delete mayors of a city with 75k inhabitants, which is close to 100k which generally merits an article. If she had done something of note it would probably pass the bar, but it seems she hasnt. Move to/merge with Melbourne,_Florida#History. --hroest 17:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Melbourne FL is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL just because they existed, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Alex Weinstein

Alex Weinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from his company “Dynamic Innovations". MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Logs: 2014-03 ✗ A7, 2011-02 ✗ A7

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Rodrigo (footballer, born 1999)

Rodrigo (footballer, born 1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and barely passes WP:NFOOTY due to a Campeonato Paranaense appearance. Has no further professional career after this, and has no significant coverage whatsoever. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - played in Campeonato Paranaense last season, and article says he is still playing, so what's the issue? We have always given more leeway to young players with active careers. GiantSnowman 11:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Passing WP:NFOOTY only means that the subject is likely to meet the general notability guideline. He still has to meet it and if there is no WP:SIGCOV then he fails, as is the case here. Alvaldi (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per GS. Already one fully-pro appearance and is only 22 years old. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep for now, passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As per all for now, passes NFOOTY. Zackdasnicker (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Pass WP:NFOOTY. Sonofstar (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. If he's not going to have a professional career beyond this then any leeway traditionally given to young players should be moot, right? None of the "Keep, passes NFOOTY" !votes have presented any evidence of SIGCOV, which is a must per NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus was that the subject passes NFOOTY (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Pedro Vitor (footballer, born 1998)

Pedro Vitor (footballer, born 1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and barely passes WP:NFOOTY due to a Campeonato Mineiro appearance. Has no further professional career after this, and has no significant coverage whatsoever. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - young player who meets NFOOTBALL and seemingly has ongoing career, and we have always allowed players in that position more leeway re:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Doesn´t matter if he has played one game or 100 games, passing WP:NFOOTY only means that the subject is likely to meet the general notability guideline. He still has to meet it and if there is no WP:SIGCOV then he fails. Alvaldi (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per GS. One fully-pro appearance at only 23 years old. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Keep arguments unconvincing - longstanding consensus that a minimal NFOOTY pass doesn't suffice in the absence of sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Matheus Santos

Matheus Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and barely passes WP:NFOOTY due to a Campeonato Mineiro appearance. Has no further professional career after this, and has no significant coverage whatsoever. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Doesn´t matter if he has played one game or 100 games, passing WP:NFOOTY only means that the subject is likely to meet the general notability guideline. He still has to meet it and if there is no WP:SIGCOV then he fails. Alvaldi (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep passes NFOOTY and is only 22 years old, could potentially further increase his fully-pro apps. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Marcelo Lima

Marcelo Lima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and barely passes WP:NFOOTY due to a Campeonato Mineiro appearance. Has no further professional career after this, and has no significant coverage whatsoever. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - young player who meets NFOOTBALL and seemingly has ongoing career, and we have always allowed players in that position more leeway re:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Doesn´t matter if he has played one game or 100 games, passing WP:NFOOTY only means that the subject is likely to meet the general notability guideline. He still has to meet it and if there is no WP:SIGCOV then he fails. Alvaldi (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per GS. A fully-pro appearance and is only 21 years old. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Played a fully pro league and still has ongoing carrer as per all above. Wrenaudra (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Blocked sock. MER-C 12:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Pass WP:NFOOTY.Sonofstar (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Christiano (footballer)

Christiano (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and barely passes WP:NFOOTY due to a Campeonato Pernambucano appearance. Has no further professional career after this, and has no significant coverage whatsoever. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - young player who meets NFOOTBALL and seemingly has ongoing career, and we have always allowed players in that position more leeway re:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • All were at one time, and notability is not temporary. It would make more sense to allow leeway for footballers who have retired or are no longer playing at professional level, as it can take time to find significant coverage. Peter James (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Doesn´t matter if he has played one game or 100 games, passing WP:NFOOTY only means that the subject is likely to meet the general notability guideline. He still has to meet it and if there is no WP:SIGCOV then he fails. Alvaldi (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per GS: one fully-pro appearance and is only 20 years old. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep passes NFOOTY as the player made one apperance in a professional league.Poppified ^talk 06:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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. czar 03:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Enhancement or quenching of QD, Q-wire and QW radiations

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Enhancement or quenching of QD, Q-wire and QW radiations
• Articles for deletion/Enhancement or quenching of QD, Q-wire and QW radiations (2nd nomination)

Enhancement or quenching of QD, Q-wire and QW radiations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus in 2009. There is no sourced content about the general topic, failing WP:SYNTH, and all non-lead content is about specific studies of zinc oxide nanoparticles; the title also reads like a scientific paper. Sourced content should be merged to Zinc oxide, Quantum dot, Quantum wire, and Quantum well. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Cleaning_Category:Physics_articles_needing_expert_attention –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete As the nomination correctly notices, this is a disparate collection of papers. Besides WP:SYNTH, the lack of a source for the subject as a whole makes it non notable. Note also that the article has been largely abandoned since its creation in 2009. Tercer (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SYNTH that isn't helping anybody. It reads like the abstracts from a research group's "our recent publications" webpage were dumped into an article. The sources can in principle be reused elsewhere, but the text here is so opaque that we don't need to worry about holding onto it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, the first (and least specialized) source has been incorporated into the Zinc oxide article. The optical properties of that material seem to be under-documented there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as others have said. This is almost like a promo article for a research group. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It doesn't meet WP:GNG as per all. Zackdasnicker (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Randykitty (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Maternal Health Task Force

Maternal Health Task Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The Gates Foundation is wonderful and does great work, but I can find no evidence that this task force is notable. It's a tiny stub to remove copyvio, but I'd be happy to expand it if there were sourcing. This is the best sourcing I've found, and I don't think it's actually independent as it's just quoting the Foundation for why they're doing the work. Otherwise there are just many amplifications of the Foundation's own press materials. I might have just redirected this, but there's probably no editor I respect more than DGG and if he thinks this merits an AfD, I'm happy to list it for discussion. It's also not mentioned at the Gates Foundation's article so a redirect might not be helpful to the reader, and I'm not sure whether it's the sole maternal health task force in existence. StarM 00:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The <Maternal Health task Force is not a part of the Gates foundation, but was funded by them, and was part of Engender Health. EngenderHealth#2008-Present: EngenderHealth "For a Better Life" According to that article, it is now part of the Women and Health Initiative of the Harvard School of Public Health. The current article on the gates foundation doesn't include them. This is similar to the problems with successive business firms. I'd suggest updating the information and then merging to our article onHSPH, which does not yet include them. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health per the above. Sources are available (e.g.,[28]) referring to this as "the Maternal Health Task Force at Harvard University". BD2412 T 05:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Copying comment. To ensure it gets appropriate visibility, copying Tdv's comment from the AfD Talk: "Hi. I was notified that this page was possibly up for deletion. EngenderHealth no longer manages the Maternal Health Task Force (MHTF), but the MHTF is definitely alive and well since it moved to Harvard many years ago. You can check out its web site at https://www.mhtf.org/ and possibly contact somebody through that about updating its Wikipedia page." Thanks Tdv! StarM 14:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 00:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Royal Plaza Hotel (Hong Kong)

Royal Plaza Hotel (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

post-PROD, Cunard did a valiant effort to expand this , but the evidence found does not establish notability. A wedding planner said it would be a good wedding venue and highlighted some features, and sewers nearby had some issues. It exists, but appears to be your typical high end hotel. StarM 00:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Lau, Tim (2013). 完美婚禮籌備天書 [The Book of Perfect Wedding Preparation] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Enrich Professional Publishing. pp. 127–131. ISBN 9789881680792. Retrieved 2021-04-17.

     The book profiles Royal Plaza Hotel on pages 127–131. The book notes that the hotel was recommended by the Michelin Guide's "Michelin Guide Hong Kong Macau" as a "high-grade cozy" hotel five consecutive times between 2009 and 2013. The book notes that the hotel received Wedding Magazine's "best venue (hotel) for star wedding banquet" listing for five consecutive years. Wedding planner Tim Lau said Royal Plaza Hotel would be a good choice for a wedding venue. He observed that the staff were very attentive, the venue offered different food options for Chinese-style and Western-style weddings, and it was conveniently located near the MTR station Mong Kok East station.

  2. 黃浩雲; 吳家輝 (2018). 香港澳門攻略完全制霸2019 (in Chinese). Taipei: 墨刻. p. 119. ISBN 9789862894323. Retrieved 2021-04-17.

     The book profiles the Royal Plaza Hotel.

  3. Sengar, Resham (2016-12-08). "Royal Plaza Hotel". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 2021-04-18. Retrieved 2021-04-17.

     This is a 105-word review of the Hong Kong hotel from an Indian newspaper, making it an international source. The Times of India is an Indian newspaper of record.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Royal Plaza Hotel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I found two sources related to events happened at the hotel:
  • "天水圍9歲女童確診 直銷群組累計六人曾訪帝京酒店" [Tin Shui Wai nine-year-old girl confirmed infection. In direct sales group cumulatively six people went to Royal Plaza Hotel.] (in Chinese (Hong Kong)). Bastille Post. 21 August 2020.
  • 魯嘉裕; 余睿菁 (19 June 2020). "【珍惜生命】旺角帝京酒店女子自殺亡　警檢遺書" [[Cherish life] Mong Kok Royal Plaza Hotel Woman died of suicide. The police found the suicide note.] (in Chinese (Hong Kong)). HK01.
• --Sun8908 _Talk 02:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG per the sources provided by Cunard. Best, VocalIndia (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Levuka F.C.. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Nasau Park

Nasau Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to be a small municipal park in Fiji. No claim of notability. Rusf10 (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect with Levuka F.C.. GiantSnowman 11:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Levuka F.C. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Levuka F.C. - no sourced or decent content worth merging at the moment but should be redirected as a plausible search term. Clearly no point in having a separate article for the football ground when the parent article (i.e. the club itself) is barely more than a stub. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Levuka F.C. Batmanthe8th (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Levuka F.C. per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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. I moved it to Draft:Oscar Mbo. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Oscar Mbo

Oscar Mbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has released one EP and two albums which received below the bar coverage failing WP:GNG. Chirota (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, this is WP:SOAP. Acousmana 14:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, he passes #4,#11 and #12 WP: MUSICBIO. Headlined at an international tour, headlined at a national tour, headlined at another national tour and this. Has featured on national radio, has performed on a television network and has received press in his county. Not to mention the RS Zkhiphani, Okay Africa. -Xclusivzik (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Moderate keep because even though what the user above has revealed isn't the most substantial coverage, it's enough to indicate he quite the thing in his home country and abroad. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep per HumanxAnthro. I think he might be borderline notable with some South African and even eSwatini coverage, and the career section doesn't look bad despite him being somewhat newer to the music scene. Batmanthe8th (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to draft with a requirement for AFC review before restoration to mainspace, given the argument for the potential to find more substantial coverage. BD2412 T 20:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Middlesex County Cricket Club#Club secretaries. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 00:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Arthur Flower

Arthur Flower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

secretary of a cricket club, not claim to notability. Rusf10 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Middlesex_County_Cricket_Club#Club_secretaries. StickyWicket (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Middlesex County Cricket Club#Club secretaries There is some coverage from his role as club secretary, but not enough to pass GNG and some of it comes from Middlesex/Lords/MCC anyway. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Being the secretary of Middlesex for 16 years from 1964 to 1980 (See https://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/228604.html) is important enough. Tintin 17:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Added a couple of small citations.Tintin 17:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Which part of WP:NCRIC is satisfied by him being a secretary?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

About admins in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Notability Tintin 19:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

One WikiProject's explanatory supplement to a subguideline of a guideline that is itself subordinate to the GNG is not a sound policy argument. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect, per Rugbyfan. SIGCOV needs to be established here and it is clearly not. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

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. czar 03:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

List of political dissidents

List of political dissidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

So this list doesn't have any strict criteria, includes a lot of people, and lead to a lot of broad interpretation that clearly violates WP:BLP in a number of cases -- suggesting rather minor figures are political dissidents. As an international list, this could be almost infinite -- for example, by exercising free speech in the U.S. you could enter the list as its currently scoped. I am not seeing a lot of value in keeping this as such -- its not particularly notable, would be useful regime by regime, perhaps... but as an international list its close to useless, and better served by a category. Sadads (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong delete I have kept this list on my watchlist for a while due to its complex and vague criteria, including "questioning or criticizing government policy or the dominant political faction" – this is a key element of a democracy! It is also made difficult to interpret in that the listed countries' regimes have changed significantly in history; for example, both Adolf Hitler (a Nazi) and Liselotte Herrmann (a member of the German resistance to Nazism) are mentioned under the label "Germany". Some sections are objectively historically inaccurate, including the label "Czech Republic", which mentions Václav Havel, a dissident of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic rather than the modern-day republic. Articles that get their point across far better include Soviet dissidents, which is specifically dedicated to dissidents of the Soviet ideology, rather than the country of "Russia". Cilidus (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blow to smithereens I only assessed the American names, but the mish-mash of civil rights activist MLK Jr. with terrorist Ted Kaczynski with Native American leader Chief Joseph with singer-songwriter Pete Seeger with falsely accused immigrants Sacco and Vanzetti with cult leader Lyndon LaRouche is an utter embarassment. This sort of indiscriminate context-free listing is disgraceful. Reywas92^Talk 06:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as a list without objective inclusion criteria. As mentioned above, lists for people considered dissidents from specific regimes or ideologies are workable, but a generic list like this is going to be forever riddled with BLP, NPOV and potentially OR issues. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete no objective inclusion criteria, no context for inclusion in the list, and no sources cited for most entries. Peter James (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Disgraceful. What’s with the sources by the way? This creator possibly has his own point of view and violates Wikipedia’s rule of neutrality. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This page is over 15 years old and has been edited periodically since then; there is no one "creator". postdlf (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. We have a well populated Category:Dissidents structure, mostly organized into subcategories by nationality. The subheaders here aim towards that structure, but perhaps this would be better replaced by a list of lists. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Postdlf: I think the category structure is more than reasonable to maintain -- I am not seeing any clear need to maintain a list of lists though? Sadads (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Particularly since many of the complaints about this list are the lack of context or sourcing, categories can provide neither but annotated and referenced lists can, and having one master index for such lists would be a typical and helpful well to organize that into one jumping off point in article space. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

      So there is only one other list I can find right now (List_of_Singaporean_dissidents) -- and its not much better than this list -- so I am not seeing a natural community around doing this -- if there is something I am missing, I could see trying to rebuild in that direction, Sadads (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

There is also List of Chinese dissidents, which is a little more helpful (providing context such as year of detainment, allegations, sentence), though a list of political dissidents which only included links to these two lists still would not be all that useful. Cilidus (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as clearly this list is far from objective. I assess American names and find the likes of terrorist Kacynski on the same list with heroes such as John Brown and MLK. I also assess Indonesian names and found a criminal scholar along with one of the heroes of Indonesian independence. I also see Adolf Hitler on the list along with Martin Luther. This list have no clear criteria at all. SunDawn (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete based on current content. Bare lists of names organized by country don't provide any context to readers, such as what era the person lived in, which regime they were dissidents against, and why the person is classified as a dissident. As mentioned by Cilidus above, Vaclav Havel was a dissident against Czechoslovakia, although the article lists him as a dissident against the Czech Republic, which he was not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE If this were to approach comprehensiveness, it would be enormous. The criteria is extremely broad and vague - "questioning or criticizing government policy" would apply to basically every politician in countries where the dominant faction/party at the helm changes hands every few years, and dozens of people even from places where there isn't any turnover. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as per arguments raised: 1) a full list would get too long. 2) Unclear criteria. Comment @those who like the list: there may be (notable and) established political science definitions of dissidence, or even a database. Maybe from a university, perhaps from political freedom organisations like Amnesty International, or other NGOs. No prejudice against creating country/regime-based lists based on such a definition. ("Dissidents of the Assad regime on the University of Whatsit's list of political resistance" / "List of resistors of the Nazi regime considered Righteous Among the Nations")Trimton (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • a regime being defined as a period with the same constitution or the same de facto functioning of the state. sometimes a country has several regimes over time, e. g. Fifth French Republic, Spain under Franco. Sometimes only one, e. g. German Democratic Republic etc. Trimton (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above, but consider merging some of the longer sections into existing articles. Batmanthe8th (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiscriminate list with no clear criteria for inclusion. The inclusion of Martin Luther, Karl Marx, the Brothers Grimm, and Hitler all being lumped together on the same list under "Germany" is... strange to say the least. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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.