Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 24 April 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. North America1000 01:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Khan (cricketer)[edit]

Gul Khan (cricketer) (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, coverage not enough to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - 15 years without any significant article edits, that must be a record for almost any Wikipedia article, let alone a cricket article. Worth noting that Khan is a former County Championship player rather than someone who turned up for the odd List A match - and has his own profile on CA, which I'm sure could be reasonably sourced from elsewhere if necessary. To be entirely honest, it's examples like this that make me wonder whether it would be more appropriate to get more eyes on an article before sending straight to AfD simply because the nominator hasn't heard of the subject, and whether it simply demonstrates that the nominator in question and other deletionists are unwilling to participate in a collaborative project. Bobo. 00:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"15 years without any significant article edits" means no one is interested in reading these bios where only we can find are database sources. Störm (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it also meant 15 years with unreferenced OR/synthesis problems. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just tickled, that was all. Just an observation. Once again, unwillingness to get more eyes on an article before sending an article to deletion seems peculiar to me. Bobo. 10:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, it should be noted that just because nobody is interested in an article for 15 years doesn't mean that alone is a requirement for it to be deleted. Before I expanded County Cricket Ground, Swindon yesterday, there had only been 6 edits in the last 10 years. StickyWicket (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Coverage online is limited, but the player had a significant county championship career playing 6 County Championship and 22 List-A matches. Will likely have been covered significantly offline in Wisden for example due to those appearances, and may receive some coverage in newspaper archives also. I believe it highly likely coverage will exist on him. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just request users listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/The_Library#Wisden_Cricketers'_Almanack and they will confirm if there is anything significant about him in Wisden. We've created this, so we don't have to assume every time that there is coverage but is inaccessible. Störm (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this information Storm, Johnlp has commented below and found coverage, so removed the weak bit as it seems there is coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My stance is well known; 10+ appearances should be kept, as this is not an unreasonable amount to assume sources will exist. With 43 appearances this far exceeds that number. StickyWicket (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This player made 43 first-class and List A appearances in all, including the 1996 University Match, and he has a first-class century to his name, albeit for Oxford University. He was a regular List A player for Derbyshire in the second half of the 1996 season and the first two-thirds of the 1997 season, with 22 appearances in total. This is a substantial cricket career at the highest domestic level and clearly notable. Johnlp (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far as we know, fails WP:GNG, and nobody's presented sources otherwise so far, apart from assuming he's been in Wisden. This article is one sentence in a match report and clearly not SIGCOV, and he gets mentioned briefly again here, but I can't find any newspaper coverage from his Oxford days - where should we be looking? SportingFlyer T·C 10:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wisden 1997 edition specifically mentions him in its review of the Oxford 1996 season. It also covers an innings of 147 by him in a List A match. Johnlp (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can withdraw AfDs which contain more than one different "kind" of !vote. Bobo. 06:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note: Bobo192 – Actually, nominators can withdraw at anytime for any reason, but the discussion cannot simply be closed per the nominator's withdrawal itself, as there is a delete !vote present. See WP:WITHDRAWN for more information. North America1000 17:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of trying to work out how one of those can cancel out the other, but okay. Bobo. 19:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Wisden coverage does not sound at all in-depth enough for GNG, and nothing else has appeared demonstrating SIGCOV. Notability on wikipedia is not achievement-based. JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments with multiple FC/LA matches under his belt. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - County Championship, that's just about crossing the threshold for notability. Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Centuries at FC and LA levels in 43 appearances. I don't see how his notability is in question. Sammyrice (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Mario Cecchi Gori[edit]

Memorial Mario Cecchi Gori (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 notable Dr Salvus 17:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a quick look at the Italian article shows a number of WP:GNG-satisfying Italian sources. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 6.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on top of the Gazzetta article on the Italian webpage, it received coverage in Argentina in 1998 [1], it's listed in a report of the times Barcelona has played Fiorentina [2], and the games were covered significantly in Italian press according to this scan. Likely more as well, a cycling race had the same name and everything's all in Italian or Spanish (or maybe French). SportingFlyer T·C 14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And why should this not be covered in English Wikipedia? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources on the Italian Wikipedia look fairly good and SF's sources show some decent coverage. If it's covered in this detail in major publications in more than one country, it's enough for WP:GNG. There's a lack of English-language coverage but that's no reason to delete. If anything, one of the strengths of Wikipedia is accurately covering topics that are not well covered in the English media. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spiderone's rationale. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KingYc[edit]

AfDs for this article:
KingYc (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 recently refunded due to the soft delete of last AFD. Nothing new has come to light and the artist has no current indication of meeting any criteria of WP:SINGER or WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE shows they were injured by a gunshot in Las Vegas and have in fact released some singles. The references in the article consist of an interview and a release annoucement. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability has been shown despite a few media references. Page was created by his publicist who asked to be the only person allowed to edit his page. It's remained unsourced for a while and it seems that every edit is written like a promoter. KieranStanley (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails GNG and lacks news coverage. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:NMUSIC, WP:NBIO, or WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - per nom. Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the reasoning given in the nomination. Laplorfill (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my reasoning in the first AfD-nomination. No evidence of notability.Jeppiz (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SX52 Processor[edit]

SX52 Processor (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:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is clear consensus to delete. GirthSummit (blether) 12:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sink Salad[edit]

Sink Salad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Phenomenon that has no claim to notability. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. — Goszei (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Delete per nom. Article has no references nor categories, and is a stub. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not one of the Project:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, my bad. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did wonder whether I should have pointed out also that Project:deletion policy does not support deleting stubs simply because they are uncategorized. Please find a policy-based rationale that the closing administrator can hang xyr hat from. Uncle G (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a compromise solution, I can categorize the article and gradually expand it with more sources. Egyptian jew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • More sources? It currently has none. If you can find sources to satisfy WP:GNG, that's precisely what's needed here, and what's lacking. Cats etc. are nice-to-haves, once (if) notability has been established. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made me chuckle, so thanks to the creator for that. Love the optimistic "The phrase has yet to appear in the OED" at the end; also the initial caps in the title: it's not just sink salad, but Sink Salad! :) On a more serious note, delete as non-notable neologism, possibly joke/hoax. (BTW, there is something called 'kitchen sink salad', which this might be a riff of, and which also makes finding any sources - assuming any exist, which I doubt - tricky.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any significant coverage of this phenomenon to demonstrate that it warrants an article on Wikipedia. Seems to border on being WP:ONEDAY Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, obvious fail of WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have added categories and am working on the references. Note that there is no Wikipedia page for gunt even though a Google images search pulls up 3.7 million results. I would point out that by contrast, the Sink Salad article is at least acceptable to a family audience. It is somewhat out of touch with the times to insist on absolutely zero articles that deal with informal subject matter that is too crude for Harvard academics and college-educated journalists to engage with. Some of these issues are very real concepts for billions of working people, many of whom may not necessarily come from the same demographic as your average editor who is working on the Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptian jew (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have restored the WP:A11 tag which was removed inappropriately Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Generally accepted concept in certain cultures and communities. Some even have a single word for it. — Mr Bulmer (talk)
  • Delete per DoubleGrazing. EpicPupper 21:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard this term used abundantly. On a related note, "Kitchen Sink Salad" is used also as an actual recipe. A quick google shows a plethora of yummy recipes you can try out - albeit that the names derives from the expression "everything but the kitchen sink" in reference to the vast range of salad contents, rather than the horrible gunk you get in your sink drain! Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like something made up one day. Article has no references whatsoever. JIP | Talk 18:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DoubleGrazing. Amusing: rather. Hoax: absolutely. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 3. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Search results get swamped with all kinds of recipes for "kitchen sink salads" (i.e. All The Ingredients salads), but even after I went to some effort to exclude everything, one by one, that could throw up false positives (it's an interesting search term :p) there are only the faintest indications of use - a few photo captions, basically. This is not nearly enough of a thing for an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources that show notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 8. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable WP:SOURCES to demonstrate that article meets WP:GNG. Johnnie Bob (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism with no independent sources seemingly discussing the usage of the phrase. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:MADEUP. A search turned up plenty of mentions of "Kitchen Sink Salad" (as in "Contains everything but the..."), but precisely one mention of "Sink salad" in the article's sense - and that was in distinctly non-WP:RS Urban Dictionary. Narky Blert (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk. (non-admin closure) Ashleyyoursmile! 04:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicks on the Right[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chicks on the Right (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 was deleted and now has reappeared largely unchanged and with the same sourcing problem. I tagged it before as G4 but was denied. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get others to help me improve this article and get it up to snuff, Wiki-wise. I must admit I'm confused as to why Zero Serenity seems to prefer getting the article deleted rather than working on bringing it to a point of rescue and redemption. He fought hard enough for deletion that he attempted to get it "speedy deleted". That was denied just a few hours later. He also repeatedly undid my undo attempts, which resulted in the page being locked for days, keeping me from working on it to bring it to the standards he would like the page to reflect. It appears to still be locked which prevents anyone from improving it. Another editor has already stated elsewhere that the article meets the required notability for it to be a page on its own away from the WIBC page. I tried to get him to discuss his intent and thought process at the talk page of the article, he pretty much refused. This is all confusing to me. It's always been my impression that creating and expanding on articles to bring them to Wikipedia standards is what Wikipedia folks are supposed to be focusing on, not deleting things that have a chance of informing others who search for info online. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about me. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 01:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Serenity, you have made deleting the article a mission. You've written articles about it that mission in Daily Kos. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/8/25/1972168/-Conservatives-don-t-understand-how-Wikipedia-works-again You have have been working hard to make sure this article dies, and from what you have written at your social media spaces and Daily Kos, it appears the entire effort is politically inspired. https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/08/25/an-atheist-feminist-gamer-from-the-daily-kos-has-responded-to-my-wikipedia-post-lololololol/ You've done little in Wikipedia for the last several months, and in the last week you've done more related to getting the COTR page deleted than anything else since the beginning of the year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zero_Serenity Why not help me improve the article? It's possible, I can't do it alone, let's do it together. If you still won't do that, then I think it would be very clear the mission you have against this article and the subject of the article is very much about you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi there @Alaska4Me2. Please remember deletion discussions are for focussing on the article, not the contributor. Linking trashy self-published opinions pieces that attack editors repeatedly doesn't help prove your point. Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Thank you, — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk per WP:OVERCOME. The first AfD for this article seems to have ended with the decision that the topic was not notable enough to warrant its own article, and no amount of editing or improvement can overcome that. If a topic is not notable enough for its own article, that's all there is to it unless that level of notability changes over time. — Bsoyka✉ 02:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onel5969#Chicks_on_the_Right An editor who removed the speedy delete request stated it does meet notability guidelines. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the actual AfD debate ended with the decision to delete the article. Six people responded with either "delete" or "redirect", and the majority of the "keep" votes and comments came from outside canvassing and single-purpose accounts. Now, an AfD debate is definitely not a vote, but the result was that the article was to be deleted, and I don't think anything has changed enough in terms of notability and reliable coverage to affect that outcome. Bsoyka✉ 15:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since that previous deletion, I worked on the article, expanded it, added sources. It's not the same article. And it wouldn't be the article it is now if it hadn't been locked up and I could have worked on it further. Nominating it again to be deleted while it's locked and no one can expand it further is unfair. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Also, the article as it stands right now is more about the hosts than the show itself, and the important information about the show could easily be added to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk instead of its own article. Bsoyka✉ 15:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uvais Raza Khan[edit]

Uvais Raza Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any resources for this individual online, nor are any of the sources reliable or useful.   Kadzi   (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there is full book on his life read if you have some time.https://archive.org/details/masail-e-darul-baqa-wa-tazkara-e-owais-raza-hindi   Kaif   (talk)

Keep It. Kaifraza786

  • Delete. The article literally says who he is, that he was born, and that he died. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 20:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talgarth Rovers F.C.[edit]

Talgarth Rovers F.C. (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'd prefer not to lose the information but I can't even really validate it. The single source is a dead link, the article is written in a weird contradiction (are they a reserve team of Talgarth Town? An IP changed the lede a decade ago and it's stuck) and I'm not able to find enough information on the side to reliably change it. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't see much, I don't even think they are an FA registered club and I feel that's a must to have an article on wikipedia for clubs, no hits on the Welsh FA website as far as I can see. Govvy (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cant find news on them. Webmaster862 (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find any proper coverage. Less Unless (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Thomson (footballer, born 1988)[edit]

David Thomson (footballer, born 1988) (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 the WP:NFOOTY consensus that you have to have played more than one match in a fully professional league to qualify for a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 11:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - oh dear, not good at all. --Huligan0 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesnt meet notability guidelines for athletes. Webmaster862 (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't matter if he played one game or 100 games, if there is no WP:SIGCOV then the subjects fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep passes NFOOTY, and still has active career.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny Watford[edit]

Destiny Watford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Engaging in one sucessful environmental project is not notability DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak keep, I'm more minded to deletion with the article in it's current state. But winning a major environmental award makes her notable. WCMemail 08:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep the Goldman prize is a clearly internationally important and reputable award, its the "nobel" of environmental action, Sadads (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have started revising the article and adding more sources to further support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG/not WP:BLP1E notability (she was not low-profile before or after; the success was significant and her role is well-documented), and WP:ANYBIO notability seems clear, e.g. the Goldman Environmental Prize is described by The Weather Channel as "the "Nobel Prize for the environment," which is awarded to only six individuals representing each of the world's continents." Beccaynr (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After Beccaynr's improvements, the article looks perfectly fine to me - the notability guidelines are met - there's enough of IRS covering the subject in depth. Less Unless (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added additional information to denote ongoing activity and accolades. Crystalontheweb (talk) 20.35, 01 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep amended article meets notability guidelines Kaybeesquared (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jaslyn Adams[edit]

Murder of Jaslyn Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NOTNEWS, NOTTABLOID DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Monks[edit]

Jumping Monks (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, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage or other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Two indie albums and a top 190 single don't make for notability via WP:MUSICBIO for an artist/band and they didn't attract significant coverage. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the music group, the single album charting at 190 on Billboard 200 isn't sufficient to demonstrate notability, when other criteria are not satisfied. --Ashleyyoursmile! 15:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This discussion attracted a lot of new and less experienced editors so I am going to give some extra explanation. Nearly all decisions on Wikipedia are made through discussion rather than voting which we call consensus decisions making. Because of this some Wikipedians call the bolded comment (e.g. keep or delete) a not vote (sometimes shortened to !vote). Since it is not a vote the closer needs to consider the arguments being made for each side and how that matches up to our policies (which are considered very important and have fewer exceptions) and guidelines (which are still important but may have more exceptions). If someone participates and gives a reason that is not supported by our policies and guidelines, it is the closer's job to weigh comments and give less weight, or even discard, comments that can't be supported. As a closer it is my responsibility to figure out what consensus was reached by participants, or if there was no consensus, not to give my opinion. In fact if I have an opinion about the topic I am not supposed to close it but should instead participate. In this case I have no opinion and am qualified to be a closer.
With that background out of the way, there is consensus in this discussion that reliable sources exist to verify the information in the article. The disagreement, among editors who use a policy/guideline based reason for their participation, is whether this event should be considered news. Those who suggest the article be deleted suggest that this event is unlikely to have enduring significance (what is sometimes called the 10 year test). Those who suggest the article be kept demonstrate that there is worldwide coverage of Josh fight by multiple well known reliable sources and suggest that this kind of coverage is exactly what we would expect from a recent event that will have lasting coverage and not just be a meme or part of a short news cycle.
Because both of these positions can be supported by policies and guidelines and because there is a roughly equal number of editors on each policy/guideline backed side there is no consensus in this discussion. This means that the article will stay for now but can be renominated again in the future to find consensus. However I would strongly suggest a minimum wait of 6-12 months to give enough time for more evidence of lasting notability (the word we use to describe topics that may have articles) to be shown (or not). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh fight[edit]

Josh fight (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'm nominating this article for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a single incident that fits in the category of transient "odd-but-true" entertainment-style "news" that has no encyclopedic or historical value. Yes, it has sufficient reliable sources and significant (recent) coverage. I can find as many reliable sources and significant coverage for an article on a dog rescued from the ice[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] which illustrates that just having reliable sources isn't sufficient for an encyclopedia article. WP:GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe this article fits into what Wikipedia is not. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

collapse ref list for page readability

References

  1. ^ Harrison-Martin, Jackie (February 23, 2021). "International concern for dog rescued on river turns into wave of controversy over ownership". News-Herald. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  2. ^ "Dog Rescued After 4 Days Stranded Along Icy Detroit River". US News & World Report. February 21, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  3. ^ Champion, Brandon (March 29, 2021). "Man adopts dog he rescued from icy Detroit River". mlive. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  4. ^ Press, Associated (February 21, 2021). "Dog rescued after 4 days stranded along icy Detroit River". KUSA.com. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  5. ^ Taylor, Ariana (February 22, 2021). "'Miracle dog' recovering after he was stranded for days on Detroit River". Detroit News. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  6. ^ "Dog Stranded Alone on the Thin Ice of a Michigan River Saved by Animal-Loving Rescuers". PEOPLE.com. January 5, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  7. ^ "Dog rescued after falling through ice in Dearborn County". MSN. April 20, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  8. ^ "Canadian helps rescue stranded dog on Detroit River ice in international effort". CTVNews. February 21, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  9. ^ Thomason, Amanda (March 30, 2021). "'Miracle' Dog That Survived 4 Days Stranged on Ice Finally Finds His Perfect Owner". The Western Journal. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  10. ^ Detroit, FOX 2 (February 21, 2021). "Dog rescued after spending 4 days on ice patch along the Detroit River". FOX 2 Detroit. Retrieved April 25, 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
    • I disagree... this article should not be deleted..unlike the other events..the Josh fight had many attendees and they managed to raise money for Charity...many people from across the world were interested in the event.. unfortunately many were unable to attend due to covid-19 restrictions in their country..It was an interesting event which a lot of people across the world watched through the livestream 41.223.141.80 (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, because this event has a lot more media coverage from around the world and not just outlets from North America, from a lot of reliable sources from Australia to Austin to Africa and India to Indonesia to Singapore. And why would we erase this knowledge from future generations? We have kept the Storm Area 51 event's page, why should this event be taken off? If anything, this one was far more significant, as it had a substantially higher number of participants and a similar level of media coverage. JoshFight (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The amount of media coverage it got is irrelevant. The issue is, does it have lasting notability? Did it have some sort of impact? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; we have criteria for inclusion. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (they/them | talk) 13:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It meets most of the guidelines in WP:GNG. The fight was a charity event, which means it has a lasting effect. This isn't just a silly meme, it raised more than $13,300 USD, and over 200 pounds of food for a children's hospital. Even if this was "just a silly meme", why are silly things such a bad thing? By erasing the history of today, you're robbing the people of the future of knowledge about this era. Linux rules, Windows drools (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there, the problem is that the article covers a recent topic that had a small amount of media coverage within that time. In regards to the lasting effect argument, one charity donation doesn't make a long-lasting effect. You might be interested in WP:LULZ, which outlines how something being funny isn't an argument to use in a deletion discussion. If we were to not delete articles as it robs 'the people of the future of knowledge about this era.' every article would have to stay, which would be extremely hard to consistently moderate and manage with reliable sources. Moreover, the article can be spoken about in a paragraph or so elsewhere, but is not notable enough for it's own article. Fixing26 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this article DOES indeed fit, due to the nature of articles such as the Crichton Leprechaun, Storm Area 51 Raid, and other notable comedic events that took place in modern history, that received significant media coverage existing without contest on Wikipedia. ~~DaneLawlor~~ [3][4] ~~DaneLawlor~~ [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.221.107 (talk • contribs) — 173.3.221.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I oppose deletion, as per what a few above have said, we have articles for the Area 51 raid, among others. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No lasting notability can be determined at this time. While it basically meets WP:GNG, yes, but all of the sources are within 2 days. This is a flash-in-the-pan. If it's still being talked about in a year, create an article then.--v/r - TP 20:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should we wait one year for this>
  • Delete per nom and TParis. If this doesn't fall off within a few months, then we can reconsider, but for now it seems a touch too soon. It's also very hard to take the article seriously with things like "Decisive Josh victory", a listing of belligerents ("1 Josh", "Hundreds of Joshes" etc), and the use of {{Infobox military conflict}} for a meme that was decidedly not a military conflict. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to be appearing in numerous sources that establish notability, at least for now. If the only sources that can be found in a few months or so are the same sources published in the immediate aftermath of the event, then a reevaluation of notability and a renomination, if necessary, is always a possibility. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ("1 Josh", "Hundreds of Joshes" etc) was newly–added vandalism. MainPeanut (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully agreed that the use of that infobox was unconstructive, and I've changed it back. I don't think it should be regarded as relevant to this AfD either way. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article creator. I agree that the article has grown too long, and it should definitely be trimmed back to a more reasonable length. But WP:EVENT states that an event shouldn't be considered less notable just because it is recent. I think the widespread (including national) coverage of this event in reliable sources shows that it clearly passes the WP:GNG, as mentioned above. Wikipedia's coverage of Internet culture has remained sparse even as it has grown in importance in mainstream society. I think a short, well-sourced article is appropriate. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also note that the higher-than-average potential for this article to be the subject of unconstructive editing and vandalism, while annoying, should not be held against its notability. I created it in good faith and other Wikipedians have contributed in that spirit as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just so you know, Ganesha811, my nomination has nothing to do with the quality of the article or sources. I think you wrote a good neutral article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Schazjmd, totally understood, your nomination is very fair and grounded in policy. I think there's cause for legitimate disagreement, so I'm not fussed. Just don't want to see the article deleted for the wrong reasons. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ganesha811: WP:EVENT also says, "However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)."--v/r - TP 21:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another sporadic internet meme event with no lasting significance. Some expected "human interest" or "good news that a four-year-old had fun 'winning'" sort of coverage (mostly local) but no enduring encyclopedic notability or reason to provide details for a brief WP:NEWS event. Sources are largely churnalism with negligible original reporting in most, reusing the same images and quotes. Reywas92Talk 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) Perfectly fine to keep it as per WP:EVENT and falls within the other guidelines as other editors have pointed out. This holds greater signification and wider interest+foreknowledge for a larger amount of the global population than many of the other articles on this site whether it's an indictment on humanity or not. Would not be totally opposed to deletion after a period of time if it does not remain a sustained news story.—Plifal (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with those who argue that if Storm Area 51 gets an article, so should this one. While the bar for Internet meme coverage is very high on Wikipedia, this one has strong significance for Internet culture; Internet culture has become increasingly impactful. Andymii (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heard Josh fight referenced and didn’t know what it was. I searched Google and came to this article which explained the reference, which was useful. I’d like the article to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.153.83 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC) — 73.190.153.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep per WP:NEVENT. I'd like to note that neither NOTNEWS nor OTHERSTUFFEXISTS apply here. NOTNEWS covers news-style reporting, not "don't write articles about recent events"; OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is...probably the single most subjectively interpretable essay, but quite decisively does not say "when people compare similar articles they're doing something wrong". Vaticidalprophet 22:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not pass the requirements set by NEVENT. There are no lasting effects (failing WP:LASTING), there is no impact over a wide geographic area (failing WP:GEOSCOPE), and the coverage has been in a burst rather than sustained coverage (failing WP:COVERAGE). --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes GNG and substantially covered by major reliable media outlets, both local and on a wider scale such as ESPN. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
collapse ref list for page readability

References

  1. ^ "Josh fight: Crowds show up for pool noodle battle to win rightful ownership of their name". Sky News.
  2. ^ "See hundreds of people named Josh brawl with pool noodles in Nebraska". CNN.
  3. ^ Trent, Rachel. "See hundreds of people named Josh brawl with pool noodles in Nebraska". CTV News.
  4. ^ "One true Josh! Hundreds of Josh gather to raise money for 4-year-old". WION.
  5. ^ "Serunya 'Josh Fight', Pertemuan Ribuan Orang Bernama 'Josh' di Amerika Serikat". Kumparan.
  6. ^ "Warum sich eine Horde junger Männer mitten in Nebraska mit Pool-Nudeln bekämpft". Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung.
  7. ^ "名前を賭けて決戦、全米から「ジョシュ」が集まり奇妙な戦い". Japanese Yahoo.
  8. ^ Thet, Nyi Nyi. "Josh vs. Josh vs. Josh: 4-year-old emerges as winner of ultimate Josh showdown". Mothership.
  • Keep, for reasons that have been listed before in this discussion. Wizzito (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the aforementioned reasons by others. This fight was reported by various news journalism sites, so much so that it would be improper to delete this page. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 23:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Keep. Such events are significant historical events, not in isolation but in combination. Keep it in combination with other such gatherings like the Area 51 gathering, as a single combined article. (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep only. Although there are comparisons made between the "Area 51 Raid" and the "Josh Fight" in terms of actual event participation, The "Josh Fight" has no real direct involvement to be included into the "Area 51 Raid" article.DJ Baguio (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - passing the general notability guideline is not enough when the subject is not encyclopedic. Lots of news events are covered by large news outlets, like the dog example cited by the nominator. Such short bursts of coverage do not establish notability, unlike sustained coverage, which would (WP:SUSTAINED). WP:EVENTCRIT specifically addresses this: "Routine kinds of news events (including [...] viral phenomena) – whether or not [...] widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I am not saying that just because I did not win. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Joshua Isaac: Thank you for injecting some much needed humour into what has been an otherwise tiring AFD, this comment made me laugh. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has been covered by multiple international sources, and is very much able to be used as an article. If Area 51's events were worthy of being kept as an article, I see no reason why WP:EVENT doesn't cover the Josh fight. Just because it's recent doesn't make it any less unencyclopedic. VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:EVENT does cover this event when it says that routine news events like "viral phenomena [...] whether or not [...] widely reported [..] are usually not notable". --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Same reasons given by others. Events that come from viral memes can gain significant coverage (Area 51 storming), and shouldn't be discounted just because they're not groundbreaking or "historically valuable". Alimorel (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, I think the fact that it was a fundraiser and food drive, not just a meme, contributes to the event's notability. Alimorel (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to reiterate from my another reply that there are some pictures in circulation on Facebook that indicate that some people are making groupchats to try to imitate the Josh Fight, but with different names this time. But, as I say it again, I can't really tell if it will be seriously executed or not.DJ Baguio (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AfD has been linked from Reddit[6][7], and the article from Reddit[8] and Facebook. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeesh, will probably not be helpful to the discussion. In any case, I suppose it's an opportunity to educate some potential editors on how Wikipedia works. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing admin should note that most of the keep !voters are from Reddit and have fewer than 50 edits.--v/r - TP 01:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • TParis, I think *most* is a bit strong. This isn't a vote, as we know, but any closing admin should take a look at the actual arguments made and not discount legitimate keep comments because of outside canvassing by others. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't speak for the rest of the Keep voters, but because I've been boycotting Reddit for over ten years, you've motivated me to reply: I searched for this article after reading about the event in the New York Daily News. If you have a strong case to make for deleting this article, you should write that here instead of flailing the word "encyclopedic" or ascribing guilt by association. Cheeftun (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cheeftun: your argument is based on WP:ITSINTHENEWS. I suggest you take a look at the whole page (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) in general, since what you said above ("People will imitate it. Journalists will write about it again and this page will be needed to contextualize copycat events") is WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the "Delete" arguments that say "that event will not be notable" (like TParis wanted to implify: "The reporting is a flash in the pan. It has no long term importance at all.") are also WP:CRYSTAL by then. DJ Baguio (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! That's why I think this AfD is clusterfucked. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "People will imitate it" part of Cheeftun's argument is now less WP:CRYSTAL since some posts in Facebook (in which I'm very active) indicate that some people are apparently planning to imitate the Josh Fight event with different names. I can't tell, however, if these plans will come into fruition in any way.DJ Baguio (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing significant about this event, despite sporadic coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --IWI (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's odd, it's peculiar, but it's factual, and it is notable. It is covered by ESPN, USA Today, Insider, and Fox News. Four WP:RS that are independent, and all covers in depth instead of just passing mentions. Passes WP:GNG easily. SunDawn (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of non-notable events that pass GNG. This is a news story with no lasting significance, and this is an encyclopedia. --IWI (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GNG is only an assumption of notability. It's not a guaranteed pass. With events, you have the consider the long term significance. Do any of these sources talk about it's long term significance? I havent seen it.--v/r - TP 01:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but WP:RAPID also defines that article nomination deletion should be delayed for a few days. This article is nominated for deletion just few hours after it happened. Whether it is long lasting or not it hasn't been determined, and even if you want to wait to see whether it is WP:LASTING the move should be to draftify, not delete. SunDawn (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is an event that will be remembered for years to come as an internet joke that actually took place. It was widely covered by news sites globally. This very much is something that should stay. Its honestly appalling that this page would even be considered for deletion. Jmchugh131 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't claim that with SUCH certainty, but we definitely can't assume this will just fade out of memory in a few weeks. YuvalNehemia (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event has been covered around the world by the news and is definitely a noteworthy event to keep as many heard of it and its a internet phenomenon not to mention it perfectly follows with WP:EVENT. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not much to say that hasn't already been said. Sure, it's an internet meme, but this article has facts and it is notable. Sure, it's fair to assume that in a few months not many people will be talking about the cultural significance of the Josh fight, because it's a fairly fleeting moment, but it had fairly wide impact and wide coverage by diverse sources as per WP:EVENT. --LivelyRatification (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I considered nominating this for deletion, but was torn because of wide ranging sources that pass GNG. Per WP:EVENT, it does seem to meet the criteria of depth of coverage and diversity of sources, however, it fails to meet geographic scope and lasting effects. Duration of coverage is still TBD. Natg 19 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC) (an editor named Josh)[reply]
  • Delete The subject does not hold lasting significance, and it is premature to assume otherwise. Citations offered to defend the significance of the event are largely fluff pieces by North American publishers. Claims that this event has international significance are overblown, with few examples offered. At least one of the supposed examples of international commentary was an article sourced back to CNN, who were already cited. It should also be noted that some communities, such as Imgur, are actively interested in this story. Users from those communities may be under the false impression that the event generally matters outside of those pockets, and may be inclined to interfere with the deletion process for reasons not in the interest of Wikipedia or its policy and quality standards. Melonbob (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the other Delete arguments above... in short, it's a non-notable event. ~EdGl talk 06:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it passes the bar previously established. I personally compare this with Storm Area 51, and while later coverage may dispute these numbers, both events seemed to have had a similar attendance (~1500 vs several hundred to few thousand people). Plus the fight was a charity event, which means it has a lasting effect.
    The Josh fight could very well disappear from memory in the not-too-distant future, but it's without a doubt too early to tell. In a few weeks/months time we can discuss this again, after the dust had settled down. YuvalNehemia (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that after rereading WP:EVENT the fact that this was a charity event, unlike Storm Area 51, is even more fitting to the guidelines. YuvalNehemia (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's sad to think how many events are not known because someone decided not to bother recording them: consider how many things were dismissed as unimportant at the time, but have only now been recognised as significant, and we're mourning the lack of relevant information. All those people saying "delete for now and we'll think about it later", how many of them would even bother to remember? Phil | Talk 08:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh if only those 31st century humans knew about the meeting of the Joshes. How ever will they survived. If only Wikipedia had a policy to protect such important anthropological information. Buuuuut...it doesn't.--v/r - TP 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is based on WP:NOTNEWS but that discourages routine news about sports and celebrities and we are covering the Oscars regardless. The event in question is more unusual and seems to be reasonably notable and so it passes WP:GNG. It maybe that there's some scope to consolidate this with others meetings of people with the same name but I'm not sure what more we have. Anyway, the applicable policies are WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE and these clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs polish, but it is an example of a WP:EVENT, and many other memes and joke events (such as the Storm Area 51 meme) have their own pages.
  • Keep per the points raised by Vaticidalprophet, MainPeanut, Cheeftun, and Phil Boswell. The original argument wherein a dog gets rescued from ice is just WP:DOGBITESMAN. So the dog got rescued. Are we supposed to make articles for every single rescue that have equally "miraculous" circumstances? Unlike an uncommon yet still frequent event like "dog rescued after four days", there's not a lot of (and possibly even near zero) instances where multiple people gathered from the continental United States—most of which bearing the name "Josh"—in order to participate in an event sparked from a "meme" as part of internet culture. The circumstances behind the event - mainly the method of how it was initially planned and its (surprisingly positive) outcomes - also warrant its uniqueness, and will likely serve as a basis for future events of similar nature. Chlod (say hi!) 10:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the future events happen, and secondary sources link them to this event, then we'll cover it then.--v/r - TP 12:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable" per WP:LASTING. Rather than delete at this stage, it's rather worth keeping at this stage to identify the lasting effect. Even if there were no lasting effect, this is not your run-of-the-mill event - much like I said in most of my point above. This just feels like a knee-jerk AfD to another viral internet meme that sparked an event: something that definitely has happened before (with nearly the exact same NOTNEWS, RECENTISM excuse). I guess modern internet culture is just this repulsive to some Wikipedians. Chlod (say hi!) 13:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a few days old. Kind of early to call it internet culture, don'tcha think? Some Wikipedians are just quick to accept any trash that gets thought up and throw away Wikipedia's purpose so they can be part of the "in crowd".--v/r - TP 17:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The meme has been going around for way longer than "a few days old". Maybe some reading on the article would give you some insight as to how it became known on the internet. I'm not even going to bother with the generalized assumptions. Chlod (say hi!) 19:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        At the time I supported deletion, every single secondary source was 2-3 days old. Has that changed? If not, my comment stands.--v/r - TP 00:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        And how many of those sources described events that happened from a year ago which started this? Obviously not even mainstream media determined that the event was notable last year — because no one expected anything to happen. Surprise, something did, and it gained mainstream attention. So now we're supposed to call every event leading up to this as "new" because the sources are new? Chlod (say hi!) 00:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        At the time I am writing this we have secondary source from BBC that are just 17 hours old, Global News from Canada, New York Times that also have similar publish date. Mainstream medias from Singapore, Indonesia, Germany, and Japan also cover the event, nearly all made on the 25th, the same day you supported deletion. SunDawn (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The way you phrase your comment sounds like you intended to refute my point. But I don't think you understand what my point is because you've actually strengthened it. No long term notability is established. It's a flash in a pain and it'll be forgotten in 2 weeks.--v/r - TP 16:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's forgotten in two weeks, we can delete it then. We're not wasting space. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (they/them | talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the facts may be correct (they are), the event may be real (it is), and the article may be real (it is), that doesn't make it automatically notable. I was born (for real) but that doesn't mean that I deserve an article. Please expand upon your reasoning. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, per WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per the aforementioned arguments highlighting its notability and merits of being maintained as a page (very succinctly summarised by people here such as Andrew, SunDawn, and many others), I see no reason to delete what is a perfectly valid wikipedia article and passes the threshold for being preserved. Greenleader(2) (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure it's a odd but true story but it was something weird that happened. As for "flash in the pan" there are plenty of articles on here that not only are of long forgotten things that basically no one remembers except for the nerdiest of historians. In addition I've noticed it DOES follow rules set forth by the admins. Sure we can trim it but to delete it is a travesty and would have to bring up the question of THOUSANDS of other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by All the usernames have been taken by now (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most keep arguments border WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the fact that we have an article on the Storming of Area 51 is simply not an argument. From what I can see it meets WP:GEOLAND as there are sources from the UK, Canada and India pointed out by MainPeanut. There is one problem: we don’t know if this has lasting effects since the event happened recently, just 2 days ago. Any speculation of it having or not having lasting effects (such as what Cheeftun and Jmchugh131 did) is pure WP:CRYSTAL. WP:NEVENT says ”It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect”. I’d recommend closing as no consensus and re-nominating a few months later to see if it indeed has lasting effects to be considered a notable event. --~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 12:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly this is the best option, as WP:RAPID also stated that breaking news should not immediately be sent into AfDs. SunDawn (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per MainPeanut, among others. Why has this been nominated so soon after creation? Where's the good faith? We should revisit this discussion in several months time, when its' lasting notability can be more easily ascertained. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This wasn't just "some silly internet thing", it was an event that raised considerable amounts of money and food for charity. And even if it was just "some silly internet thing", why is that a reason for deletion? Does Wikipedia pride itself on being Olympic-level killjoys? If the Area 51 raid can have an article for recklessly destroying a portion of the desert, then this article and its subject's charitable contributions certainly deserve an article. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again... Borderline WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of that page directly says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid". You are going to have to find another argument, or at least elaborate, because simply linking that page is not an argument. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk)
What you said is to some extent correct, but it is only valid when some stuff exists for a reason, which are mostly more minor things or in cases where there is no specific notability guideline for the topic (for this article the relevant notability guideline is WP:NEVENT). Also the reason this article was put up for deletion is not simply because it's "some silly internet thing" (even though some users have said that) but rather because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we don't know (yet) if this will have a lasting effect or not. Thank you for caring enough to read and respond (unlike many others). ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 17:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Many others have stated events like Area 51 have been documented on Wikipedia, and I personally think this article is being nominated for deletion due to its very recent nature. Look at the Area 51 event, little people talk about it now, but it was still significant. The same could be said for the Josh fight if given enough time to expand and be properly documented. DavidCostell44 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having fun with repeatedly linking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DavidCostell44: Having little lasting significance is actually a reason to delete the Area 51 article, not a reason to keep this one.--v/r - TP 14:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It just funny, also its a very recent event, of course there won´t be a lot of sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisahumanboi (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prime example of WP:LULZ. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 15:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure the incident being either funny or recent is good enough reasoning to keep the article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Isn't wikepedia about documenting history? If so why is there a bias towards events that have happened, stopping them from being retold in the future? There is countless stupid things like this that have been recorded in history, yet we're ignoring today's history, and by deleting today's records, those in the future will have forgotten about this era. — 99.234.172.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Dear IP editor, see Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for the answer of your question. And also your arguments are WP:LOSE and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 15:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait 2 weeks or so then reevaluate: Coverage at top-level media outlets is continuing into Monday [9]. This has potential to remain notable, so waiting to evaluate the lasting effects or extented coverage (if any) until coverage dies down seems like a better option than preemptively deleting, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and can't predict that nothing else will happen here. Its.Trei (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are various reliable sources that have covered this event, and it's notable enough to remain up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetronic (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: The heart of the issue is whether the fight has lasting notability. Given that most of the delete arguments (and some of the keep arguments) are WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, I believe we should wait and see if people are still talking about it later. Exactly how long we should wait, I'll leave for more experienced editors to determine. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (they/them | talk | contribs) 16:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In a difficult year like this the little things that keep us going, Josh fight was not a mere event but the true will of humanity that still hides in fear but that wants everything to return to normal. Josh figh must be remembered for bringing people together in such difficult times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.90.55.78 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nostalgia and your feelings toward the event are irrelevant in the decision on whether to keep this article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both keep and delete have used arguments that are discouraged by WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. We do not know if this event will be forgotten in two weeks, we do not know if it will be remembered in a decade. As several other Wikipedians have suggested here before me, the best course of action would probably be leaving this discussion for now as per no consensus, and have it resurface in a few months time. YuvalNehemia (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.34.234 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC (UTC) — 201.163.34.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete: this is some incredibly Reddit stuff. Sheila1988 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It may be just "an Internet thing" but it's still an event that moved hundreds of people, it seems nearly a thousand. It has its historical meaning. Alerinaldi (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC) — Alerinaldi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The longer this discussion continues the more clusterfucked it becomes. Many arguments from both sides are arguments to avoid. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 19:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Styyx, I tend to agree. Is it appropriate to request an admin close at this point, or would it be best to wait and let the process play out as usual? It's not a typical speedy or snowball close situation, so I'm unsure. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      ATA is an essay, so don't expect others to follow it religiously like policy - especially the SPAs. It just means that whoever's closing needs a steady hand and a good (figurative) scalpel to cut through the cruft and pull out the actual arguments for keeping/deleting. This isn't a case for speedy or SNOW, so we'll just have to wait out the duration of the AfD as per usual. Chlod (say hi!) 19:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there some kind of banner for WP:ATA? If there isn't, there should be. Although I think that at this point it won't help much. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (they/them | talk | contribs) 20:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It’s reliably sourced and has received enough widespread coverage to indicate notability. Not to mention it’s a unique enough event, unlike the dogs being rescued thing. Dogs get rescued all the time. Events of this magnitude don’t. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is about a fundraiser too, I feel like the weirdness and the cause is enough to keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by All the usernames have been taken by now (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's literally an old meme. I've seen that horribly pixelated jpeg that started it all years ago. Nowhere near relevant enough to be here. Whoever votes to keep this needs to "lurk moar" or whatever kids these days are calling it. PraiseVivec (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It’s not an old meme the event literally happened a few days ago. Not to mention, a meme being “old” doesn’t have anything to do with its notability. I’d hardly call something covered by The New York Times and the Associated Press not relevant. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just seems like a local public interest story. KidAd • SPEAK 22:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete A wp:BEFORE search shows mostly coverage by fringe sources (ie tabloids/pop culture outlets with poor reputations for factual accuracy) and/or unreliable self-published sources such as reddit or Medium (blog). Reliable outlets have mentioned it, but only in the context of their fringe interest segments, which generally does not meet the sustained coverage requirement for notability. Whilst it's possible that sustained reliable coverage may come, at this time, the article does not appear to meet that bar. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 23:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that the article is an example of what Wikipedia is not, but even according to Wikipedia's own 5th pillar, "Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."
  • And just because you don't believe that an article is newsworthy, doesn't mean that it's actually "not news." It was notable enough to trend worldwide on Twitter, which is where I discovered this wholesome story about a man named Josh who held a pool noodle battle in a small town in Nebraska to crown the owner of the name Josh and raise money for a children's hospital. USA Today thought it was news. 2600:1700:5258:1050:3513:5921:CE01:8267 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— 2600:1700:5258:1050:3513:5921:CE01:8267 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Like what many others have said, the Josh fight has received widespread attention from Internet users, and from sources that can be deemed as verifiable. Its not much different from the Area 51 raid I'd say. Internet-organized events of these magnitudes are rare, and they're notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. I understand that older Wikipedians may find them irrelevant, but I do seriously consider them to have a place on Wikipedia because they aren't just memes (which nowadays they hardly last a day in terms of relevancy), the event actually occurred in real life. PeterPrettyCool (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with deleting this article for the reasons listed above. The Josh fight had global news coverage and will be remembered for years to come as another internet meme, especially in comparison to other actions such as the Area 51 Raid. Arkadelaide (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't delete this article , i know that it all started as a meme but it turned into motivational movement that raised money and food for children those in need 102.128.12.2 (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— 102.128.12.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Readership This is currently one of the top read articles on Wikipedia with over 300,000 readers in just two days. It is therefore not surprising that such a high-traffic article should have lots of !votes. And consider the alternative. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Philadelphia has just been relisted because in a week of listing, nobody at all could be bothered to register their opinion. Our consensus process requires participation and the more we get, the better. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, given the number of views on the page, I think this discussion has been about as productive as we could have hoped for. A lot of readers will have learned something about AfD and a lot of good faith contributions have been made, even if they haven't all been fluent in policy. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with deleting this article for the reasons listed above. It's keep spreading as a cultural phenomenon already. From what I've seen it was translated at least to 4 different languages far away from US. 12:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— Evitaperron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Hi there, can you provide a source for your claim of this article having in excess of 300k views? JoshFight (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoshFight: There is a tool called "pageviews" which allows access to the pageview statistics for any given Wikipedia page. A link to the statistics specifically for "Josh fight" can be found at here, which shows 318,780 views in the past two days. Chlod (say hi!) 12:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has already been translated into different languages.
It has been shown to be notable enough as it has spawned articles from NPR, Fox News, The New York Times, New York Daily News, the Associated Press, Arizona Central, The Indian Express, Indy100, The Arizona Republic, Metro (newspaper), Lincoln Journal-Star, The Courier
and several more reputable news organizations and publishers. The notability of this event is reasonably big as well.
It has received lots of pageviews: over 300,000 in the mere days since its creation. Also, many of the people against this page's existence claim that it is new and not yet noteworthy. Just because something is new does not at all make it not noteworthy.
Finally, claiming that this article should be taken down for irrelevance is disprovable, as another internet meme, Storm Area 51, They Can't Catch All of Us has its own page: even though this event had exponentially more participants than the scarcely-attended Area 51 gatherings and nearby festivals.--JoshFight (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— JoshFight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
New record: that's WP:OTHERLANGS, WP:POPULARPAGE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at once. Keep going. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 10:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Styyx, let's not WP:BITE the newbies, they're contributing in good faith, even if they are not as familiar with policy as experienced editors. I know you're also commenting in good faith, but it's not a spectator sport. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On another note, if they're newbies, please stop using the wiki-ABCs. You're forcing more Wikipedia jargon in their face that will make it harder for them to understand how to make good AfD arguments. Explain with clarity, not with the expectation that they'll read 15 policy pages on the topic. Chlod (say hi!) 12:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JoshFight: responding again per your and others' "request". "The article has already been translated into different languages.": each Wikipedia project has its own way of defining notability, as guidelines differ from language to language. Those interwiki links (as we call it), cannot be used as a reliable source. "It has been shown to be notable enough as it has spawned articles from NPR, Fox News, The New York Times, New York Daily News, the Associated Press, Arizona Central, The Indian Express, Indy100, The Arizona Republic, Metro (newspaper), Lincoln Journal-Star, The Courier and several more reputable news organizations and publishers.": as the nominator said, there can be bursts of reliable sources for each breaking news, and we do not create articles for those, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. "It has received lots of pageviews: over 300,000 in the mere days since its creation.": because a page is of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is actually notable. "Finally, claiming that this article should be taken down for irrelevance is disprovable, as another internet meme, Storm Area 51, They Can't Catch All of Us has its own page": citing another page is not convincing, as there is almost nothing stopping people from creating other articles. It's only valid when some stuff exists for a reason, which are more minor things. this will undoubtedly happen again, and the event's official subreddit community has even discussed the possibility of another event next year with a different name in use. This will continue on.: what you are saying here is a pure speculation of the future, we cannot know if it is really going to happen or not. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 10:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to request the other editors to please stop hounding the newcomers. If they make flimsy arguments featured in an essay, it's not your job to point it out. If you do want to at least give them some insight on their arugments, use the talk page instead of this AfD. If you see an SPA, just tag them as SPA and move on. This behavior of repeatedly calling out faulty arguments by newcomer editors (even if they came from another website) based on an essay is borderlining on incivility, and does not reflect how we're supposed to be treating new editors, SPA or not. Chlod (say hi!) 12:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Chlod. And I have to mention that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay and there is no obligation for anyone to agree with it. Just because someone use OSE does not mean their comments are invalid. The admins would judge as they close this discussion, and as far as I could see those who respond to other new commenters by using jargons are not admins. (and they probably would never become one if they keep doing that) --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Chlod (talk · contribs). Not because of our votes is the same, but I feel that the atmosphere on this particular AfD is pretty bitter. As a newbie myself, I feel there are lots of WP:BITE going on and lots of borderline WP:UNCIVIL actions. I do not want to point to a specific editor, but continuing to post links to Wikipedia guidelines while not explaining anything is pretty much biting the newcomers. Yes, lots of newbies didn't know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but that is exactly why we should explain to them instead of just dismissing them quickly. And from a newbie standpoint, if Area 51 could stand, why couldn't this one, which really happened, and with humanitarian cause, can't be allowed to stand? It's the "duty" of more experienced editor to educate them, instead of just dismissing them with a wave.SunDawn (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I agree. Also, a lot of people are citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think they fail to read the first sentences on WP:SSE (which is in the same essay): "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." Wizzito (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, I feel that some people here should stop WP:Biting new editors (being unfair towards new editors), and instead lay out the rules and guidelines, instead of linking to a lot of jargon that newbies may not understand. Wizzito (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with this. As pointed out by Jeromi Mikhael and SunDawn, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an official policy, but simply advice. One line of the essay in particular that stands out is "Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate." It has gotten to the point where a lot of the keep votes done by newcomers are being rebutted by simply pointing to the essay with no further explanation, which the essay itself discourages. I also feel like this is overshadowing some of the legitimate arguments made by other users as well. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I am one of the editors who kept slamming OSE essays on newbie editors, and I apologize for that. This AfD is getting unreasonably repetitive with the same reasons all over again, and it's getting annoying.. Well, this is actually my first AfD page that I'm very much worked out, so I scarcely stated my arguments here unless when deemed necessary due to lack of experience, so I just tried to patrol this AfD to keep it in control. But it also seemed like some of my actions actually added more chaos instead of controlling it. Again, I apologize for that. Guess I'll just tag SPAs for now. ^_^ DJ Baguio (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DJ Baguio, understandable, thank you for acting in good faith. Frankly, I wish this AfD could be closed sooner rather than later, no matter what the consensus is, because I agree that it has rapidly grown repetitive. But apparently there's no good precedent for doing that, so we'll just have to wait until the week has run its course. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I kept hearing references to this and couldn't find out about it. This definetly should be hear to help people know what it is because people will still be talking about this for a long time and the information should be recorded.PythosIsAwesome (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is history! We cannot let it be removed and forgotten by most as time continues. Too much has already been lost or made to be lost because people do not like being reminded of the truth in our history. Little Josh deserves better!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.108.123 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC) — 70.77.108.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I have seen this page go from ~1,000 page views to over 300,000 in a matter of days. The main argument for deletion seems to be that this article may not meet the GNG, but there are several citations from various news sources (local, national, even international), and the significant increase in page views demonstrates this article is relevant and likely to remain at least somewhat relevant in the foreseeable future. Nordberg21205 (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nordberg21205: Nobody is saying it does not meet GNG. Meeting GNG does not guarantee inclusion when considering other factors, in this case WP:NOTNEWS. This might be newsworthy, but it is not encyclopedia-worthy. The views are because it is viral this week, but with no lasting significance. --IWI (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ImprovedWikiImprovement: The debate over meeting GNG comes from determining the article's lasting significance, as that in itself is a part of the notability guideline for events. While it's certain that the views will go down as the internet moves on with its next viral trends, it is likely that this event won't be forgotten either. There are numerous comparisons between this and Storm Area 51, most of which fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but even though there's hardly any news coverage of Storm Area 51 anymore, the page still receives ~750-800 views per week (excluding the new views sparked by this event) and 34 edits per week (from 21 March to 21 April). I acknowledge that page viewership and editing statistics don't solidify lasting significance, but perhaps they'll provide an insight into the event's questionable significance in the future?
    • GNG does supersede NOTNEWS for inclusion, actually. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘‘‘Keep‘‘‘ Why did I search it up in the first place? It’s a notable event that actually took place, if this should be deleted, then storm Area 51 should be deleted as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.52.155 (talk)
  • Comment I've noticed that some people are saying that "it'll be forgotten". This is simply not true. The event will be remembered annually; it's a part of internet culture now. PeterPrettyCool (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PeterPrettyCool: Hi there, we can't know if people will remember it a year from now. The people saying that it'll be forgotten and you saying it won't are against WP:CRYSTAL which, in summary, means you can't suggest you do know what reliable sources will be saying a year from now or that an event will be still revelant. Fixing26 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • post-vote comment I think it is fair to say that the extensive keep vs delete debate over here on Wikipedia with people feeling passionate for and against this article's existence is an example of the Streisand effect. This is attracting more attention to the fight and possibly even justifying its Wikipedia notability more as a result. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to reliable sources. I also point at the participation of this AfD, which at very minimum hints at this event being notable. I'm seeing too many people yell at new editors by citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CRYSTAL. Not everyone is used to the sharpness of these shortcuts. Please actually explain why you think their !vote is invalid, and pipe-link to the essay if you wish. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So true! Completely agreed... — JoshFight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 8:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC) (UTC).
    • I really aim to keep the article since it's interesting, funny, and wonderful to my personal part. But then, I was one of the editors who used to call out these votes with these two essays. Even so, I don't think that their comment is entirely or partly invalid, I just did that since these arguments have gotten pretty repetitive. I agree though that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument can be valid or not depending on the scenario, but WP:CRYSTAL still indicates that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it can't predict with mere speculation on what will happen in the future.DJ Baguio (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a routine event and it has, at this point, received significant coverage in reliable sources (also funny as hell). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as said by other fellow editors on here, to see if this will be covered more by news outlets in the coming days, or even weeks, or if it was just a one-off thing. LucasA04 (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be frank, people don't talk about the area 51 raid anymore, but that page still exists. Do people still have to talk about judges of the 1800s for them to keep their pages? What you're sayin goes against the idea of an encyclopedia of human knowledge, so that it can be preserved for the future... JoshFight (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC) — JoshFight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Lasting effect is needed for events only and not for people (see WP:LASTING). "Article X also exists" is not an argument. The fact that the lasting effect of the Area 51 raid is questionable is a reason to delete that article, not keep this one. Please make a policy-based argument. Thanks. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A highly notable event covered by several worldwide sources, some of which are linked earlier in this thread. I fail to see the WP:NOTNEWS aspect of the article and how it does not comply with WP:GNG, etc. --KingErikII (Talk page) 09:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable for what? How do you know? Are you from the future? Do the Browns ever win the Superbowl? WP:GNG is the presumption of notability. If it determined notability always, we wouldn't need all these other notability guidelines. Just because an event receive recent coverage doesn't mean it has long term notability. Just wait until the next flash-in-the-plan and everyone will forget this.--v/r - TP 12:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, WP:CRYSTAL. You don't know for sure that it won't be notable. We can give it more time and reassess it, and in the meantime we can keep it up, no big deal. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (they/them | talk) 13:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's... quite a profound misunderstanding of what GNG is. GNG is what notability is - other notability guidelines (with the exception of NPROF) - are presumptions that they will meet GNG. "Presumed" is also explained at GNG - and this clearly does not fall under that exception. Moreover, the SNGs have absolutely nothing to do with that. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see news coverage all the way up to yesterday afternoon,[1] so I don't buy the argument that "all the coverage was at the time, there has been nothing since". I'm with the group that says reassess this in 6 months to see if it has any staying power. As an article, I don't think it diminishes Wikipedia, and although I understand the arguments in favour of deletion, I think this falls the other side of the line. Rhanbury (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for reviewing the case in 6 months, but in the meanwhile it still fails notability guidelines. The coverage lasted about a week and was quickly fading, and was only covered by major sources (those at national levels similar to the BBC) for a day or so.

References

  1. ^ Layton, Josh (February 27, 2021). "'Little Josh' fans raise money for college fund after he wins battle of Joshes". Metro. Retrieved April 28, 2021.
@MJL: That's why he made the copy. As a draftspace. So we don't have to scrounge up all the sources again if the page is deleted. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:D530:346B:5153:DBE5 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep discussion in English, and please be respectful. LucasA04 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not suffice notability guidelines, and most media coverage seems to just been fairly recent, not meeting the with coverage already fading, mostly being kept at for around a week. As per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't know if there will still be major coverage in the future, and if there is we can revisit if there is a need for an article about the Josh fight. For now, it just seems to be a slowly fading internet meme. Fixing26 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixing26, while I agree that the burst of coverage right after the event is, understandably, receding into the past, there is already continuing coverage that goes in-depth and discusses this event in the context of others past and future. For instance, this Op-Ed from today in a local Delaware paper, hundreds of miles from any local connection.[1] No event is covered as frequently as when it actually happens, but I don't think there's any real reason to believe this won't still be mentioned and discussed months in the future. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - further continuing coverage.[2][3]
@Ganesha811: That's true, however the event coverage from major sources seemed to be one or two brief stories, and the rest from minor publications. These were mostly published around the date of the Josh fight, and coverage was nothing more than covering the basics of it being an internet meme. Fixing26 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Editor, Darin J. McCann | Executive. "How many Joshes does it take to have a good time?". Coastal Point. Retrieved 2021-04-29. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  2. ^ Nasser, Yousef (2021-05-02). "After week of their lives, Josh Swain and Little Josh look to the future". KLKN-TV. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  3. ^ Miller, Dale. "'Battle of the Joshes' more than absurd event". The Grand Island Independent. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  • Keep I think it's quite clear simply from the fact that there are so many reports of this event that is is indeed notable. If Storm Area 51 is notable enough, then so is this event. The article is Start Quality, no doubt no doubt no doubt. But I feel like this is a unique event and fundraiser, and the quality of the article will improve whenever some Josh uploads some photos to Commons and the text is given more thought. I fear that most potential writing users are spending most of their time here, and so the current quality isn't indicative of how the article will look in the near future. RobotGoggles (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see WP:RAPID which are outlined at WP:EVENT where nomination for deletion should be held for few days, while this AFD is immediately requested few hours after the event. WP:PERSISTENCE arguments also fall into WP:CRYSTAL, as editors are unsure about the notability of the event in the future, that is why I advocate keeping the article for now, and assess its notability in the future. SunDawn (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The case with most internet memes is that they stay relevant for a short amount of time, whilst it was wrong for the nominator to immediately open the inquiry into deletion. In regards to WP:PERSISTENCE, the news headlines are already fading, and whilst this can't be used to predict the future, it's shows that the event has already mostly fallen out of relevance other than those who insist to keep believing the meme. Fixing26 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The story made worldwide news and generated money for charity. This actually happened, and the [[[Storm Area 51]]] did not. I believe it is significant enough to have a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XaotikHP (talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
XaotikHP, we know that it happened, but that's not enough (see WP:EXIST). The worldwide news generated is as a result of what we call recentism. Please expand upon your reasoning and make a policy-based argument. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though it is another dumb fad popularized by the use of internet memes, it still should receive some sort of coverage, but not coverage in a way that grossly exaggerates what actually happened for comedic effect (no use of battle infoboxes, and no treating of the event as an actual armed conflict). Kosmosnaut87. 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete An examination of WP:EVENTCRITERIA shows that the Josh Fight does not meet the notability guidelines. It is not an event with a lasting impact or one with a wide geographical scope. It does not have deep coverage (only brief news reports), and hasn't had time to establish lasting significance. While there is a diverse number of sources, this is an expectation for notable events, not something that establishes notability itself. To contrast with Storm Area 51, Josh Fight has less coverage and less impact (no responses from local or national governments, no lasting impacts beyond internet memes). This isn't to say that the notability criteria can never be met for Josh Fight, but it doesn't seem to be established right now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qwaiiplayer, while I think there are a lot of reasonable points in your comment, I want to take issue with one part of it - that "it does not have deep coverage (only brief news reports)." I don't think that is accurate. The WSJ, NYTimes, Lincoln Star-Journal, and a couple of other sources are long, in-depth, and solely focused on this event - they all show signs of original reporting (interviewing relevant people, for instance), and are not just "churnalism" that lifts from other reporters. While not all of the article's sources are as high quality as those, overall, the coverage is in-depth. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, that essay appears as a red link. Is this a serious comment about deletion? Wizzito (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wizzito What do you think? ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 07:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now but reevaluate later There are articles on similar internet memes, kept because they are still relevant and talked about today. The Josh fight was fairly recent, so I think we should give it time to see whether it remains relevant in meme culture. How much time is up for discussion. dotu (Dotumantaraye) (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete for now. NOTNEWS, indeed. But could be notable in few years if there is sustained coverage. We should have a project/system for such hibernated topics, tagged with 'revisit in 5 years' or something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why delete this . In the midst of the pandemic this made people look forward to something. It was hyped up and had a happy ending that everyone liked - from User:117.96.218.242
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 01:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oakley, Missouri[edit]

Oakley, Missouri (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 have no idea how A railroad stop in the southeastern part of Logan Township, maintained in 1912. Oakley is a common family name and this place was doubtless named for a landowner. On the Highway Map the name is incorrectly spelled Oakle from the non-GNIS source is enough to determine that this is an "extinct town" or a community founded in 1912. This name doesn't even appear on topographic maps. Searching brings up a reference to the "Oakley station", a couple references to a "farm at Oakley", some stuff about a car race in Oakley, Kansas, and appearances in old railroad timetables. There's a number of passing mentions, but all related to it being a spot on the railroad. Doesn't seem notable. Hog Farm Talk 19:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 19:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 19:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The GNIS folks were really digging deep here, since I really think that the "Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection", whatever its value otherwise, surely isn't going to give us notable places if we have to resort to it instead of other sources. Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mangoe: - To make matters worse, the "Ramsey Place-Name Card Collection" is the non-GNIS source quoted in the nomination calling it a railroad stop maintained in 1912. I have to wonder how much effort went into place classification sometimes. Hog Farm Talk 21:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thesis author's surname seems appropriate. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the railway station of the Missouri Southern Railroad Company on a list (Mann, Rable, Freeman, Oakley, Ellington) and that's it.

    Unfortunately, we have Yohoghany, Pennsylvania and lots more in our future. Uncle G (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mostaccioli[edit]

Mostaccioli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostaccioli is now included in Penne and the only other entry is Mustacciuoli (or mustaccioli). I propose returning Mostaccioli to a redirect to Penne. Leschnei (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had just done that it would have been done by now. There is no involvement of the administrator deletion tool in this, and it would have taken two fewer edits to do. This is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since this spelling is used for two different kinds of food, this seems useful as a disambiguation page. Zagalejo (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've simplified the layout, we don't know which of the two valid entries is the primary topic if either, so let's just leave it be. PamD 14:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This disambiguation page is necessary because the search term "Mostaccioli" refers equally to each of the articles to which it now points (the cookie and the pasta variety), and should not be purely redirected to one or the other. - AKeen (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedwell, Missouri[edit]

Bedwell, Missouri (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 don't think this is a notable site. The non-GNIS source calls it a A railroad stop in the eastern part of Logan Township, named for Dave Bedwell, a prominent settler of Dickens Valley, which somehow got worked into this being an unincorporated community when this article was created. Searching is rather difficult, as Bedwell was a common last name of a family of businessmen in the relevant time frame. Found some appearances in old railroad timetables listing Bedwell as a non-standard stop after Ellington and before either Fruit City or Red Oaks depending on which year you look at. I don't think this site is notable. Hog Farm Talk 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNIS cites this topo, which does not depict a notable community. I'll go with Ramsay's description of just being an old RR stop, perhaps where the Bedwells lived. Reywas92Talk 21:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally not notable; the article is one sentence. How is this town any different than every other town in the US or even the world? Just because it exists doesn’t make it notable. Star7924 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pilkington. Koncorde and Uncle G, I'll leave it to you, who have read the sources, to make an appropriate mention of this topic in the target article. Sandstein 07:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Burgies[edit]

The Burgies (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 Burgies are a slag heap. They have a kind of local notoriety (the article describes it), but there's pretty much no supporting information for their notability. Existing sources #1 doesn't mention the banks at all and Rushy Park was the name of a large seam, so no evidence this referring to the Colliery in question. One reference I found suggested it stopped being worked by the 40's it seems, by which time it was only being worked as a drift mine in any case so the photograph is unlikely to be from the colliery. #2 is about housing development. #3 is dead, and unlikely to be authenticated in any way. #4 isn't even a source? I would PROD but if someone has something to note it would be good to see because at present everything in the article seems unsupported. Koncorde (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, and subject to the review, below are issues related to the articles general notability with regards to WP:NGEO:
  1. Doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND as an uninhabited slag heap, nor natural feature.
  2. Doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT as no protected status.
  3. I think all that remains is if under WP:GNG the question is what counts as WP:SIGCOV. It is clearly mentioned off and on in St Helens Star as local papers often do (though very limited in scope, and mostly speculative). Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for finding #3. I suspected it was amateur historian speculation, so that confirms my suspicions on the Burgoo story at least being at best a bit of local speculation.
Not sure the next two support a separate article. Maybe a mention in the main St Helens and History articles about spoil tips needs to be included for some context about local environmental impact. Thanks Peter. Koncorde (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the problem with using slang article titles, and thinking that Project:use common names requires that. It makes it difficult to find what is being written about and doesn't impart knowledge to the reader either. The proper name for this is, as far as I can tell, the grounds of the Pilkington Glass Factory, which could be covered in Pilkington as there is apparently a lot missing from that article, from the welfare programmes and recreation grounds to the factories and how these grounds are a local wildlife site (probably should redirect to Site of Nature Conservation Interest). Do not be fooled by the book title of Pederson 1988. The entry is several pages long. It's not a directory.
  • Uncle G (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we want to expand the Pilkington entry it would need to start from scratch as nothing in this article seems supported with a lot of crossed wires. There's little to merge that wouldn't need re-sourcing. Regarding the welfare programmes / rec grounds - these were separate to the Burgies which was a dumping ground until relatively recent memory (well beyond 1944) and is referring to the land north of the factory where Pilk Recs rugby club was on City Road, and some of the parts of what became Haresfinch "new" housing estate back in the 30's. Koncorde (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would appear, then, that the right course of action is not to delete, but to edit and put a properly sourced sentence somewhere in Pilkington about this local slang name so that people know that they've arrived at the right place, and just redirect this title there. Then add a lot more history. Enjoy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashington JW RFC (2nd nomination) for more companies with welfare programmes and rugby clubs. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The Burgies are two slag heaps in St Helens left to grow wild. Some people walk their dogs on them." seems to be the relative extent then. I am not sure there is any encyclopedic value to a tip site of which, (along with ex collieries) there are about 45 just in St Helens alone. Most of them built on, a good many of them from Pilks. The rec and other stuff, sure, expand the Pilk article. Mention the Burgies? Maybe. But it's more local lore and legend about a tip site than Pilks themselves. Koncorde (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly why a redirect serves. The reader who only knows the slang name gets pointed to the real subject and real history, and at least has a way to answer the question "Well why am I suddenly here, then?". Uncle G (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Uncle G. Clearly not independently notable but we can provide some encyclopedic information. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Voices[edit]

Black Voices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear notability, previously moved from mainspace to user space and reintroduced to mainspace without any substantial edits. nearlyevil665 18:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable at all, does not meet any notability criteria. Star7924 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking notability and, it seems, content. Even on HuffPost it appears not to be a thing; when I follow the "Black Voices" tag on the Welcome to BlackVoices post, I come to a page with only 6 articles listed, two of which are ads ("45 Beauty Products You'll Be Glad You Own..."), while the other four are tagged neither "Black Voices" nor "BlackVoices". No idea what other HuffPost community categories there are in the world, but I wonder how notable any of them are. This one certainly isn't article-worthy. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selmen Sassi[edit]

Selmen Sassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like he fails WP:NFOOTBALL; I can't find him anywhere other than the unreliable Transfermarkt, which has no appearances in a league listed at WP:FPL and no manager roles at any appropriate clubs; managing an academy or youth team does not confer notability.

A search of Austrian sources only comes back with one Q&A, which is far from enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I can't see any real English media coverage either outside of self-published and social media stuff. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep while he doesn't even come close to passing NFOOTY, I think these three articles ([10], [11], [12]) are enough to confer him notability. The page obviously needs to be cleaned up, though. Nehme1499 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you are aware, the first two sources that you mention are the same, and also the same as the one identified in my nom. The Tunisian Youth article is a word-for-word English translation of the Laola1 source so, in my view, should not be treated as two separate references. So we have the Q&A and the Espace Manager source thus far. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, didn't notice that one was the translation of the other. Still, two non-trivial sources are (barely) enough imo. Nehme1499 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a few more sources: [13], [14] Nehme1499 21:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might just be the way that Google translates things but those both come across very, very promotional in terms of the language used. Newspresse reads like a CV. The other article has a lot of puffery like Indeed, I seek from our conversation with Salman, an ambitious young man of thirty-one years, a figure who deserves all respect and encouragement. and All this diligence and perseverance, of course, made him the focus of much attention and expanded the range of his personal and professional relations that testified to him with competence, Not sure if it sounds this way in Arabic? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, I don't see this player on any other system other than a few unreliable sources. Govvy (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 TT me 23:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet NFOOTBALL and does not have SIGCOV.--Mvqr (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round Mountain (Reynolds County, Missouri)[edit]

Round Mountain (Reynolds County, Missouri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small and not notable hill, even though it has a name it doesn't even have a namesake. Delete per WP:HOLE. Geschichte (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This user has created tens of thousands of place articles presuming notability on existence and being recorded in the GNIS, not on significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 21:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that I do know a hill from a hole in the ground. But I cannot find anything documenting this hill in depth. Uncle G (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Mountain[edit]

Lee Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small and not notable hill, even though it has a name and therefore also a namesake. Delete per WP:HOLE. Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability for bulk-produced place article. Unfortunately there are tens of thousands of these lacking substance beyond mere tables of place names. Reywas92Talk 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would definitely know a mountain from a hole in the ground. But there doesn't seem to be anything documenting this mountain in depth that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Silent treatment. Clear consensus for redirection, and no consensus for merging. The article's Revision history remains in place for a potential merge to be considered. This could be discussed at Talk:Silent treatment, if desired. North America1000 00:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tampo[edit]

Tampo (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 seems to be no reason for this article to be separate from passive-aggressive behavior, silent treatment, or save face, especially when none of the linked sources are reliable enough to say that this behavior is unique to Filipinos. There's also the frankly bizarre parts that talk about this in the context of Filipino women being courted by Western men. This isn't a phenomenon unique to Filipino women, and it's not a phenomenon that can be generalized over Filipino women, especially without an academic source. The whole thing seems like some sort of (self-)exoticization; there isn't an article for "sulking," for instance. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 17:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 17:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 17:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that there are no available sources that discuss this as a primary topic, or as a topic that deserves special treatment separate from the other behavioral/psychological phenomena I mentioned. Essentially, the only appropriate content in this article is the definition of the word, which Wiktionary covers. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, neither is it a forum for dating advice. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 17:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of FC Basel players. Fenix down (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Spirig[edit]

Kurt Spirig (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 footballer has only played in the second highest league of Switzerland, failing WP:NFOOTBALL and also WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Nehme1499 17:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of FC Basel players; possible search term but not independently notable. GiantSnowman 11:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a good and interesting start and fits into the history of the club. The second highest tier of Swiss football is, and was at that time, professional. The article needs expanding with a lot more explanation, but then that is beyond my personal knowledge at this moment. But anyway, my vote is keep. Greetings --Huligan0 (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI above keep !vote comes from the article's creator -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of FC Basel players - we need more than database coverage to show a passing of WP:GNG; I could not find any significant coverage of this particular Kurt Spirig in searches and I'm not convinced that we ought to just presume that such coverage exists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of FC Basel players as per above arguments.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New situation:

  • Hello fellow Wikipedians, especially Geschichte, Nehme1499, GiantSnowman, Spiderone and Ortizesp, I would like to comment that the second highest league in Swiss football is a professional league and therefore notability is existant. Never the less, I have created a new situation, that I personally think would be a better solution than a deletetion. I have opened a new list: List of FC Basel players (2). If this list is okay for you all, then please redirect to this page. If this page needs corrections, then I would be very thankful if you would add them. Please give feedback. Thank you very much and I send you all very sunny greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That page should also be deleted. It's just shifting the problem from one location to another. Nehme1499 23:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of FC Basel players and potentially include in that list, although that list really ought to have some proper inclusion criteria set (see eg List of Arsenal F.C. players), as listing every single player who has played for a club which is over 120 years old in one article is clearly impractical -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not convinced he's non-notable, but there's nothing online which I can find to support my theory. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashleyyoursmile! 03:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China[edit]

Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TNT this article is basically just expounding the conspiracy theories promoted by Falun Gong and it's proponents. Whatever value this article used to have is no longer, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY are sorely lacking. Even the title is disputed because there is no evidence of this actually happening. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is a notable topic independet of whether it is a widespread conspiracy hoax as asserted by RuleTheWiki. Scholarly articles have been published about it,[15][16] and prominent news pieces dedicated to it.[17][18][19] The topic satisfies WP:GNG as there are multiple in-depth sources writing about it. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Refs [1] and [2] are NOT secondary sources and cannot be used to make such a claim of this magnitude see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Refs [3], [4] and [5] are relaying reports and crucially are neutral as to whether this is actually occurring in the first place and the last ref is not even about Falun Gong specifically. [20] explains this as a reputable outlet publishing original research. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even if we take the article in its current state, it is cited to several upon several reliable sources, all of which are covering the subject in a non-trivial manner. The article is highly informative and covers a difficult subject. The nominator clearly finds this topic offensive but we need to remember that Wikipedia is not censored; see WP:NOTCENSORED. To just completely delete all of this info would completely go against the values of the project. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Slander. Just slander. I do not find this article offensive, what i find about this article is the astonishing amount of WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV that is used for example multiple times the 'Victims of Communism Memorial' scholar Ethan Gutmann is used multiple times. Hardly an independent or unbiased source along with many other outlets affiliated with Falun Gong. I am hardly one to support the CCP but we must adhere to basic standards of facts on these issues and while it was once true that organs were harvested from prisoners they are no longer and it was not clear that Falun Gong was targeted in the first place. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, clearly passes WP:GNG. I’m also not so sure that WP:RS back up the OP’s assertion that these are "conspiracy theories promoted by Falun Gong and it's proponents” @RuleTheWiki: do you have a source for that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [21], the Kilgour–Matas report article is actually pretty good at outlining how flaky the accusations are and also that you will not find many reputable human rights scholars substantiating these claims. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one mention of conspiracy in there "Wei Guoxin, public relations director at Tianjin First Center Hospital, which runs the transplant center, said accusations that China used organs from Falun Gong practitioners were “ridiculous” and part of a conspiracy against the country. But she did not respond to subsequent requests for data on the transplants carried out at the center or the number of foreign patients served.” Perhaps you meant to link a different article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it doesn't explicitly say 'conspiracy theory' doesn't mean that the claims made by Falun Gong are anywhere near substantiated in comparison to the well-founded claims of the Uyghur genocide. The main reason i am proposing this AfD is because there is a systematic obfuscation of the truth and shocking amount of bias insofar as the article should be WP:TNT'ed - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to explicitly say conspiracy theory because thats what you said. Not adequately substantiated =/= conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a conspiracy theory. Organ harvesting in China is well known. But even if it were one, the allegations are so notable and well sourced that they deserve the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is about SPECIFICALLY Falun Gong members being targeted for Organ harvesting which no one has ever substantiated that they were SPECIFICALLY targeted - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quick check shows that sources #1 and #2 on the page (I did not check others) describe such claims specifically about members of FG. Yes, they apparently also target other prisoners, political and not only political. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref [5] is from a scholar with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and many others cite the China Tribunal which has worrying links to the Epoch Times. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also i was referencing the Organ transplantation in China page when responding to you. Just as a note. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 09:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is sourced by some reliable sources. It does have "Chinese government response" section. It would pretty much be it if the Chinese government does not have further comment. The article might still need cleanup (for neutrality) but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Also, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source explicitly says that it is a conspiracy theory. This topic regarding Falun Gong practitioners' incidents is clearly notable. Sun8908 Talk 09:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Overwhelmingly supported by solid sources. Boud (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this and the main Falun Gong article are some of the most incredibly astroturfed pages on wikipedia. Deku link (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Conspiracy theories do not disqualify a topic from being on Wikipedia. Though possibly moving the article scope to organ harvesting in general could solve some of the issues but that is out of scope of this AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And SALT. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Thisarana Arama organization page deserves reconsideration regarding permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.122.106 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thisarana Arama[edit]

Thisarana Arama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repeatedly declined draft (see Draft:Thisarana Arama) copied and pasted over to main space with no attempt to address issues. Searching the Sinhalese and Tamil names for this organisation comes back with zero useful results. Simple English and Sinhalese Wikipedia articles for this organisation also contain no decent sources. English searches come back with their Facebook page and little else.

This article has essentially two sources, Online Lanka Radio and Susanda Media, both of which are carbon copies of each other and blatant press releases, not independent content at all. 0/10 effort there.

Massive WP:NORG fail; no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete likewise no RIS in English, Tamil or Sinhalese. Mccapra (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was written by a SPA [22] previously named "Thisarana Arama" who was indef blocked in October 2020 for promoting their organisation and was unblocked (and renamed) after promising not to do it again : see [23]. I am creating an WP:ANI thread later on. JBchrch (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch: - very well spotted. They've completely ignored the conditions of their unblock. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 👍 And done. JBchrch (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to WP:SALT Thisarana Arama[edit]

  • Draft article was repeatedly declined at AfC (see Draft:Thisarana_Arama), and yet was copy-pasted onto the mainspace.
  • Article creator was blocked indefinitely twice for promoting Thisarana Arama. In fact, article creator was previously named Thisarana Arama. See [24][25]
  • We now have WP:OBVIOUSSOCK IPs that are removing the AfC history at the draft article [26] and attempting to expand the mainspace article without adressing the WP:NORG concerns [27][28][29]. I guess I'm gonna have to open a WP:SPI later today...

Long story short, this organisation is determined to use every trick in the book to get Thisarana Arama an article on enwiki. It has no regard for our principles and processes. It is pretty clear at this point that they will create a new article immediately after the closure of this AfD discussion. I propose that we stop wasting out time and energy and salt the article. JBchrch (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging discussion participants Spiderone, Mccapra, TheChronium, Onel5969, Dan arndt and CommanderWaterford. JBchrch (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network. Missvain (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GMA News Digest[edit]

GMA News Digest (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, and I suspect this is an unfamous defunct Philippine newscast/programme. Worse, it is stubbish. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even a full program, just a newsbrief title. Not needed. Nate • (chatter) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. (non-admin closure) Ashleyyoursmile! 03:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN Insider[edit]

ABS-CBN Insider (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, and I suspect this is an unfamous defunct Philippine newscast/programme. The only link here, an archived link, seems not reliable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Jesus School, Kollam[edit]

Infant Jesus School, Kollam (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 non notable private school. Did a WP: Before can't find any independent sources. Poppified talk 16:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Poppified talk 16:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Poppified talk 16:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Poppified talk 16:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Poppified talk 16:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Poppified talk 16:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of independent sources to establish GNG. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 18:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing except for one reference that can't even be accessed clearly doesn't cut it for any form of notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Munaf Kapadia. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas[edit]

How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas (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 book. Essentially an advert. scope_creepTalk 16:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Two lines in the Deccan Herald is hardly in-depth significant coverage, the Week.in magazine coverage actually states that the author is "great at selling his story" and the print.in is not an independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I do not see any criterion from NBOOK being met. Celestina007 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, clearly an advert and I am honestly a little bit concerned about the COI Editing CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails WP:NBOOK. Google search picked up this which barely talks anything about the book and obviously does not qualify as substantial coverage. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Munaf Kapadia, the author of the book, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The content of this article written by Dial911 (talk · contribs) can be used to expand the author's article. The book was published on 10 April 2021 and received coverage just today on 2 May 2021 as I make this comment:If How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas continues to receive significant coverage and reviews, I would support undoing the redirect and restoring the article since the book would meet Wikipedia:Notability (books), which says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
    Cunard (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It states in the article: That is because Kapadia, 31, a former account strategist at Google, not only has an engaging story to tell, but he is also great at selling his story.. That is not a good source. It is not reliable. scope_creepTalk 14:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Munaf Kapadia As per Cunard and as the creator of this stub, I support this action rather than getting it deleted. Dial911 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deggendorf Institute of Technology[edit]

Deggendorf Institute of 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)

Does not meet WP:ORG. Just removed a large amount of text that read like a promotional brochure added by an employee; even the rest of it reads that way. It's been marked as an advertisement and needng sources since 2013. I could only find websites related to enrolling in the institute. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While previous versions may have been problematic, the subject certainly seems notable to me, due to coverage in many sources. I added a couple to the article, but you can find much more searching in German. None of them reveal anything particularly special about this local higher education institute, but they all clearly constitute independent coverage in reliable sources specifically about the subject. wikitigresito (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it does not meet WP:GNG Or WP:NCORP -It clearly does not have sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:NCORP or even the WP:GNG. That it is being used by a company representative to make important updates is a side issue. Some PAID editors do good work. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra I agree, just noting that's how I got here. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you consider the sources that I added? There are multiple articles from Bayrischer Rundfunk, clearly an independent, high quality source. Kindly also note that this is a government institution and not a company. wikitigresito (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't draw a distinction between public and private entities. They both must still meet WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it does not make a difference if it is public or private. What makes a difference is that the subject clearly meets GNG. Could you kindly explain on what grounds you dispute the independent, reliable sources that I added to the article? wikitigresito (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You made a point of mentioning that this was a government institution. In any event, the sources you added are not significant coverage of the subject, and only cite routine information. It does not contribute to notability to cite a statement that this institution has constructed buildings on campus. All universities or colleges do that. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether activities are "routine" or not for an institution does not determine whether coverage on them is significant according to our guidelines or not. Coverage on the performance of a piano player does not become insignificant, just because all piano players give performances. Please also not that these two articles are just few of many more. Consider, for example, the following: 1) (major national newspaper, exclusively about the campus), 2) (local newspaper, research and university-industry linkages project), 3) (local newspaper), 4) (local newspaper, long article on the school's sports teams), 5) (long interview related to music festival hosted by students) 6) (looks short, but full article behind paywall, local newspaper on history of the institution), 7) (national newspaper, exlusively on new study programme at the school), 8) (local newspaper, Chinese delegation visiting). wikitigresito (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my opinion, but appreciate hearing yours. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is still presumed notable, since it meets WP:GNG and is not excluded under WP:NOT. wikitigresito (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. Plenty of sourcing, as with any tertiary institution in Western Europe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article isnt very good, but universities are notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder Universities are no longer presumed notable just because they exist, they must meet WP:ORG just like any other organization. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you must be confusing secondary schools (which are no longer automatically presumed notable) with universities (which are). Nothing whatsoever has changed as far as presumption of notability for universities is concerned. Long precedent is to keep all accredited universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp Respectfully, that's not how I read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which says "The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG)." It goes on to say that most accredited universities may have enough coverage to meet WP:ORG, not that the mere existence of the institution is sufficient. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that Universities are no longer presumed notable suggested that you thought universities were covered by the RfC (which actually, of course, quite specifically only covered secondary schools, but which some editors seem to believe has crept out to cover all educational institutions). In reality, the presumption of notability for universities and the consensus at AfD that they are notable has not changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, there is no super-notability criteria for universities, as far as I am aware, they must still meet WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm sure you're aware, consensus at AfD is important. Consensus is that universities are notable. I don't recall any degree-level European higher education institution ever being deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the article does nothing other than state that the institution exists and names its offerings? I'd be interested in seeing where that consensus was established. If so, then SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be changed to match, because it currently states as I note above. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The profile in Süddeutsche Zeitung clearly constitutes more than routine coverage. Attention by a newspaper of this standing usually points to the existence of a plethora of solid local coverage. Yes, some of it does not rise to the level of secondary coverage but the articles in Idowa are substantial and promise more in-depth coverage behind a paywall (which should not be rejected per WP:SOURCEACCESS). This institution, like most other universities, meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abadi (settlement)[edit]

Abadi (settlement) (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 dicdef, fails WP:N. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a major type of populated place as enumerated in the censuses. If the article had been created sooner, then this horrid mess may have been averted. – Uanfala (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes, the article is a stub but the Encyclopedia Iranica entry, for example, clearly shows that more can be written about this than a dictionary definition. Spicy (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic with clear room for expansion. Vaticidalprophet 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @4nn1l2: It's âbâdi, right, with circumflex accents? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • âbâdi is a perfectly acceptable transliteration used on Wikitionary, but there are other alternatives such as ābādī as chosen by Iranica. There is not an established transliteration scheme for Farsi as far as I know. The English Wikipedia has not adopted any MOS regarding Farsi as far as know (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Persian is just a proposal). 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd just transliterate is as Ābādī as the Persian "آ" is generally transliterated like that, and that's what most sources say. However there are quite a few derivatives of the transliteration. And as 4nn1l2 states, there is no proper guideline on transliterating Persian. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 07:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per all, it is a notable topic with clear room for expansion. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Besides Iranica article mentioned above, this is another quality article on abadi (in Farsi) from Encyclopaedia Islamica. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{cite encyclopaedia|url=https://www.cgie.org.ir/fa/article/237231/%D8%A2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C|encyclopaedia=[[Encyclopaedia Islamica]]|article=آبادی|author=هادی عالم زاده}}
  • -abad (AfD discussion) is currently listed for deletion as well. Should it redirect here? Uncle G (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're two distinct topics related only by etymology: one is a type of settlement, the other is a placename suffix. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the source from here. Per the wealth of information on the Iranian encyclopaedia editors that have access to similar resources can expand the article easily. SunDawn (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) episodes. (non-admin closure) Ashleyyoursmile! 03:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need to Know (The Twilight Zone)[edit]

Need to Know (The Twilight Zone) (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. The majority of the episodes in this series don't seem to have garnered any particular attention in sources, and this one seems no different from what I can see. TTN (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list of epidoes. Pure plot summary, no need to split the short plot summary into its own article. Ping me if sources (reviews, etc.) of this episode are found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) episodes. I don't feel motivated to do a thorough WP:BEFORE routine here, and in the event that there is sufficient independent sourcing out there to establish the subject's notability (which I doubt), a redirect makes it easier to restore the article's current content (which, while certainly not establishing notability, would still be useful in a polished version of the article).--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Not sure why this was relisted a third time, consensus clearly is against deletion. Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asid bin Kurz al-Bajali[edit]

Asid bin Kurz al-Bajali (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 to pass WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Onel5969 TT me 20:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’d argue that as a Companion of the Prophet he’s inherently notable, and from memory we’ve kept articles about Companions previously at AfD. Companions are the most important source of hadith in Islam, and this one has eight sources. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this individual is mentioned in the Haditha then he should be treated as any other religious figure. It appears that the individual is documented in Muslim religious sources. Are we going to start removing the names of minor Catholic saints next? Hyperion35 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure that simply being a companion of the prophet is automatic grounds for notability, neither is being mentioned in the Hadith. There are plenty of characters mentioned in the canonical books of the Bible which are not considered notable enough to have their own article. Similarly, there are folks who met Jesus (which is the qualification for being considered a companion of the prophet), who do not have their own article (e.g. Bartimaeus, Jairus, although both of those figures are covered in articles about the major events they play in the NT).Onel5969 TT me 21:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’m not suggesting that being mentioned in Hadith is the basis of notability, but that being the source of the Hadith is. This guarantees ‘sustained coverage’ in works discussing the importance of the Hadith one has transmitted. I agree not automatic notability, but I’d be generally wary of deleting a companion. Mccapra (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mccapra, hi - my Hadith comment above was directed at the second keep !vote. I appreciate your view on companion status, simply do not agree with it. Onel5969 TT me 19:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there are sources at least mentioning him, I'd argue that redirect to List of Sahabah is more appropriate than outright deletion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Companions of Prophet are considered notable, and since Mccapra has pointed out, "there'd be plethora of coverage" in the Hadīth literature. I tried searching online but Google gave me just multitudes of snippets from various books that I am not able to access. There is much more classical coverage offline. ─ The Aafī (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Gordon[edit]

Adrian Gordon (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) 15:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does pass NCRIC in its current form and although there's a bit of coverage it's not from a reliable source, however none of the matches and his performance were really notable and there's not enough coverage for GNG. No suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creepTalk 21:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One-day matches he played in did not hold List A status, fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Bell (Welsh cricketer)[edit]

John Bell (Welsh cricketer) (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) 15:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NCRIC and I'm not seeing anything in a search. His performance suggest he won't have gained enough coverage in Wisden or offline either. No suitable list to redirect too either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One-day matches he played in did not hold List A status, fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely a sentence with few citations. Very not notable. Star7924 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Johnson (cricketer)[edit]

Martin Johnson (cricketer) (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) 15:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NCRIC and while an internet search was difficult due to a cricket journalist of the same name who recently passed, I doubt there is any coverage. His performances also suggest he won't have been covered in Wisden or offline also. No suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and NCRIC. scope_creepTalk 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One-day matches he played in did not hold List A status, fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Edwards[edit]

Godfrey Edwards (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) 15:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NCRIC and there's no real coverage in an internet search. His performances in the tournament suggest it's unlikely there will be coverage in Wisden or offline. No suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creepTalk 21:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One-day matches he played in did not hold List A status, fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Playing at the highest level in and for the Netherlands, he is included in several articles. I miss in-depth coverage. gidonb (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Søren Sørensen (cricketer)[edit]

Søren Sørensen (cricketer) (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) 15:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NCRIC and I'm not seeing anything in a search. There may be some coverage in Wisden or offline because he performed well though. No suitable list to redirect too. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creepTalk 21:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One-day matches he played in did not hold List A status, fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Might be WP:TOOSOON. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Mishraa[edit]

Vivek Mishraa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible covert UPE article on a non notable singer who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The article references several sources all of which are unreliable like the Times of India which has been deprecated and other self published or user generated sources coupled with other sources with no editorial oversight. A before search turns up empty as well. Celestina007 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TryingToDo, you are article creator so I’d be as frank as can be, incubation isn't a viable option, as they aren’t notable and are unlikely to notable anytime soon, furthermore, this article has all the tale signs of UPE editing and I would not encourage UPE editing by draftifying, where you could easily move it back to mainspace in future when I’m no longer watching. Celestina007 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Celestina007, this is not an ULE editing i was just listening song on YouTube and I liked the song. So searched about him and started editing that's it. So how can it be an UPE editing ?

By the way can you please tell me how you think that this work is an UPE ??? TryingToDo (talk)

  • Delete: Non notable singer who fails both WP:SINGER as well as GNG. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Ahlawat[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yash Ahlawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All 4 sources here are paid promotions. This has been refunded because of minimal participation. But it clearly fails WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only other article that I found on him was Yahoo! Style, which is also a 'brand voice' press release. WP:GNG is not met when the only coverage on you comes with disclaimers like No Forbes India journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article. and Disclaimer: This is a company press release. No HT journalist is involved in creation of this content. Please delete this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing more to say as spider had already said it. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 18:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enea Kadiu[edit]

Enea Kadiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional autobiography about someone who does not meet WP:NFOOTY as they have never played in a national professional league. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT as well - this is the third time that this article has been here recently (previous two were speedy deleted). None of the references provide significant coverage and, in fact, most don't even mention him. A search comes back with next to nothing; best sources found were a deletion discussion on him in Simple English Wikipedia, his Soccerway profile and a squad list. Non-notable as a footballer, non-notable as a beach soccer player and non-notable in futsal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Nehme1499 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not close to being notable.--Mvqr (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - oh dear, not good at all. --Huligan0 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt or block User:Enea94 from editing as it's clear they are not willing to comply with our COI requirements and will probably try and recreate the article yet again. Number 57 10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Romer Carlson[edit]

Rachel Romer Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:COATRACK article on a subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Generally, an individual is notable when they satisfy our notability threshold or peculiar SNG & not by their proximity to seemingly notable entities/persons. Notability isn’t a birthright or WP:NOTINHERITED. A before search showed me this, which is overtly unreliable, this, which is overtly unreliable also & hits in numerous sponsored posts. In summary, there isn’t a single source that I can observe which discusses her with in-depth significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how much this is related to New Hampshire or Florida. Is there a discussion for American businesswomen? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rachel Romer Carlson is the founder and CEO of a female-led company that is valued at $1 billion or more. How many women have this accomplishment? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That´s the company. You are writing an article about a person, a biography. What is your biographical source material? And why does this article contain only 3 sentences that are actually about its subject, the person? Where is anything else about the person going to come from? Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's three sentences out of eight sentences total. She's 33 years old and is the founder and leader of a billion dollar corporation. How many people have biographies at 33 years of age, other than professional athletes and entertainers? Should I include information about her twin daughters or her marriage ceremonies which were officiated by David Brooks (commentator)?[1]--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is a co-founder, & not founder that isn’t my point anyway, she fails to satisfy any of our notability criteria for inclusion, you can of course prove me wrong my providing us with RS that proves the contrary. Your point about her being 33 & cofounding an organization is irrelevant. Furthermore the article mainly discusses the organization & not subject of the article per se. In your opinion what notability criteria does she meet? Clearly you shouldn’t be creating articles directly to mainspace. Perhaps use the AFC method of submission instead. Celestina007 (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. She is the co-founder and CEO and her name is synonymous with Guild Education. Maybe you can help me get through the paywall?[2] CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Celestina007 Please remember to make an attempt at civility. Suggesting AFC is fine, suggesting that an editor shouldn't be creating articles is...not very civil or constructive. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple Google search returns multiple RS, for example a cover article in Forbes (and yes, by a staff writer, not a blogger, so RS) and an article from Stanford Graduate School of Business (although it is something of a "look at what our alumni are doing" article). Her wedding appears to have been covered by the New York Times, for what it is worth. Additionally, as the cofounder and CEO of a company with a billion dollar market cap, one would expect to find further RS because simply having that position tends to generate coverage. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — @Hyperion35, you do realize that in-depth significant coverage in multiple RS is required by GNG for GNG to be met? The forbes source isn’t bad, but one source isn’t sufficient for GNG to be met. A biographical article needs at least WP:3REFS so by all means, please do provide to this AFD, any of the three(just three) of the multiple RS you claim to have discovered, if you can’t, then I’m afraid your keep !vote is invalid. The article in itself as well as a host of other sources I observed make reference to the organization and not the subject herself hence WP:SIGCOV isn’t met. The whole article is a coatrack. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off, that "three sources" "rule" is an essay, it is NOT Wikipedia policy. Second, you do NOT get to say that my keep vote is "invalid", that is once again uncivil. The Forbes article in and of itself goes a long way towards establishing notability. The MoneyInc article itself may not be from a RS, but it does contain some interesting biographical information that could probably be found in better sources. A link to a Fortune article was placed, but it is nehind a paywall so I cannot assess it, I merely note that another editor claims that it contains significant coverage (remember, AGF).
There is another article and interview at InfoQ although I am not familiar with that source. However, that article notes that she was the keynote speaker at a conference called Develop Denver 2019, the Develop Denver website confirms that it is a real thing, but I cannot immediately find the notes of her actual keynote speech on that website.
In searching for that speech, I instead came across This article in the Colorado Sun about the subject. The article is also about the company she founded, yes, but it is primarily about Carlson and her role, a significant number of paragraphs actually start with her name, for example. This strikes me as a highly valid reliable source with significan coverage. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lee, Allen. "20 Things You Didn't Know About Rachel Carlson". moneyinc.com. Money Inc. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
  2. ^ MURRAY, ALAN; MEYER, DAVID. "Can tech solve the re-skilling challenge?". fortune.com. Fortune. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while there is valid points from Hyperion35, I'm going to air on the side of delete here because it does appear that the article and her notability stems more from the company than independent notability. In my view, she's borderline, and I'm of the belief that encyclopedic topics either pass notability or they don't. I think WP:TOOSOON is applicable here. If anyone finds anything additional I'd be willing to change my vote, but I didn't just find enough online to merit keep. Megtetg34 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage that I am finding, such as that Colorado Sun article, tends to focus more on Carlson's role in founding the company than the company itself. In many of these cases, it can be hard to separate the two. There is certainky far more coverage of Apple than of Steve Jobs. And way more coverage of Franz Ferdinand than Gavrilo Princip. And yet both of those individuals have significant independent notability. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in disagreement with you that she has a bright future, and that a $1 billion dollar company valuation is impressive. Personally, I think it's impressive. However, as it pertains to this particular discussion, whether or not I, or anyone else, thinks that what someone is doing is impressive doesn't necessitate inclusion into the encyclopedia. Opinions aside, the facts are: 1) There isn't enough independent, reliable sources about her to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The Colorado Sun article that you mentioned is a local newspaper, not a mainstream newspaper. Not gonna work. See WP:SOURCES. The Stanford blog post is where she went to school. Can neutrality apply there? I don't think it can. The institution has a vested interest in presenting to the public that they have successful alumni. See WP:ORGIND: any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly are considered dependent sources. Dependent sources don't count towards independent sources. 2) Just because Steve Jobs or other business people have an article, doesn't mean that all founders of highly valued companies, or any companies at all for that matter, should get an article. See WP:WAX and WP:OSE. 3) The debate that you and Celestina007 are having pertaining to WP:3REFS is the bare minimum for encyclopedic inclusion. Even IF the topic had 3 independent sources, it doesn't mean that a bell tolls, and the article is automatically accepted into Wikipedia, no questions asked. Other factors come into play. The basis of your argument is that there is "just enough", and I don't even think there's that. My vote is firmly planted on delete. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three references is, once again, not Wikipedia policy or a guideline. It is an essay by one user. Please see WP:NEXIST. The standard is the existence or even likely existence of sources. I believe that you have also misunderstood what I meant about Jobs, I meant that most of the articles about him will also be about his company. I do believe that it is possible to agree to disagree, but I do find misunderstandings disheartening. Hyperion35 (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what is the objection to the Colorado Sun? It does not appear to be a local newspaper, amd I am confused about the statement that it is not a mainstream news source. Perhaps you can add citations on that to our Wikipedia page about the Sun? Hyperion35 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a mainstream newspaper like the Wall Street Journal for example. I have given my vote and reasons above per Wikipedia policy and for no other reason. However, it's clear that it's very, very important to you that she stays. Let's let the rest of the community have their vote and respect them, whatever they may be. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the worst nomination I have seen today. Subject meets WP:GNG. There is an in-depth Forbes article about her from a Staff Writer, which unlike contributing writers, is an acceptable format. There are also CNBC and New York times articles. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject does not meet any reading of GNG that emphasizes the coverage has to be significantly about the person in question. This is not the 1990s, $1 billion is just not what it used to be, and a company valued over $1 billion does not automatically make its head notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I have revised the article and added sources, including a reference to a regional EY award in 2020, and created this source assessment table, which does not include the NYT opinion article co-authored by Carlson nor the CNBC source about Guild:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
2019, Class Act: This 31-Year-Old’s Company Rocketed To A $1 Billion Valuation Helping Workers Get Degrees, Forbes (Staff) Yes Yes Yes The article focuses on Carlson, and includes biographical information, e.g. a history of Guild focused on her role, information about her family, her childhood, some of her past career, her family's history in the education industry, and some of her education background. ✔ Yes
2016, When Education Innovation Is the Family Business: a Dinner With the Romers The Chronicle of Higher Education Yes Yes value not understood The article is more focused on the Romer family, but Carlson is discussed in the article, including some of her education background and past career before Guild, and her personal goal for Guild. ? Unknown
2018, Guild Education’s twist on college is working for cashiers, sales clerks and others who abandoned the idea of a college degree, Colorado Sun Yes Yes Yes This article is focused on Carlson, and includes biographical information, including her family (children), the creation of Guild, discussion of managing Guild in the context of being an expectant parent, her family, her childhood, her education background, and some of her career history. While there also is a substantial discussion of Guild, per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ✔ Yes
2021, Managing Future Growth at an Innovative Workforce Education Startup, Harvard Business School Cold Call Podcast Yes Yes value not understood This source is more focused on Guild, but includes some background on Carlson, because the podcast host asks, "Tell us about Rachel. Rachel Carlson is the... She's the protagonist in the case. She is the founder of the firm. She's an interesting person. Tell us a little bit about her background," and there is a brief discussion of her family, some of her education, some of her prior career, and the creation of Guild. ? Unknown
2020, #StoptheSpread: Hundreds of business leaders and investors signed a commitment to help stop the spread of the coronavirus pandemic., Business Insider India Yes Yes value not understood This article is not focused on Carlson, even though her picture is at the top, but it takes notice of the open letter she co-authored that advocates for business leaders to take action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. ? Unknown
2020, Steph Curry, 400 CEOs And Investors Sign Open Letter Pledging To Take Bold Action In Combatting Coronavirus Spread Forbes Staff Yes Yes value not understood This article is not focused on Carlson, even though her picture is at the top, but it takes notice of the open letter she co-authored that advocates for business leaders to take action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. ? Unknown
2014, Rachel Romer and David Carlson, New York Times ? ? value not understood There is no byline in this wedding announcement, but some information is provided about her family, her education and her past career. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
My !vote is based on the results of my research and the sources assessed above, but there is also WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, which states, Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company, and several of the more robust sources are included in the Guild Education article, and relevant information could potentially be added to the History and/or Leadership section of that article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I have updated my !vote to delete after further consideration of the sources as well as the recent comment by Celestina007. Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::::Comment I am not sure if it is an error, or if there were two separate Forbes stories, but the Forbes story you have linked to is not the Forbes story that I mentioned earlier. This Forbes article appears to be a full length feature, possibly a cover story, specifically about Rachel Romer Carlson. I do not know whether it affects your vote, but I believe that it should be included in a list of sources. It os clearly non-trivial significant coverage of the subject herself. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I should not post comments while watching baseball. I apologize, this article was right at the top of the list. Mea culpa. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — I follow a Rosguillian, philosophy when engaging in AFD's which is, make your point, add perhaps two more points/arguments and then back off & let the community handle the rest. My thought is this is the archetypal example of WP:TOOSOON. She definitely has a bright future ahead of her & would invariably get an article on her retained on mainspace but im afraid now is not that time. Celestina007 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least redirect to her company page. Riteboke (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is leaning towards a keep consensus but relisting in an attempt to see if a firmer consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are solid !votes to "keep" or to "delete", more discussion might lead to a more satisfying close than "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no policy based argument in Wikipedia that if a person is a CEO of a large company, then they must be notable. There is no coverage with a thought. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 17:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rieber[edit]

Simon Rieber (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:NARTIST, declined many times at draft and speedy deleted also, so bringing here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you point us to the reliable sources, they are not in the draft yet. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond Riebz also has a COI for this article declared on their user page. --- Possibly (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously not notable. No indication of artistic recognition (exhibitions, reviews, collections). We are not here to host vanity pages. --- Possibly (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cannot see that the subject can be considered notable. 'Google' search revealed little, if anything, of note. Eagleash (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails BIo and GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Butch Francisco[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Butch Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Narrowly escapes WP:G4 and WP:G11 due to rewording and small adjustments in content. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL by a long way. The passing mentions in Rotary Club are not enough as he is affiliated with that organisation, so they are non-independent, per WP:IS. Other references like Wikivisually and Facebook are not reliable and self-published, per WP:RS. Role in politics is way short of NPOL requirements. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is not found here.

Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE including a search of Filipino sources here. Only unrelated namesakes coming up. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him a spot in Wikipedia, and absolutely none of the footnotes are reliable or notability-supporting sources for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to pass the inclusion criteria for any of his occupations. Bearcat (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FWIW, I've blocked the editor of this article for undisclosed paod editing elsewhere, no idea if that applies here too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recreated article. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Undisclosed UPE, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: There's another person - a columnist - bearing that name, but neither of them are notable. This should've been speedily deleted since it's been around a couple of weeks since the article was recreated. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India. ✗plicit 12:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of million-plus urban agglomerations in Tamilnadu[edit]

List of million-plus urban agglomerations in Tamilnadu (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 is no need for a seperate article like this for adding just 4 cities when we have a seperate article for the complete million plus agglomerations from India. This should be deleted or redirected into List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo César Pereira[edit]

Paulo César Pereira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SNGs like WP:NFOOTBALL do not apply here. There is no evidence that this player meets WP:GNG at all; best coverage found all trivial; see Benfica, Zero Zero and Record. I can't find anything examining him in depth. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny (futsal player)[edit]

Danny (futsal player) (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 SNG available so Danny is required to pass WP:GNG; best sources found were a couple of match report mentions, one in Sapo and another in Ojogo. Other than that, we have three routine announcements about renewing his contract, which offer no depth 1, 2, 3. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Mesquita[edit]

Manuel Mesquita (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 is no SNG for futsal players, they must simply meet WP:GNG. The best sources found on him were a passing mention in a match report on Sapo, an extremely brief transfer announcement in Record and a routine announcement about renewing his contract. Such routine coverage is insufficient for GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Razzleberry pie[edit]

Razzleberry pie (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 seems to more of a joke fruit than an actual, traditional pie filling: the article was at one point mostly pop culture references to razzleberries. The source cited in the article is a recipe blog about how someone "decided to figure out how to make a razzleberry pie" in 2014, and the only other reference I can find is that Marie Callender's calls their frozen raspberry/blackberry product a "Razzleberry® Fruit Pie" ([30]). I can't find it in any recipe books. Lord Belbury (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lord Belbury (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of nonce usages of this for people who want a generic placeholder for an unspecified type of fruit pie, or just want a silly word for a children's story, but no distinct documented concept of a razzleberry that I can find. And the history of the article shows that ideas of what this is have been all over the place, with no coherent idea of what this concept is. This is what deletion policy used to call "an idiosyncratic non-topic". Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is just not there for the claims being made in the article. The term has mainly been a fill in term. The pie product from a major retailer is not important on its own to justify the article, and we do not have the good, firm secondary source coverage we would need to justify this article. Before we can have this article we need someone basically to publish in a reliable source a history of the use of the term razzleberry. As it stands now this violates the rule against original research in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamla Nath Sharma[edit]

Kamla Nath Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Present coverage is not enough for WP:GNG and BLP does not meet WP:NBIO. Possible promotion on subject's request. Devan Lallu (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails to demonstrated notability, fails WP:NPROF. It seems his only work was a single book with 53 citations and his MA does not look any better. The awards he got are all non-notable but I am not sure about these "citation plaques" he got but looking at the 58th IEC Meeting reports, they also give them for best paper awards and other things "3.9 Best Paper Award 2007 The award is a citation plaque along with a cash prize of either £ 250, or £ 400 – in the form of Gift Books (Wiley Publications), and the awardee will have an option to choose." which does not seem to make it notable. --hroest 14:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero evidence of meeting NPROF, and GNG profile is decidedly lacking. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW delete. There is no reasonable possibility of this discussion resulting in anything other than a consensus to delete. BD2412 T 21:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cricketers Converts to Islam[edit]

List of Cricketers Converts to Islam (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'm aware that this article is still under development but, before it gets too far, I want to start a deletion discussion because this looks like a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation to me. I can't see how it would pass WP:LISTN or fulfil any purpose at WP:LISTPURP. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can’t find any sourcing that would provide a proper basis for this. Mccapra (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially the list equivalent of WP:OCEGRS, and article contains two entries and no lead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Probably done in good faith, with the recent news of Bjorn Fortuin converting. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tintin 14:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prior. Vaticidalprophet 16:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Next week it's 'List of cricketers who converted from meat eaters to vegans' which would be a list just as pointless as this one. StickyWicket (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Silly list. Mosesheron (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't need lists for what faith cricketers are. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ludicrous cross-categorisation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems more like trivia than an encyclopedia article Originalcola (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak per CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Testpaper (2018 film)[edit]

The Testpaper (2018 film) (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:NFILM and WP:GNG; article was sent to draft by User:CommanderWaterford about half an hour ago but returned to main space 4 minutes later with no reliable sources, still. My WP:BEFORE search found nothing. The New Indian Express reference is about a completely different film. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY ——Serial 11:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I saw the page of this movie. In its talk page , it is mentioned that it is under the scope of wikiproject:films and is a stub. So I don't think that I should be deleted. Moreover, this movie is also in the list of IMDb top rated indian short films and that list of IMDb is independent and not user generated.

Please see WP:IMDB. Films with no sources outside of IMDb are almost never kept. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.spiderone , you have said that the film is not listed on that IMDb list , plz check again , it is on 9th or 10th rank.

No it isn't and it doesn't matter even if it is. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?countries=in&title_type=short&sort=user_rating,desc view this , the list you was viewing was in ascending order , this one is in descending order. And please don't delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:4001:81D9:ECE4:283B:B777:447C (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by user rating with 7 user reviews... How is that notable? Please link me to WP:THREE reliable, independent sources (e.g. newspapers, magazines, independent film review websites) covering this film in depth. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Spielberg's 1964 film firelight's Wikipedia page is also created and that page has absolutely no references , you can see there and still it is there and not deleted. There is also a reference of Movies Fc and Movies Fc is a independent source.Randomcrunchycookie (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means put that up for deletion if you want. You still haven't responded to my request to provide WP:THREE reliable, independent, published sources discussing this film in depth Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is not even a single reference in that steven Spielberg's firelight's Wikipedia page and still it is there. Therefore I am requesting that please do not delete this pageRandomcrunchycookie (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so you admit that there aren't WP:THREE reliable, published sources covering this film in depth then? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then what ? please do not delete this page, there are thousands of pages like this which are not deleted .Randomcrunchycookie (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails notability as outlined above. Randomcrunchycookie please have a look at WP:OSE for more about why referring to other sub-standard articles is not a reason for a particular item to be kept. Eagleash (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not even Google recognizes this film being a thing, and the bot will detect any sort of obscure topic you didn't intend to research if you put in the right words. This nomination is not helped by the fact Randomcrunchycookies is making WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Getting on an IDMb list of an obscure category with only a few votes from users, even if it is at the top of said list, is not WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable student short film, with user IMdB ratings (which are not WP:RS. Nothing else found to support its inclusion or to pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Might be a COI issue with the article's creator as well. Onel5969 TT me 23:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm usually extremely anti-delete but this article was already deleted multiple times under just The Testpaper (redlink) earlier this month. Seems to me that this article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards and there's multiple attempts to get it on the site O_o Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ToU, and WP:SALT due to repeated recreation. ——Serial 11:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tagged per WP:G11 and SP'd the page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 01:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HealthONE Colorado[edit]

HealthONE Colorado (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 doesn't meet any aspect of WP:N. After 12 years in CAT:NN, taking to AfD for a conclusion. Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete if the largest healthcare system were sourceable (I tried when I too found it in the backlog), it might be notable and a good place to have a list of the child hospitals that aren't themselves notable. However, I haven't been able to source the claim. What I added is all I could find, and part of why I left the notability tag was it was in no way enough. There is probably coverage, but it is impossible to find amid all the random mentions, especially in the Covid year. StarM 14:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: I just dropped a citation in that does indeed claim that HealthOne was the largest system in metro Denver when HCA became the sole owner in 2011 (by the way, I'd think this article should be at HealthOne alone; HealthONE redirects to the article on HCA, and the new title would meet WP:NCCAPS). The 1993 Denver Post article I added mentions that, at that time, HealthOne was one of Colorado's largest employers, with 7,500 staff and annual revenues in excess of $650 million. I'd have to lean keep, but the article needs sourcing work. Try searching the Denver Business Journal pre-2020; I have NewsBank access and can search from the early 1990s on in Denver's two major newspapers, in case you need more to improve. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Sammi Brie:, for the tip on where to look. I'm getting a lot of noise related to Elway's participation in their golf tournament. Oh google, you are so weird at times. I'm also hoping for some stuff in scholar, which I'll dig into over the weekend as I feel like their facilities might have garnered some conversation. Should this be kept, I agree with your title. If it remains iffy, maybe merger to HCA makes sense since I feel like it could still be a good landing spot. StarM 01:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bavley, Alan. (2002-12-17). "Tales of Two Cities: Joint ventures offer insights on how HCA Inc. might operate in Kansas City" (pages 1 and 2). The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19 – via Newspapers.com.

      This is a very extensive profile of HealthOne in The Kansas City Star, a major newspaper in a different state from which HealthOne is based.

      The article quotes from Edwin Kahn, "a Denver attorney and chairman of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, a health welfare advocacy group". Kahn said, "The alliance seems to be very incestuous with the HealthOne hospital. They haven't diversified assets, they haven't developed the revenue to benefit the community. Their fate is inextricably tied to this for-profit entity."

      The article notes: "HealthOne did curtail some programs, such as home health care and psychiatric services. ... Meanwhile, charity care by HealthOne's hospitals has been growing at more than twice the rate of other Colorado hospitals, from $12.2 million in 1998 to $30.2 million last year.

    2. Scanlon, Bill (2006-09-01). "Hospital contract void - HealthOne no longer 'in network' for United Healthcare". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "Hundreds of thousands of Coloradans must find a new hospital or pay significantly more for care as a midnight Thursday deadline passed in a dispute between the state's largest health insurer and its largest hospital company. Health and government officials Thursday urged Denver-area residents not to panic over failed contract talks between insurer United Healthcare and HealthOne."

    3. Algeo, David (1995-10-20). "Hospital firms to close deal Columbia-HealthONE will claim third of area business". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: " HealthONE and Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. agreed yesterday to proceed with plans to form a joint venture that will claim a 33 percent share of the Denver area's hospital business. ... Columbia-HealthONE, with $1.2 billion in assets and an estimated $1 billion in annual revenues, will be the largest single health-care provider in Denver."

    4. Zubeck, Pam (2010-04-29). "Don't Spend That Money Yet". Colorado Springs Independent. ProQuest 276236004.

      The article notes: "Combining the two models is how the Colorado Health Foundation was created. In 1995, nonprofit HealthONE, doing business as the Colorado Health Foundation, and for-profit Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) pooled their Denver assets to form HCAHealthONE, which owns seven Denver area hospitals and numerous clinics and other facilities. The foundation, with nearly $1 billion in assets, doles out millions annually toward its goals of expanding health care access to the underserved, improving healthy living, bringing insurance coverage to more people, and providing graduate medical education."

    5. Perrault, Michael (2001-04-24). "Chain Details Upscale Hospital Healthone Facility Will Be Contructed at I-25, Lincoln Avenue". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "HealthOne is a 50-50 joint venture owned by HCA - The Healthcare Co. and HealthOne Alliance, a Colorado nonprofit organization. The health care system's six hospitals and more than 40 health care clinics employ more than 9,000 workers."

    6. Austin, Marsha (2003-03-23). "Hospital alliance rejects buyout HealthOne says no to offer by HCA". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "HealthOne Alliance, the nonprofit half of Denver's largest hospital system, this week turned down a buyout offer from its Nashville, Tenn.-based partner, HCA Inc. ... HealthOne operates seven Denver-area hospitals, including Presbyterian/St. Luke's and the new Sky Ridge Medical Center, scheduled to open in Lone Tree in August. The HealthOne hospital system was created in 1995 when Columbia/HCA's nonprofit HealthOne traded $350 million in debt to its parent for a 50 percent stake in the Denver hospitals and a contract to operate them."

    7. Conklin, Michele (1996-10-26). "Healthone a Passive Investor in Partnership". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "Columbia / HealthOne was created two years ago this week when HealthOne merged its system with the local holdings of Nashville-based Columbia / HCA. At the time the deal was made, there were two HealthOnes: the hospital corporation and a charity responsible for fund raising for the hospitals. The board of the hospital corporation arranged the deal with Columbia, and eight of its board members appointed themselves to the new joint-venture board. Then the HealthOne hospital corporation disappeared. The charity became the new HealthOne Inc. and was given responsibility for the system's medical education programs for nurses and physician residents, research programs and a variety of outreach programs, such as Mother's Milk Bank and an annual health care symposium."

    8. Colman, Price (1995-06-01). "Healthone Boss Stays on Sidelines 'I'm the Hired Help,' Nick Hilger Says Amid Columbia / HC Amerger". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "That hasn't stopped wide speculation about Hilger's future with the new organization, a 50-50 joint venture between for-profit Columbia, the nation's largest hospital firm, and not-for-profit HealthOne, the metro area's largest hospital company."

    9. Algeo, David (1995-10-15). "Columbia HealthONE poised to name a CEO". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "HealthONE owns or operates 38 outpatient clinics in the Denver area. Columbia owns or operates three surgery centers and 28 primary-care centers in the area."

    10. Kelley, Joanne (2006-09-02). "No talks scheduled - HealthOne, United Healthcare meetings may resume next week". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "The standoff between the metro-area HealthOne hospital chain and giant insurer United Healthcare continued Friday, and no contract talks were scheduled going into the Labor Day weekend."

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I also did some due diligence and didn't find enough to qualify for significant coverage per GNG. Missvain (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haley Mellin[edit]

Haley Mellin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NARTIST fail. I can't track down any reviews, collections or independent reporting on her work as an artist. The veracity of some claims is suspect, for example an earlier version of the page says she is in three museum collections, none of which check out. She has a category on Commons, but its contents make me wonder if this is a hoax. She is the founder of something called Art into Acres, for which there are a few interviews. There appears to be some promotional editing going on between that article and this one (for example, see this earlier version of the Mellin page). All in all, I suspect this article is here by way of promotion rather than independent unbiased recognition. --- Possibly (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yinglong999 (talk • contribs)
  • comment very unlikely to be a hoax, see this profile and here and it seems she has had exhibitions in the US and Europe including in MOMA which do seem to make her close to pass notability. --hroest 18:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannes Röst: I was wondering more about the veracity of the art career. MoMA in New York has an searchable online record of everyone who has ever shown there; she is not listed. Similarly, when I checked the claim that she had shown at the SculptureCenter in New York, the SC website says she donated work for three benefit exhibitions, which are fundraisers rather than curated shows. There is a lot of inflation going on here, and my guess is that when you take the inflation away, there is not enough to meet GNG. --- Possibly (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Possibly, and my research and revisions to the Conservation section of the article; the inflation and verification concerns do not appear to be limited to the art, and I have not been able to find sufficient independent and reliable sources to support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godavari Institute of Engineering and Technology[edit]

Godavari Institute of Engineering and 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)

Non-Notable college. Can't see even two reliable, in-depth coverage. Just profile links Sonofstar (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KNivedat (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have done WP:Before this school have sources only from thehansindia.com which is not very reliable. Rest, deccanchronicle is not giving indepth coverage about the school, its just a line. Sonofstar (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article establishes no grounds for notability. "The college has hostels, playgrounds, canteens, a park, and quarters for staff." Wow. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the coverage is way, way below WP:ORGDEPTH standards. Passing mentions and sources controlled by the institution do not confer notability at all. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Suffering from promotional writing. It fails to attain required standard of WP:NCORP being a private educational institute. Chirota (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free Talk Live[edit]

Free Talk Live (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 radio station doesn't seem notable. Nearly all sources are primary, taken from the radio's website. A quick Google Search doesn't bring up any substantial secondary information about the station. BeŻet (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2007-12 Free marketeer Redirect
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Valogne[edit]

Catherine Valogne (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 draftified since in it's current state it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged for improvement for over a month, without any significant improvement, and moved back from draftspace, again without improvement. Searches turned up very little in-depth coverage. Still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the French Wikipedia article is very lengthy but a lot of the sources are offline so it's hard to determine whether they are WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Delete. The monographs mentioned in the French article (Pierre Descargues, "Le Jardin du Sculpteur Catherine Val et du Photographe Olivier Descargues"... and "Catherine Val, la clandestine" [biographie], Paris, Éditions Area/Descartes et Cie,) looked interesting, until I discovered they were written by her spouse. The French Wikipedia article appears to have been created by a SPA interested in Val and her spouse.--- Possibly (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Her 1962 book, J'aime le théâtre, seems to have been translated into German and Worldcat indicates there were 17 editions and that it's still held at nearly 50 libraries. Given the age, it may be difficult to find reviews of her books in on-line sources, although I found a reference to one review in Revue d'Histoire du Théâtre No. 55 (1962). pburka (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The French article is all very impressive at face value, but there are no reliable sources - and concerns about sourcing noted above tend to add more question marks. There may well have been a Daum edition of glass based on her design (150 is a small run, though), but there's no independent coverage presented. It feels very much like she was an arty lady of means, marginally worthy but certainly not "regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors, known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." WP:ARTIST uses the word 'significant' freely. I can see nothing of particular significance presented in the French article and nothing at all of significance in the English one. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mainly due to failing WP:V of the sources mentioned in the fr.wiki article. The English Wikipedia article at its present state does not weigh for WP:NARTIST. Chirota (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Hold[edit]

Submission Hold (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:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Entirely primary sourced. A quick search on Google did not provide anything with an iota of notability. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find sources that show evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not well known. I have never heard of them and neither have any of my friends / community members — Mr Bulmer (talk)
  • Delete, only wikipedia article says that "They were known for their unusual sound, once labeled "post-genre", which combines hardcore punk with elements of experimental and Eastern European folk music." Sorry, wikipedia can not be used for WP:SOAP and the band comes nowhere close to WP:BAND as told by others. Chirota (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area[edit]

Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area (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 find sources, appears to be original research. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's sources in the article. You seem to have just nominated it because of my edit to South normanton. It is able to be kept maybe read the Built up articles discussion on WikiGeography? Nomis site is reliable in it is an official stats site and this can be kept as it was in a discussion on the page. Maybe head there before AfD nomination and claiming original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 2021-04-17T20:26:09 (UTC)
  • Delete This fails WP:GEOLAND as a non-notable census tract. These “Built-Up Areas” were auto-generated and auto-named by the ONS for the purpose of analysing census data ([31]). There has been no wider uptake of this term, nor any in-depth discussion in reliable sources, so it also fails WP:GNG.—--Pontificalibus 20:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just found toe articles here from Derbyshire site https://observatory.derbyshire.gov.uk/a01-alfreton-and-somercotes/. And https://observatory.derbyshire.gov.uk/b05-south-normanton-and-pinxton/ And the nomis is accepted as reliable for stats and built up areas.

    Also try here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#New_articles_on_built-up_areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 2021-04-17T20:46:58 (UTC)

  • Keep its not a census tract, census tracts are arbitrary parts of districts that have a number and letter attached to them (example) but this is a named geographical census area and unlike many such as Grimsby built-up area that can be merged into their single location this is a BUA named after multiple so probably shouldn't be merged. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I meant census area rather than tract in its narrow sense. The point is this is some auto-generated thing that has zero notability and fails all our notability guidelines. Can you give any sources that demonstrate a human rather than a bot regards this as a built-up area, let alone any sources featuring actual discussion of said area rather than simple statistics? Just because there isn’t a merge target doesn’t mean there is any valid rationale for keeping it. --Pontificalibus 21:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The names are also auto-generated so I dont think we can really use the name as a justification not to delete. Eopsid (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As NOMIS notes in the guide the locations are checked and some are removed such as industrial areas. In this case its auto generated which is surely more reliable! especially since modifications are made to improve the accuracy etc. The question is if an ONS BUA qualifies as being "legally recognized" for the purpose of GEOLAND? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the content belongs in the articles about the places in the area, but the American and Chinese equivalents were kept based on similar sources. Peter James (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • This area is considerably smaller than all those American and Chinese ones though, at least the ones linked below. Also I'd like to point out I'm not a strong supporter of deletion, and think we should have articles on larger UK Built-up areas. Eopsid (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everything in List of micropolitan statistical areas links to an article or redirect - the areas are a similar size to this. Many of them redirect to the county, but there are articles for those that cover more than one county. Peter James (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't particularly like those articles because they only have one source and dont have much information in. But you are winning me round to the idea of keeping this article. Eopsid (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eopsid the fact is you would not have created the redirect unless prompted by the redlink created by Uncle G (based on an entry in a pre-1900 gazeteer, I understand) a few minutes beforehand. And of course readers will be queueing to search for 130-year-old terms. I did try to look at the gazeteer but wouldn't load.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whilst I agree with deletion. I dispute that this article is Original Research, it is sourced [32]. Although I would consider that a primary source and not enough for WP:SIGCOV Eopsid (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GEOLAND, looks like 100% OR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with deletion and that it fails WP:GEOLAND but can you please explain to me how its 100% OR? Almost everything in the article is sourced from [33], which is from the Office for National Statistics who I would consider a reliable source. Eopsid (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree I'm not sure where OR came from (unless you're talking about the places it contains) but the source does arguably make it a legally recognized place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Burton upon Trent and Swadlincote Green Belt and Mansfield Urban Area should all be merged as they don't really have any big defining settlements. And Mansfield and Ashfield are relatively close as an urban area.

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. Missvain (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Díaz Island[edit]

Diego Díaz Island (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 notable. A web search, using both the English and Spanish names, returns only the Wikipedia page. This location cannot be found on Google Maps. GenQuest "scribble" 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google maps brings it up no problem. I’ve found and added one further source. Passes WP:GEOLAND Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The island's existence isn't really the problem here, NOTABILITY is. And, since the island is apparently unpopulated and has no notability about it, it does, indeed, fail GEOLAND. GenQuest "scribble" 21:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The island exist. It is sizable. It is historically relevant (events mentioned by Claude Gay) and relevant enought to be included in the book Diccionario Geográfico de la República de Chile. It would be far-fetched to claim reputed scholars like Claude Gay and Francisco Astaburuaga write about non-existent or an "irrelevant" island. Sietecolores (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It still does not pass GNG: two mentions of an unpopulated place does not qualify as Significant Coverage; and, again, the mere existence of a place does not indicate any notability whatsoever. Do you have a policy-based reason to ivote keep? —or do you just not like the deletion nomination? GenQuest "scribble" 17:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A web search, using both the English and Spanish names still only returns this Wikipedia page. A search of Google maps today asks me to Add a missing place to Google maps. I don't doubt the island exists, it's just that when I search for it using Google maps it is not found. The inclusion of the island in a Gazetteer (published in 1899) does not confer notability, however notable the author. The Arauco War, according to Wikipedia, lasted from 1598 to 1753. Not every action and location in this protracted conflict is worthy of mention. The fact that Claude Gay mentions the island does not confer notabiliy. Whatever Gay said or wrote about the island might be worty of a mention in his Wikipedia article, though I doubt it. The island might be worth mentioning in the Biobío River article, perhaps. As the island is apparently unpopulated it is unlikely that this orphan article will be expanded beyond a few sentences.2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:B873:6A79:37E:C6AC (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The valiant efforts of Mccapra still leave me thinking we haven't achieved WP:GEOLAND here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (nominator withdrawn). (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change and continuity[edit]

Change and continuity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources seem out-of-context, the article is a mess, jumping around multiple topics with no apparent logical line. EpicPupper 04:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 04:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - based on the article it is not clear this so-called dichotomy is really 'a thing' in the fields. Wikipedia shouldn't extrapolate such a general principle from individual instances where it could be said to occur, so for retention I would want to see this so-called 'change versus continuity dichotomy' itself being a topic of scholarly discussion in the literature of the respective fields. Agricolae (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as apparent synthesis. I can't seem to find any sources that actually discuss this concept in detail. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck following the linking of better sources by Extraordinary Writ below. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a poor stub, but not so bad that it needs TNT. This is a question of historiography, into which editors without special knowledge do better not to interfere. It needs tagging for improvement, not deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm satisfied that this is a sufficiently major scholarly paradigm to justify inclusion. Google Scholar and Google Books are awash in examinations of this topic; some examples are this, this, and pgs. 3–6 of this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Extraordinary Writ's find of sources.PrisonerB (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unquestionably valid concept. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Normal concept, article is just confusingly written. 15 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Econochrist[edit]

Econochrist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE search does not show very promising result. Fails WP:NMUSIC and GNG. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there has been enough coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Vice, Maximumrocknroll and others identified in this discussion to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility that further discussion will yield a consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 21:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tramp Stamps (band)[edit]

Tramp Stamps (band) (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 GNG & WP:BAND. There is no secondary coverage apart from the release of 3 TikTok videos and attracted 300k followers. They are just ordinary Tiktoker. Sonofstar (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Near-instant deletion nomination a few minutes after the article was created is highly suspect. In-depth coverage from numerous reliable sources satisfies WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 05:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, There is no secondary coverage other than this Tiktok videos getting viral issue. Check the dates of news all of them are of April 2021. Sonofstar (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the coverage is a lot more than just routine coverage of TikTok content going viral. For example, the Popdust article goes into quite a lot of depth about the lyrics and links to feminism and sexuality and is not the only article to do so. The coverage is not run of the mill stuff. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: I trust your experience in wikipedia. Don't you think this is similar to overnight sensation and nothing else? If you explain this I will withdraw. Sonofstar (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonofstar: hard to tell at this early stage whether they will fade into obscurity like many others or if they will find lasting success. With that being said, I would still argue that they've attained enough coverage in multiple sources to have an article. There also doesn't appear to be any appropriate merge target for this content. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I too am suspicious of how this AfD was initiated just minutes after the article was created. The band has picked up a lot of critics who say they don't deserve attention, and trying to kill this Wikipedia article appears to be part of the same popular effort. But the band has absolutely attained plentiful and reliable coverage as seen in the sources currently used in the article. Perhaps that coverage is for all the wrong reasons, giving more weight to the band's critics, but I will point out that if you want to argue that the band is only a social media phenomenon, the exact same charge could be thrown at their army of critics. Also compare to Threatin, which is an encyclopedia-worthy entity though the music has never been discussed in much detail. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think they suck and I think they are the Monkees of the TikTok age, an awful construct. But procedure says notability is met and they get kept. For better or worse. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I say weak because even though the band currently is heavily covered, it's WP:ONEVENT, and the topic could be another one of those viral sensations that the media only covers in the moment with no long-lasting notability. See also: "Hot Problems" and "Chinese Food". I won't WP:CRYSTALBALL that, however, so if the band does continue to get coverage months and years later, I'll keep it 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly passes GNG as per the sourcing pointed out by Spiderone. Onel5969 TT me 23:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have some doubts it will achieve lasting notability, but for now it passes notability requirements. If they don't have lasting success and coverage, can be deleted down the road. StarM 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The many sources now in the article are sufficient to show that this band is notable. I am old enough to remember when the Monkees were subject to similar accusations, and they are notable nonetheless. As for the comment by Star Mississippi, please read WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Once notable, always notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rolling Stone coverage along with others means they meet notability. Lesliechin1 (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelray Industrial Park 1[edit]

Carmelray Industrial Park 1 (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:ORG; a poorly sourced "directory". —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bormenthalchik82: What's the point of draftifying an unnotable article? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Rodrigs[edit]

Ryan Rodrigs (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 appear to pass WP:GNG. I evaluate the Toronto.com and CTV News sources as not being independent enough because they are mostly quotes. The Ottawa Business Journal might pass GNG. That is only one source, so insufficient. WP:BEFORE not turning up additional GNG passing sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Question is why the nominator have marked it as NPP reviewed if it clearly not passes GNG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that the sources other than the Ottawa Business Journal one is not RS. Yes, there is one 404, but the other two (Toronto.com and CTV) appear to have talked about him significantly, not just passing mentions or quotes. Therefore, it passes (albeit narrowly) the three source rule and thus GNG. Nothing personal or any strong objections to deletion, but I just don't think it fails GNG. WikiAviator talk 09:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this should never have passed review. Deb (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scholfield, Virginia[edit]

Scholfield, Virginia (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 seeing any community here, topos never show any named location here. Only evidence of existence is GNIS, this article, and websites that copy GNIS. 🌀Kieran207-talk🌀 02:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GEOLAND, any online mentions are just WP-derived. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll find that it's in the here.com-supplied data that Bing Maps (for example) uses for the map underneath the pin, and the name on the underlying map is to the north of where the GNIS-derived pin places it. The problem here isn't that it isn't on topographic maps. It is. I just pulled one on from the GeoHack link. The problem here is that GNIS-derived "unincorporated community" means nothing thanks to a database dump. So the first question to answer is what it even is. That's the big hurdle with these articles.

    Unfortunately, it remains unanswered from my research. The Virginia Division of Mineral Resources has been telling us that it's in both Prince Edward and Lunenburg since the 1950s, but I do not have access to the reports, or to Thomas H. Biggs' Geographic and Cultural Names in Virginia, which apparently tells us. Perhaps another editor will find it.

    It seems undocumented even if we get over that hurdle, though. At the moment, as far as I can research it, this one-sentence article is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Topos show it as a single building at a road junction. I turned up a single reference to someone being "of Scholfield", but the geographic context means that could have been an error for Schoolfield, Virginia. I don't think this place is notable. Hog Farm Talk 18:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well here's Scholfield!. I bring this up because it looks like there are some signs (particularly the white one on the lawn) that might indicate some sort of community. But the image is too grainy to be able to clearly read the signs. Aside from that, this place is a total mystery. This was never the site of any rail location. And the only building shown to ever exist here prior to modern land development is the house with the white sign seen in the street view shot. The only possibility I could think of is that a previous resident of that house was named "Scholfield" and the name may have stuck to the location. None of this is verifiable and probably isn't notable, but I just wanted to throw this out.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 (Formerly Kieran207)
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 10:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horrock, West Virginia[edit]

Horrock, West Virginia (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 issue as Golden, minor rail location dating back to 1916. No evidence of any community. 🌀Kieran207-talk🌀 02:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, even without looking the fact that it's on the "Horrock station road" is a good indicator of what it is. The easy fix for that would be to change "is an unincorporated community" to "was a railway station". This takes us over the initial hurdle for these GNIS articles. We know what it even is. But about all that I can find out about it, from an old 1986 issue of Chesapeake and Ohio Historical Magazine which I can only see the index matches for, is that it is a flagstop on a Chesapeake and Ohio freight line. That simply isn't enough verifiable information to expand to a full article, if no-one can do better. This is non-notable. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Described as a "small town beyond Ronceverte" in 1906. [34]. But more clearly described as a "small flag stop" on the railroad in 1909. [35]. Passing mention to Horrock Station in 1921.

[36] Passing mention as a railroad stop here. With only passing mentions to be found, almost all of which call this a minor railroad stop, I don't think this one is notable. Coverage is not significant. Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Wurmlinger[edit]

Norma Wurmlinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local politician who only served as a mayor of a city; no widespread coverage or notability; fails Notability guidelines for politicians. —Notorious4life (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Notorious4life (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of politician-related deletion discussions. —Notorious4life (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Southgate MI is not large or important enough a city to guarantee the "inherent" notability of all of its mayors just because they existed as mayors — so the key to making her notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not just to minimally verify the fact of her retirement and the name of her successor, and instead requires the ability to write and source a substantial article about her political significance: specific things she did, specific city-building projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. Just stating and verifying that she existed as a mayor is not enough in and of itself, and even just having had something in the city named after her following her retirement — something which is equally true of the majority of people on earth who have ever been mayor of anywhere — still isn't an automatic notability clincher that would exempt you from having to put considerably more work into the article than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete when I found this in the backlog in January I was hoping that there would have been more coverage resulting from her being the first woman mayor of Southfield from which to build an article. Alas, there wasn't and this was as far as I was able to take it-the points that Bearcat IDed above. It appears that apart from being mayor she wasn't otherwise noteworthy and there's not enough sourcing from which to build an article. StarM 13:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYTA[edit]

DYTA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deleted through prod last fall. Nothing but listings, with no indepth coverage, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BCAST. Onel5969 TT me 17:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 17:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree clear fail of WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article seems to have more sources unlike before. Sources 1 to 3 state that the station is licensed by the NTC as it indicates an operator having a station. Same goes for source 4. Source 5 mentions the program director of the station. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Superastig.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - neither being licensed by the NTC nor having a program director are elements of WP:BCAST. Onel5969 TT me 00:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being licensed is an element of WP:BCAST, as unlicensed stations have a higher bar to clear, and having a reliable source mention the station's program director supports the assertion that the station is the "originator of some programming", which is an element of WP:BCAST.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tdl1060, sorry, no it's not. While unlicensed stations cannot meet BCAST, having a license does not satisfy BCAST. And you are making an assumption when you say that having a director of programming supports the assertion that the "station is the "originator of some programming". It simply says that the station has programming, without giving any indication as to whether or not that programming is original, which is an aspect of BCAST. Onel5969 TT me 01:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_April_25&oldid=1022290579"