Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 02	April 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Mukami[edit]

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

A promotional article for a non notable musician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE search shows links to self published unreliable sources. WP:TOOSOON definitely applies here also. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete2601:8B:C380:56A0:B54A:9D9C:E275:B3C0 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Umm I assume you agree with my rationale but you actually have to write your own rationale as to why the article ought to be deleted. A mere Delete with no rationale isn’t & would never be considered. Celestina007 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the signature go to Siamese Fighting Fish...? ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with text revisions. I'm not convinced this artist fails WP:MUSICBIO. They've been nominated for an MTV Africa award and their singles have achieved significant radio play, etc. They've also received media coverage from a variety of news outlets. The biggest issue with the page is the MOS:PUFFERY writing style. If that were addressed it would be a good stub, even with the too soon concerns raised.--Dnllnd (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article already cites a substantial number of articles about her in the Kenyan news media. Furius (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable. Easy to find news coverage about her. Plus she's Verified on Instagram with 1.3 million followers. She's no nobody. I'll see what I can do about the tone/style of the article. T.B.A. (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than sufficient coverage in secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article definitely satisfies the WP:MUSICBIO They have been nominated for big awards in Kenya "PMVA" and big awards in Africa "MTV Africa Music Awards" Im either not convinced that it's too soon they have 38 million views total on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PushaWasha (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March Bandness[edit]

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

This article has been around for a very long time (since 2007), but my review of the page history shows that it has never had any secondary sources, only external links. A Google search on my end turned up no coverage of the subject either. As it stands, it appears to fail both WP:RS and WP:N. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 23:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Examples linked in article are not reliable independent sources with significant coverage about the subject to satisfy GNG. MarginalCost (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find no sources covering this event/idea in depth at all. Not notable. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:27, 7 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Stuart[edit]

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

BLP created by an SPA. The single ref is a dead link, and apart from that there’s a link to IMDB and a Forbes story that doesn’t mention the subject. Plenty of credits to his name but no in-depth discussion in RIS that I could find. Mccapra (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing to support passing GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person in the film business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MILL. Film producers are run of the mill, and we have deleted dozens of such articles. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 08:48, 10 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 08:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Bhanushali[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG, subject is clearly not notable enough to deserve any space on Wikipedia. Eatcha 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's hard to address this article in its present state. An IP editor vandalized the page, replacing real job titles with the phrase non-notable marketing executive. The edits are kind of complicated (the vandalism is mixed in with a PROD nom and some actual improvements...). If someone skilled with reverting could undo them, it might make the article easier to evaluate. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Spot on BenKuykendall, I have found the clean version and reverted to that. Relisting to allow further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person is just doing job at T-Series music label. No independent media coverage exits. Okpty (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some sources are youtube and Wikipedia, others are not reliable. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:28, 8 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 Islamabad cricket team. The redirection target does not have a mention yet, but this could be fixed by adding a list of players. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Naqash[edit]

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

An example of a recent Pakistani cricketer who played seven first-class matches, but there is nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islamabad cricket team Has played 7 FC, 1 List-A and 4 T20 matches, but even from this number of matches we're struggling to see coverage. Sources may exist offline or in Pakistani sources if they do exist though. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD but would be good for a list article to be set up in the future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RF22. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article fails GNG which is the minimum guideline for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Butler[edit]

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

Appears to be a clear-cut case of BLP1E with no clear-cut merge target. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely trivial information. Does not meet WP:GNG Yinglong999 (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A long standing 17-year article with many versions that need scrutiny ~~that should have been tagged for first before coming to AFD~~. I have had a cursory glance and if a WP:BLP1E then Janet Albrechtsen may be a potential nerge target.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply yep, it was created right around the event, with nothing added since as he hasn't otherwise been notable that I can find. It had been tagged for almost seven years. I saw no further action that would have solved the concerns before AfD unfortunately. StarM 11:55, 27 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 22:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having your views cited in a legislative hearing is not at all close to making someone notable. This is a very clear failure of BLP1E guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I've added a couple of articles he authored that were published in the Sydney Morning Herald (so not 'independent' but 'reliable') to help bolster the page, but those two articles were the only (remotely) IRS I could find via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (broader and deeper than Google). So that's hardly smashing his notability out of the ballpark. I would be inclined to delete fro failing to meet WP:GNG and I agree fails WP:BLP1E. Cabrils (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:19, 8 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 Islamabad cricket team. Sandstein 10:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nauman Sadiq[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islamabad cricket team Has played 5 FC and 1 T20 match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage in a search. May have become a journalist since retirement but not 100% on that and doesn't make him notable either. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD but would be nice for a list page to be set up at some point. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RF22. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A total and complete failure of GNG. I do not trust the redirect votes. These people have fought against GNG so hard, they are probably trying to redirect to do a backhanded recreation of the article when no one is looking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, could you please show me some examples where this has happened with cricket articles recently? If this is the case I'll very happily revert them for you. Redirect is a perfectly acceptable WP:ATD (something that should be looked for before the AfD is even listed) and the common outcome if there isn't enough coverage for a full article is to be redirected to the list of their respective club. If you can't find any examples of a backhanded recreation of [a] article when nobody is looking then will you please remove that lie from your statement please. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Islamabad cricketers which would need to be created. JPL, I've looked at the most recent AfD's you've been involved with. Never once have you voted keep, or redirect, even where one or the other was the correct conclusion. StickyWicket (talk) 19:09, 6 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 Computer fan control#Software. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Argus Monitor[edit]

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

A 2013 no-consensus. The same concerns of a lack of editorial coverage remain with this being possibly the best source, and nothing but a list of features. GHits are conflated by download links, but there's no significant, in-depth coverage of this product. StarM 17:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArgusMonitor StarM 11:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Computer_fan_control#Software, where it is mentioned. In addition to the source given by the nom, Softpedia also contains a short review. Together these two sources are enough for basic verifiability and a short description of the program, but do no rise to the level of GNG notability. The program is already briefly described in context in the section Computer_fan_control#Software, and that seems a reasonable due weight target given the sources. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything notable here. I neither support nor oppose the suggested redirect. Jeepday (talk) 16:51, 9 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) — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa (1964 TV series)[edit]

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

Is this show notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British TV show from 1964. Cited only to a book and IMDb. Since IMDb is not reliable, the only reliable source left is the book, although I don't know how much it covers it, it's important to know whether is a full page or several pages, or just a few sentences / one paragraph. Since I don't have this book, I can't evaluate it. I can't even access it since it is not cited as a book on a website, only the author, the title and the ISBN is featured. Google search returns several results about this show, but they are databases, the article itself, and the site of the BBC. The rest of the results are either about a 1974 show with this name, a 1997 one and multiple sites about actresses named Melissa, with TV shows included. So searching is a bit difficult. But anyways, based on my search, I don't think this is notable, but as always, I am happy to be proven wrong. And since this is a TV show from 1964, I can imagine there are print sources available from the time, but I can't track those down as I am not keen on that. So, what do you think about the notability of this show? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Series with a notable cast on a notable network. I think this puts it over the notability line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator mentions, they imagine there are print sources available for the time. We are supposed to assess articles based off the availability of sources, not their citation in the article. Given that the nomination themself suggests that sources likely exist, I'm not sure why this is at AFD and should be keep. matt91486 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned, I cannot track those printed sources down. I couldn't find them online, and the Google search returned nothing of value. However, since this is a show from the 60s, there might be print coverage from the time. They are not presented though, that's why I started this Afd, to extend the number of sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the purpose of AfD, though, to stimulate article improvement. matt91486 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have added some additional info. and citations to the article, if this helps establish its notability.Beryl reid fan (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is one of noted author Durbridge's body of TV work (few of his shows have pages),^[1] and has stood the test of time in that it is currently commercially available on DVD.^[2] Beryl reid fan (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Francis Durbridge". March 29, 2021 – via Wikipedia.
^ https://www.amazon.com/Francis-Durbridge-Presents-Desperate-Australia/dp/B01FR367MO/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:33, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sumner[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the general consensus of military notability on this site. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only primary and unreliable sources used. A Google search failed to find any reliable sources with more than a passing mention. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peacemaker67. Didn't any additional sources, either. Intothat darkness 00:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here otherwise we would have a page for everyone killed in every war. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doubtless a brave guy, but unfortunately not notable with no SIGCOV in RS. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:43, 7 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Kazmi[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has played 2 FC games, but I'm not seeing anything notable enough for significant coverage in the coverage. Sources may exist offline or in Pakistani sources though. His 2 FC matches were for two separate teams so for me there is no suitable WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the general consensus is that players that only trivially pass the SNG should meet GNG but there does not seem to be any such coverage for this player. As per RF22, having played for two separate teams, we can't even redirect as neither target would take priority. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wabana Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find anything about this record label. It has apparently released albums from a few notable artists, but it doesn't seem to be independently notable. Lennart97 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to be rid of articles sourced only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable record label, with no known or major artists/ bands. No supporting news coverage.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:22, 6 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 10:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources present in the article. A simple google search did not turn up any substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. A search at the Corpus Christi Caller-Times found only a passing mention in a list of previously-held wind surfing events. Stedil (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Stedil (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Stedil (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for references did not find anything to meet WP:GNG there are no claims of notability in the article. The few hits are mostly blogs and promotion. Jeepday (talk) 16:57, 9 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. Consensus was that the article is not wp:indiscriminate enough to delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Lewis Hamilton[edit]

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

I am aware that this was nominated yesterday and withdrawn, and am also aware that this was a content split. However, this list is massively WP:INDISCRIMINATE and we don't need this level of detail on his careers statistics. For example, we do not need a list of every single podium finish- the wins list is sufficient- or a list of every pole position, and most of the records section are sourced only to a stats database. Therefore, this doesn't meet WP:NLIST, as there are not independent reliable sources that mention most of this information together- you may find 166 sources for his 166 pole positions, but not any single non-stats DB sources talking about the poles in collective. A lot of these overly detailed stats were not in Lewis Hamilton article originally, so claiming that it's a split and so justified is not correct. WP:NLIST and WP:GNG are not met Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC) In particular, the diffs for the split are Special:Diff/1015490996 & Special:Diff/1015749547, which contains only a fraction of the content in this page. Creating a split in order to add masses of indiscriminate information is not correct use of a split. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep What we don't need is a repeat nomination, one day after discussion has closed. WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The nomination is patently absurd because the subject is a massive superstar, all-time best in his field, and recently knighted. The claims that WP:NLIST and WP:GNG are not met are blatantly false and it appears that the nomination does not understand these guidelines. For example, WP:NLIST states that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." and so most of the nomination's wikilawyering is wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination was withdrawn quickly, it's perfectly valid to renominate as I believe a proper consensus is needed on it. If the first AfD hadn't been withdrawn so quickly, I would have voted delete for exactly these reasons, and then it wouldn't have been eligible for withdrawal, but would have had a full AfD discussion. Also, claiming this is an article split is misleading, as much additional content was added that was not in the main article. As it being a split seems to be the reason for the first withdrawn AFD, it is valid to challenge that. If the AFD outcome was anything other than withdrawn, I would agree it is disruptive to re-nominate, but I believe that the original AFD was valid, and so a full discussion is beneficial. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination was going nowhere. Pages of this sort are quite standard for top achievers in every sport. Examples follow and there are many more. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the person who nominated and withdraw the first nomination, I think I owe an explanation.

Firstly, I do NOT believe that this second nomination is disruptive. The first nomination was open for just 28 hours, in that time there were only two votes (both keep, making it 2-1 in favour of keep, but one was the article creator).

This means that the discussion was curtailed, rather aggressively. Naturally, who ever closes this should consider those arguments, but the first nomination did not fufill the requirements for an AFD and the result of it should therefore be considered moot.

Secondly, this AFD nomination considers things the first does not, namely WP:GNG.

Finally, I withdrew it because I no longer believed in my own rational, I had not considered that the number of bytes of Lewis Hamilton was as large as it was.
SSSB (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at SSSB's user page to see where they are coming from. But it's upside down! Editors should please note that April Fools only last one day and that there are, in any case, rules about joke nominations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASCARfan0548 flipped my user page and I simply forgot to undo it! Fixed now! Also, the first nomination wasn't a joke one.
SSSB (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that some of the content in this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, namely the lists of poles, podiums and GP2 wins. However, the parts of the article that detail records and awards do, to me, satisfy WP:NLIST. Therefore I feel that these parts are appropriate for a WP:SPLIT.
SSSB (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information in question is not indiscriminate in a general sense – it is highly specific. WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article" and that's what's been done here. That policy therefore supports the existence of this page. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. In any case, this is irrelevant as I agree that the article passes WP:NLIST, even if I disagree that the lists of poles and wins should be included. An AfD is not the appropriate venue to discuss which statistics do or do not belong in the article, that can be discussed on the article talk page if this page is kept.
SSSB (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a lot of this information (the lists of wins, poles, podiums, and championships) is useless and needlessly repetitive since it is covered on the main article. These lists aren't introducing anything new.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hamilton's article has been ballooning with information which is clearly noteworthy but not essential to the core biography. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BUT this could have done with a few more weeks in the drafts before implementing the live change. The article is still a bit messy and the replacement summary paragraphs on the main Lewis Hamilton article are clumsily written and need tidying. —Ave (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think most of this article is important enough to keep, and certainly you wouldn't want to merge everything from it back into Lewis Hamilton. I have issues with this article and some of what's on it, but that is not a reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 00:11, 6 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GovX[edit]

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

Promotional vanity article created nine years ago by an WP:SPA is currently sourced entirely to the company's official website, press releases, and churnalism. A WP:BEFORE on Google News finds an endless stream of press releases issued through just about every major wire service (PRWeb, PR Newswire, MarketWired, etc.) and a handful of cases of churnalism on questionably RS military and "first responder" interest websites and blogs. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chetsford. All press release syndications, no editorial or reputable sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Delete Snake Oil Wench (talk) 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in keeping this page on Wikipedia and I'm open to whatever edits I need to make to keep it up. I'm a bit new to this so I welcome your feedback. It's my understanding that press releases on major wire services don't qualify as sources. Quite recently we sponsored a UFC match and were featured on WFMZ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WFMZ-TV). Here's a link to the article: https://www.wfmz.com/news/pr_newswire/pr_newswire_technology/govx-named-official-partner-for-ufc-260-miocic-vs-ngannou-2/article_8d28d37f-0b90-5e08-b746-b2eccb84f0b6.html Would this qualify? I thank you for your insight. And any additional edits you recommend to our Wikipedia entry would be helpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhannify (talk • contribs)

No, that's a press release. We can tell because, in the dateline, it says "PRNewswire-PRWeb" and includes a full boilerplate of the company. This article had a good run, though. If it's any consolation, we usually identify these for deletion a lot faster than we did with this one. Also, you need to disclose your connection to the company as per WP:PAID if you intend to make further edits to the article in the few days it has left. Chetsford (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much info on this company out there. Does not meet WP:GNG.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP --Devoke water 10:31, 10 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 10:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Al Hammad[edit]

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

There is no substantive coverage of the subject in english-language sources. As far as I can tell, the subject is a run-of-the-mill business person who sometimes writes op-eds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 3 April 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 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being appointed to a sinecure by the royal family and then making a living by issuing statements praising the royal family isn’t really the stuff Wikipedia notability is made of. Mccapra (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no substantive coverage of the subject in english-language sources is irrelevant, because Wikipedia does not depend on substantive coverage in English-language sources. (This is not a !vote, and therefore not an assumption on whether or not the subject has substantive coverage in any language.) Vaticidalprophet 21:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The language is purposely hedged so that speakers of other languages can assess whether there are sources in other languages that cover the subject. A lack of coverage in English-speaking sources is one indicator of lack of notability, but is not conclusive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 6 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. The keep arguments are much stronger than delete ones to keep at this time. Consensus was that the subject meets WP:GNG based on foreign sources.

However, improvements to the article are certainly needed. The article will be tagged as needing translation to facilitate that. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fouzi Ayoub Sabri[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, there is no substantive RS coverage of the subject in English-language sources. The company that he leads doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. The page describes him as the first Saudi creator of a car, but I find nothing on that in a Google search. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 3 April 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 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The ar.wiki article has eight sources, some of which look ok. I also found three articles about his work and projects he’s involved in from RIS, 1, 2 and 3, as well as other less substantial refs, so I think he’s probably a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As mentioned in another AfD, no substantive RS coverage of the subject in English-language sources is completely irrelevant -- notability doesn't care about the language (on the meta-level, someone covered only in Icelandic or Sindhi is unlikely to get an enwiki article simply because enwiki has fewer people interested in such figures, but if they do such an article is unimpeachably notable). Unlike the other AfD, where evidence doesn't yet exist to suggest the non-English coverage is meaningful, this one appears to pass. Vaticidalprophet 21:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is only sourced to coverage on the subject on his own website. We cannot keep articles with such inadequate coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Johnpacklambert per WP:BEFORE C.1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." the current state of the sources on the article is not a criteria for deletion Jeepday (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other language article has good sources which appear to meet WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 17:11, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Weisbeck[edit]

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

Began as a WP:COI article. With the creator now blocked, it's being kept up, basically as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, as an ongoing résumé, in step with the artist's personal bio, a WP:BLP with no independent sources, by user Mweisbeck, who presumably is, or is associated with, the artist. Largoplazo (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator Surfacegrafik was blocked for spam in 2015 and the article fails GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to be here you need one or more of these things from WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST: articles about your work in multiple publications; books about your work; your work is in multiple museum collections; your artistic colleagues think you are soemthing very special and have declared this, or, you have invented a technique that transformed the practice. None of these are true for this artists.--- Possibly (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, not enough sources. GooeyMitch (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to non-notability. The fact that the creating user was later blocked is irrelevant. The person in question's design commissions seem to be run-of-the-mill jobs, e.g. designing a stall at a festival. Otherwise fails general notability and his role at university does not seem significant. Does not appear to meet any other criteria, or at least this hasn't been established in the article or existing sources. PK650 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I didn't mean the creator's block is relevant. I meant that with the account under which the WP:NOTWEBHOST activity began having ceased that activity (the block happening to be the reason), the activity continued anyway under a different COI account. Largoplazo (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:CREATIVE. First off, much of the article has been translated incompletely from German. This could require extensive work to fix the list of German place-names. This also indicates that it was written first, partly translated, and then cut-and-pasted to Wikipedia. Secondly, he has not exhibited in major art capitals. I agree with the points about what we're looking for by Possibly. Where are the major commissions, coffee table books, or works in notable art museums? I don't see anything other than a hard-working designer, one of many professionals. That does not make him notable, nor does he deserve an article in English Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 10:33, 10 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 10:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calders Corner, California[edit]

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

This gets lots of GHits, but all the real ones are for an oil field. The name doesn't appear on topos until the late 1950s, and they do not correspond very well with the aerials, which start by showing a rural crossroads which first acquires a building where the Golden Bull restaurant sits now (in a different building), then gradually gets a string of ag businesses trailing down the north side of the road off to the east. Eventually a subdivision appears in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. What I cannot find is any reference to this as a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carter 1951 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCarter1951 (help) and Weddle 1962 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWeddle1962 (help) indicate the possibility of renaming and refactoring this into an article about the oil field. It would, after all, mention the road junction that it was named after.
- Carter, Frank B. (1951-05-01). "Calder Field, Kern County, California". AAPG Bulletin. 35 (5): 1070–1073. doi:10.1306/3D93421A-16B1-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
- Weddle, J. R. (1962). "Calders Corner oil field". California Oil Fields. California State Mining Bureau. pp. 55 et seq.
Uncle G (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No post office. Newspapers.com has trival coverage such as a classified indicating that there was a cafe, apartment, 3 pump gas station and four rentals. GBooks has mentions of oil wells at that location. As this location has at best trivial, non-notable coverage, it does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 01:36, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Al-Yahya[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, there is no substantive RS coverage of the subject in English-language sources. The company that he leads doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. The page has had a notability tag since 2014, yet nothing has been added to the page to bolster the case that the subject is notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent coverage, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It’s amazing that this has survived since 2008. No indication of notability found. Mccapra (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good catch. Neutrality^talk 22:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 10:37, 10 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 speedily deleted by User:Liz. Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir bizzle[edit]

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

An unnotable pop singer. Fails WP:NMUSIC Sliekid (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the orientation, I think this article is eligible to be on WikipediaRegardless of the orientation, I think this article is eligible to be on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datker32 (talk • contribs)
In my opinion, there is a much more meaningless articles in Wikipedia than this article, and there is no problem with the presence of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.178.188.66 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - clear WP:A7, possible WP:G11 spam Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per Spiderone. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is an advert, not an article about a notable topic. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CSD and Salt I previously CSD-d this. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per CSD G11 CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Speedy Delete) - If he really released 100 singles nobody noticed, and appearing at a festival is not an "award". He has received no reliable media notice, and the article is clearly an attempted promotion within his effort to upload himself into the usual social media and streaming services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per others.--vote by Alcremie (talk) 10:27, 5 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. G5: created by a sock of a blocked user Muhammad Furqan Butt, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaid Zayd/Archive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dananeer Mobeen[edit]

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

Previously deleted not notable vlogger Sliekid (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have a link to the previous deletion discussion? Furius (talk) 18:05, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leadx Management Training Institute[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "added more information", which consisted of adding the logo and the date the place began operations. Zero independent sources, and searches did not turn up enough to show that it passes WP:GNG, or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets see, there's one primary reference in the article and all I could find in a WP:BEFORE was brief, trivial name drops in a few articles about other things. It's not a public educational institution either. So, it would have to pass WP:NORG. Which it clearly doesn't as things currently )and likely will continue to) stand. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need independent sources to show notability, which are lacking here. Not every organization that has a website is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, could be also G11. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We almost always delete articles about managers, trainers, and producers, because they are so ordinary. I do not see the kind of significant coverage that would show them to be an exception to the rule, such as Colonel Tom Parker. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:, I think you might have posted your "vote" in the wrong AfD. Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 8 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 10:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon & Marcus (Danish Duo)[edit]

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

Had been DEPRODED by an IP w/o explanation, fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, made it only to the finals of a TV Show CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's be friendly with WP:TOOSOON. They have only been on one TV competition and they have no significant media coverage outside episode listings for that show. YouTube repeats from the show are practically their only online presence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:59, 4 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. The consensus is to retain the page for further development. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Klee[edit]

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

Had been deproded with the reason of "no urgency" and "should be merged" w/o proposing a merge - Apart from being the wife of Paul Klee no signs of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Paul Klee. I could imagine that there is a borderline case for her notability: I don't have access to Große Frauen der Weltgeschichte. Tausend Biographien in Wort und Bild. If there really is a significant biographical entry of her in that book, she might meet WP:GNG with just one additional good source. (Even the Tate entry is not too bad.) For the time being, this might well be merged since there is currently only one paragraph on the marriage in Paul Klee's article. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delay and wait for more research. Before deleting, I would like to continue adding research to the article about Lily Klee, I started with a base translation from the German and will now start looking for more sources. As stated in arthistoricum.net, " Lily Klee’s significance for her husband has largely been underestimated or even outright ignored in scholarly literature. For a long time, research on Klee and especially the publication of his collected letters has focussed on men. Only in recent years, gender-specific reappraisals have increasingly gained attention.Nowadays we are more aware of the limits of the artistic individual „Klee“ and look further into the life and work of the modern artist’s wife." In the small bit I have read about her, it seems her impact on his career is understated: from her work to help the couple emigrate from Nazi Germany, to securing his collections after his death. I'd like to continue looking to improve both his article to include more information about her influence and hers to expand the research. Snowviola (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of Snowviola's commitment to improve this article, though she should probably be careful not to phrase her comments in a way that might give people an opportunity to throw the ol' WP:OR cudgel her way. I will add that my reason for not starting a Merge proposal myself is that even with the article's current state, I could at best have given it a half-hearted endorsement – to me, embracing a somewhat laxer interpretation of all things WP:N does become a valid approach if the subject of an article can offer both a base level of notability and the advantage of having been dead and not a self-proclaimed "entrepreneur" for more than seventy years. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you understand that we are not nominating articles which might (or might not) be in the future in some way demonstrate notable. If there is some impact on his career we can merge it to his article but the article on its own needs to be deleted. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused by your first sentence, did you perhaps mean to say something like accepting, instead of nominating? Nevertheless, there's obviously some difference in personal philosophy here and we'll probably not reach a common ground, which is perfectly fine. To me, compared to something like an article about YouTube's Hottest New Funny Prank Compilation Channel of the week or such, the rather diminished odds of this article falling into a state of shameful disrepair and the fact that no casual observer could conceivably take its existence as a reason to think any less of the project in general provide enough additional justification for me to oppose deletion. This may still close as Merge due to it being the option that's both safe and lets everyone save face, but personally, I see no reason to jump the gun. It would, of course, be extremely helpful if Snowviola could add at least part of the promised additional sources to the article before April 10. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lily Klee might or might not be notable as a musician on her own merits, but she is notable as wife of Paul Klee, in which capacity she is mentioned in numerous books and articles (some already cited in the article; others revealed by a quick search of Google books). In that latter case, the situation seems similar to that of Elsa Einstein or Anna Maria Mozart, whose notability is not in question. Furius (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how this view can be reconciled with WP:NOTINHERIT, an argument to be avoided at AfD? Relationships with notable persons are never enough to merit an article. The wives of Einstein and Mozart may well be notable in their own right, but certainly not because of whom they married. If Lily Klee does not meet the specific notabality guidelines for biographies, the amount of coverage on her is the deciding factor. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — As mentioned by others, I think Lily Klee’s achievements and life were notable enough to deserve their own page. However, I also do agree with User: AngryHarpy that this article needs to be beefed up with additional credible sources sooner, rather than later. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merges can be proposed without using the AFD process. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 08:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too strongly against a merge, by the way, but I don't much see the point of going to AFD for this: the title is obviously going to be a suitable redirect, so there seems to be no need for any use of the delete button here. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 11:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, can one of the "keepers" above actually say how Lily Klee meets WP:ANYBIO? being a piano teacher, any awards/significant awards? nope, spouse of a notable artist? nope, parent of a theatrical director? nope, this looks like an example of WP:NOTINHERITED. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple I totally agree although I am missing your vote. None of the KEEP Voters could explain in which way the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the keeper of her late husband's legacy, she took an obscure artist, and made him a regular of varying exhibits at world-class museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art; for a while in the 1980s-1990s, there was a different special solo exhibit every single year. Lily created Paul Klee as we know him. I would compare her to Einstein's second wife, Elsa Einstein. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian - and you surely can base your assumptions with reliable sources, don't you ?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reading the above discussion gave me an aneurysm, but I do think that this person passes WP:GNG, though the language used is far too flowery and it reads like a puff piece. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:17, 11 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. There is consensus that the list topic is notable, although editors point out that WP:OR/WP:V cleanup may be needed. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States-themed superheroes[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, no evidence that this is a notable topic Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Obvious fail of WP:BEFORE as there are entire books about this such as Comic Art Propaganda – A Graphic History; Super Patriotic Heroes; Captain America and the Nationalist Superhero plus numerous general histories of the Golden Age which spawned so many of these. Of course, it still needs work as it's currently missing Colonel Stars and Stripes and his dog Eisenhower. "Schwanz!" Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources which appears to be demonstrated above. Beccaynr (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree that there is a well-documented history of patriotically themed characters, but this title is terrible, and the presentation borders on original research. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some references to some of the entries. This is something that gets media coverage. Superman fought for the "American way" for decades, many of the others have the American flag in their costumes, etc. Needs more referencing but it can be fixed so no reason to delete this valid list article. Dream Focus 17:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Are you actually going to put in to effort to source all this? If entries cannot be sourced should they be removed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove things unless you honestly doubt they are American themed, and its not mentioned in their article that they are. If they are on the Category:United States-themed superheroes then they should be on the list. This is a navigational list. Dream Focus 17:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources explicitly saying "X is United States-themed" need to be in the article prose or linked in the list article, otherwise it's OR (even if it makes me cringe because it's SO SO OBVIOUS). I think with the nationalism/propaganda angle, this could use a good piece of prose to improve the definition to the list; something that actually spells out the motifs of the United States in the lede (stars and stripes, red white and blue, "Yankee Doodle", Liberty, pro-USA, pro-military, etc.) would be a start. Estheim (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTVERIFY states It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation. So if it is as you put it "SO SO OBVIOUS" then no, no reason to have a pointless reference. Dream Focus 17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not wholly useless. It can be sourced further. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's lots of scholarly material on patriotic heroes. [The Ten Cent War] and [The Superhero Symbol] are but two. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 7 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ronaldo Sitepu[edit]

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

While he played on the Indonesian national team, that doesn't satisfy WP:NBASKETBALL, and he doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predictify[edit]

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

Fails GNG. This was a short lived internet company. Before isn't returning anything and the refs in the article don't support inclusion on WP. A separate unrelated company "Predictify Me" was created and went the same way several years later. The article was created in 2008 by an editor with less than 100 edits, the talk page for predictify has never been created. Desertarun (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 6 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parosha Chandran[edit]

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

Non-notable professor of law. No presence on Google Scholar. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The subject is a notable lawyer. The legal publications are relevant to notability. WP:NPROF may not be applicable here. Vikram Vincent 13:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPROF. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep although the article can be revised to incorporate additional sources. She is the subject of in-depth coverage from the Guardian in 2020, and per WP:ANYBIO, there are awards to consider, including the Trafficking in Persons Hero Award 2015 (VOA, 2015), (SOS Kerry, 2015), (The Scotsman 2016), the Law Society’s Barrister of the Year Award (2008) and the Society of Asian Lawyers’ Pro Bono/Human Rights Lawyer of the Year Award (2009) (The Times, 2009). In addition, per WP:NPROF, Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area, and she seems to frequently appear in conventional media as an expert, e.g. Reuters 2021, Reuters 2020, UG Mirror 2018, The Independent 2017, ABC AU 2017, Evening Standard, 2017, CBC 2014, BBC 2013, BBC 2013 (she was an attorney in this case), BBC 2013 (also an attorney in this case), BBC 2000. Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking notable to me - also per the sources above. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:06, 3 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) 17:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayoub Erraji[edit]

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

Until and unless he plays for Al-Dhafra, does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we should wait until Erraji meets WP:GNG or NFOOTBALL before we have an article on him. Alternatively, this could be sent to draft on the basis that he is on the books of a club that is playing in a fully professional league but just hasn't played yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Even if he appears in one game, he still fails GNG if there are no articles about him. Alvaldi (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails NFOOTBALL plus GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 5 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eudes de Montreuil[edit]

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

This article does not have context and i am sure it does not meet notability criteria. Trains2050 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Trains2050 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources already in the article, here are three others 1, 2, 3. Mccapra (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many, many French-language sources. Books and articles in GScholar. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not only is he discussed in the relevant literature, there are plenty of books discussing his work in several languages. Another example of tech-centric sourcing discrimination. PK650 (talk) 05:26, 6 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smell Detection Agent Optimization Algorithm[edit]

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

This article (under the current and various alternative names) has been speedied several times for various reasons, and has now appeared again. The article describes a scientific concept closely associated with the creating editor, and cites only sources authored by them, hence a WP:COI clearly exists. I cannot find a single reliable secondary source to support this, therefore fails WP:GNG notability and basic WP:V verifiability. This may be WP:NEO, and possibly an attempt to use WP to boost the subject's legitimacy. Last but not least, while the earlier attempts were direct copypastes from the source, this has been paraphrased, which makes it also quite likely WP:OR.

The creating editor demonstrably pays no heed to warnings, so if this AfD results in deletion, I would suggest salting this and the related earlier names as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned names seem to be SDA Optimization Algorithm and Smell Detection Agent algorithm. Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable and fails WP:GNG User3749 (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create-protect - two previous incarnations of this article have been deleted as a blatant copyright violation. While this ordinarily would have absolutely no bearing on this iteration, I have just had to remove a good 500 bytes of copyvio from the current article, and if this AfD closes as keep it'll probably need revdel. However, the article is mostly original research without any secondary sources cited, or it seems, available to cite - it thus fails our notability and verifiability policies and needs to go. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:CRYSTAL: except for a vague description of the algorithm, the article contains only a long list of "can be used for", without any indication that "it has been used for". Also, there is no evidence that the algorithm improves the state of the art in any way. If it does, we must wait for articles that demonstrate this. Also, WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources". D.Lazard (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There were some copyvios in this article, but they have been removed this edit. User3749 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Thanks for nominating this. I considered it last night but it was too late so I waited. Delete, per the same reasons above. The use of a single source and mention of the author by the creator with the same name reeks of self-promotion. We should be sure to delete SDA Optimization Algorithm after, which I've redirected for now. A S U K I T E 13:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG with basically no independent secondary RS coverage of this specific algorithm (basically just this and this from the article creator). — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:SNOW, and WP:SALT. Louder, for those at the back of the class: We have never published original research, and after 20 years, everybody knows this. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 7 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Bhamra[edit]

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

Contested PROD : Fails NACTOR as one of the roles was uncredited and the other one was not significant. Cabayi (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping article's contributors: 103.88.132.102, -noah-, MB, Wikiminds34, AngryHarpy, & WelcometoJamshedpur

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written, without prejudice to restoring to draft if, at some future point, more substantial coverage arises. BD2412 T 01:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant/lead roles played as an actor and no substantial coverage of the current work. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) per WP:TOOSOON: this is an actress at the beginning of her career. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 7 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 10:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hatem[edit]

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

BLP cut and pasted from draftspace after failed AFC submission. It does not have enough sources to remain in mainspace and should be worked in in draft until it’s ready. Mccapra (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have to stop allowing people to do end runs around the AfC process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 6 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murdock (footballer)[edit]

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

~~Footballer who has never played in any fully professiona leagues. Fails FOOTYN~~ Lack of reliable sources to establish NFOOTY Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murdock played 4 matches during the 1997-98 Primeira Liga (Portugal's highest level and fully professional) for Varzim so this statement is incorrect. Passes FOOTYN Nowoco 10:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether this [1] is a reliable source. I was also not able to find anything on doing WP:Before. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This source listed on Wikiproject Football as good gives the same information (in Portuguese) [2] also here only 4 top tier matches but in my opinion passes NFOOTY JW 1961^Talk 13:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you set the ZeroZero source to check his games between 1996 and 2000, you can see that he has featured in several games in the Portuguese 1st division and in the Portuguese 2nd division, which are both fully professional. He has also played in the Portuguese Cup. So the nomination statement is wrong. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: 96/97, 97/98, 98/99, 99/00. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RetiredDuke, can I make sure these sources are reliable to establish NFOOTY so that I can withdraw this nom. I opened this AFD at the first place because I couldnt find any reliable sources. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that ZeroZero and the Portuguese League have a partnership concerning the treatment of statistical and historical data, and the Liga said of it that it was "unanimously recognized as the reference platform in the treatment of football data", I would say that it is a reliable source when it comes to these records. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, see also here Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links#Portugal which says good links for Portuguese football. Thanks JW 1961^Talk 15:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw the nom as other editors have shown evidences to prove this player is notable. Thank you RetiredDuke, Nowoco and especially Joseywales1961 Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Victory[edit]

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

There seems to be little or no encylopedic content in this page. There is a lot of original research and synthesis here, and the references seem not to describe the page's subject. The Parson's Cat (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost 4 years of poor writing by single-purpose account Ww2ace2002 (talk · contribs), including an entire section of the article that exhorts the reader in the second person. I suggest looking at Special:Permalink/774321909 for clues as to where the encyclopaedia article might be. Uncle G (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly requires trimming to address OR, copy-editing, ref checks, but worth keeping if pulled into shape. Acous mana 12:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and removed the OR plus unreliable references. There's not lots left, though. I wonder if anyone has access to a good secondary source - I'm sure someone must have written books on Gibson that would give this at least a passing mention? The Parson's Cat (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ha, OK, didn't think it was that bad! thought there were a few guitar mag sources in there at least. Can't see anything of note online other than web content that wouldn't pass RS. Acous mana 16:49, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Fallahi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

First, it has the terms mazraeh or chah (farm or well respectively) in its names. Second, the population is less than 100 people and 20 families; Iranian villages must have a population of at least 100 people or 20 families according to the law.

It most probably is just an ābādī, not a village (deh).

What is the difference between an ābādī and a deh? According to Encyclopædia Iranica, "the Persian word deh has a more precise meaning than Persian ābādī “inhabited place,” which can refer to cities and towns, on one hand, and isolated farms (mazraʿa), on the other. A deh is a rural settlement perceived as an autonomous social and spatial unit."

Ābādī is a very generic and vague term. Today the statistical center of Iran uses this term in one of the following meanings: 1) village; 2) farm; 3) site [such as gas station, mine, water pump, etc].

See also

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi
Special:Permalink/1015725975#Large batch deletion probably needed 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will write this only once but it applies to all of the "Mazraeh-ye" (fa:مزرعه) articles nominated at AFD today. An article that gives only three things — the original Persian name (titles here are transliterations not translations), some coördinates that point to blank spots or isolated houses on maps, and 2 sentences that state that this is a "village" with a low population — is a bad stub that misleads both readers and any future editors wanting to expand the article. Yes, some houses can be notable, of course. But how is an editor to know that when the article starts out telling xem that the subject is a populated village? We could mass-correct these based upon the article titles alone, although that still leaves other articles that do not say "farm" or "pump" or "motor pump" or "well" in their titles. That would at least give better context. But that would still leave open the question of whether "Rezk Farm", for example, is a properly independently-reliably-multiply-documented-in-depth farm. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same thing as for all of Carlos’s other Iranian “village” articles, it appears to be a farm, no evidence that it’s a legally recognised populated place, fails WP:Geoland. FOARP (talk) 06:43, 7 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Las[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

First, it has the terms mazraeh or chah (farm or well respectively) in its names. Second, the population is less than 100 people and 20 families; Iranian villages must have a population of at least 100 people or 20 families according to the law.

It most probably is just an ābādī, not a village (deh).

What is the difference between an ābādī and a deh? According to Encyclopædia Iranica, "the Persian word deh has a more precise meaning than Persian ābādī “inhabited place,” which can refer to cities and towns, on one hand, and isolated farms (mazraʿa), on the other. A deh is a rural settlement perceived as an autonomous social and spatial unit."

Ābādī is a very generic and vague term. Today the statistical center of Iran uses this term in one of the following meanings: 1) village; 2) farm; 3) site [such as gas station, mine, water pump, etc].

See also

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi
Special:Permalink/1015725975#Large batch deletion probably needed 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a farm, C46 created many thousands of these articles very few of which had a credible claim of notability. Abadis are not “legally recognised populated places” per se. FOARP (talk) 05:50, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Mahbati[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

First, it has the terms mazraeh or chah (farm or well respectively) in its names. Second, the population is less than 100 people and 20 families; Iranian villages must have a population of at least 100 people or 20 families according to the law.

It most probably is just an ābādī, not a village (deh).

What is the difference between an ābādī and a deh? According to Encyclopædia Iranica, "the Persian word deh has a more precise meaning than Persian ābādī “inhabited place,” which can refer to cities and towns, on one hand, and isolated farms (mazraʿa), on the other. A deh is a rural settlement perceived as an autonomous social and spatial unit."

Ābādī is a very generic and vague term. Today the statistical center of Iran uses this term in one of the following meanings: 1) village; 2) farm; 3) site [such as gas station, mine, water pump, etc].

See also

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi
Special:Permalink/1015725975#Large batch deletion probably needed 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the same reason as all the other C46 Iranian “village” articles. FOARP (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator and FOARP here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Nurollah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

First, it has the terms mazraeh or chah (farm or well respectively) in its names. Second, the population is less than 100 people and 20 families; Iranian villages must have a population of at least 100 people or 20 families according to the law.

It most probably is just an ābādī, not a village (deh).

What is the difference between an ābādī and a deh? According to Encyclopædia Iranica, "the Persian word deh has a more precise meaning than Persian ābādī “inhabited place,” which can refer to cities and towns, on one hand, and isolated farms (mazraʿa), on the other. A deh is a rural settlement perceived as an autonomous social and spatial unit."

Ābādī is a very generic and vague term. Today the statistical center of Iran uses this term in one of the following meanings: 1) village; 2) farm; 3) site [such as gas station, mine, water pump, etc].

See also

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi
Special:Permalink/1015725975#Large batch deletion probably needed 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same reasons as for all the other C46 Iranian “village” articles. We need a CSD to address these. FOARP (talk) 05:54, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Aqerk[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

First, it has the terms mazraeh or chah (farm or well respectively) in its names. Second, the population is less than 100 people and 20 families; Iranian villages must have a population of at least 100 people or 20 families according to the law.

It most probably is just an ābādī, not a village (deh).

What is the difference between an ābādī and a deh? According to Encyclopædia Iranica, "the Persian word deh has a more precise meaning than Persian ābādī “inhabited place,” which can refer to cities and towns, on one hand, and isolated farms (mazraʿa), on the other. A deh is a rural settlement perceived as an autonomous social and spatial unit."

Ābādī is a very generic and vague term. Today the statistical center of Iran uses this term in one of the following meanings: 1) village; 2) farm; 3) site [such as gas station, mine, water pump, etc].

See also

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi
Special:Permalink/1015725975#Large batch deletion probably needed 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And indeed delete ALL Iranian “village” articles by Carlossuarrez46 without expansion or substantial edits by other users. They very clearly just didn’t know what they were doing when the made these tens of thousands of articles, since the result is articles with no evidence of actual legal recognition, as Abadis are not legally-recognised populated places per se. FOARP (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We should delete most, if not all of the articles about villages in Iran and Caucasia that Carlossuarrez46 created. Most of them are not notable and fail WP:GEOLAND. Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 23:16, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Jowzar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

First, it has the terms mazraeh or chah (farm or well respectively) in its names. Second, the population is less than 100 people and 20 families; Iranian villages must have a population of at least 100 people or 20 families according to the law.

It most probably is just an ābādī, not a village (deh).

What is the difference between an ābādī and a deh? According to Encyclopædia Iranica, "the Persian word deh has a more precise meaning than Persian ābādī “inhabited place,” which can refer to cities and towns, on one hand, and isolated farms (mazraʿa), on the other. A deh is a rural settlement perceived as an autonomous social and spatial unit."

Ābādī is a very generic and vague term. Today the statistical center of Iran uses this term in one of the following meanings: 1) village; 2) farm; 3) site [such as gas station, mine, water pump, etc].

See also

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi
Special:Permalink/1015725975#Large batch deletion probably needed 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably a farm, the sources relied on have proved unreliable for indicating whether a place is a legally recognised populated place as required by WP:GEOLAND. Specifically GEONet is run by the same people who run GNIS and therefore has all the same problems (particularly, places described as populated on GEONet need not be populated). The Iranian census was simply misrepresented/misunderstood by the creator. Finally, this is part of a pattern of behaviour by the creator spanning many thousands of articles so I urge the closer to take the fact that many more of these articles will be coming down the pipeline into consideration. FOARP (talk) 11:42, 5 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Razak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

First, it has the terms mazraeh or chah (farm or well respectively) in its names. Second, the population is less than 100 people and 20 families; Iranian villages must have a population of at least 100 people or 20 families according to the law.

It most probably is just an ābādī, not a village (deh).

What is the difference between an ābādī and a deh? According to Encyclopædia Iranica, "the Persian word deh has a more precise meaning than Persian ābādī “inhabited place,” which can refer to cities and towns, on one hand, and isolated farms (mazraʿa), on the other. A deh is a rural settlement perceived as an autonomous social and spatial unit."

Ābādī is a very generic and vague term. Today the statistical center of Iran uses this term in one of the following meanings: 1) village; 2) farm; 3) site [such as gas station, mine, water pump, etc].

See also

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi
Special:Permalink/1015725975#Large batch deletion probably needed 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably a farm, the sources relied on have proved unreliable for indicating whether a place is a legally recognised populated place as required by WP:GEOLAND. Specifically GEONet is run by the same people who run GNIS and therefore has all the same problems (particularly, places described as populated on GEONet need not be populated). The Iranian census was simply misrepresented/misunderstood by the creator. Finally, this is part of a pattern of behaviour by the creator spanning many thousands of articles so I urge the closer to take the fact that many more of these articles will be coming down the pipeline into consideration. FOARP (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this meets inclusion criteria Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 9 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 10:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daksh[edit]

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

Promotional page for College fest. No significant coverage in media. Mostly original research. Lack third party citations defcon5 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously a promotional article. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and written for promotional purpose. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As far as our knowledge goes, the fact of the events have been stated in a manner that doesn't exaggerate the impact of the event, but explains the events as happened. In doing so, a neutral dry tone has been used in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. Also, references from notable websites are also included. Sivakrrish 17:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this page was created once before, DAKSH (tech fest), in virtually the same form, and was speedily deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 10 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bach[edit]

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

Most coverage seems promotional, as does the page. The two least promotional-looking sources are dead links. Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV in the past decade and believe he fails the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have added archive links to the dead sources (dead links aren't eo ipso reason to delete), but even then they do not help show notability. One is a passing mention, and the other is clearly promotional. I can likewise find no significant coverage of this performer in reliable, secondary sources. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, not enough sources available. GooeyMitch (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable magician. We do not have a passing of GNG here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 5 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Peri[edit]

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

There are little to no reliable sources to justify a bio article (really just a stub at this point). His bio at Tate [3] is taken directly from the Wikipedia article. Mansheimer (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Although this has been a CV-type article, with possible WP:COI curation, the references that I have added verify the subject's work as included in notable collections and shown at notable galleries; I would prefer more critical coverage but there is probably enough for WP:ARTIST criteria 4(b)&(d). AllyD (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is worth noting that the instances of the article prior to today included a Bibliography section [4], some of which may be substantial coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NARTIST as he is in several collections. He has also been in some serious exhibitions. Thanks to AllyD for the improvements. --- Possibly (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be pretty basic when considering an AfD. If an artists has representation by a notable gallery, check their website, look up the artist, look for a heading titled something like "bibliography" or "press". When you see a long list of titles by publishers like The Times, The New York Times and Phaidon, do not nominate, but fix the article with the sources you just found. Don't make other people do the work. Vexations (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop assuming bad faith and don't make demands of ordinary editors trying to clean up and improve Wikipedia. It's not my job to fix articles that are unsourced or badly sourced. That's up to the person who have access to the materials you're referring to, because obviously they are not online or easily accessible. Even now the article barely has enough sources to fill it out. Perhaps you should demand the COI editor to have the subject provide all these wonderful sources you're referencing and then maybe you can flesh this thing out properly. Mansheimer (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mansheimer, see WP:BEFORE Vexations (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mansheimer the multiple collections should have been enough to stop you from doing the nomination.--- Possibly (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree. The lack of reliable sources available for a proper article make this a valid nomination, as per my interpretation. Obviously others and yourselves disagree, which is actually the point of AfD. Again, both of you need to stop assuming bad faith and acting as if AfD is some kind of automatic death blow to an article or that the sky has somehow fallen. Plenty of people have been weighing in here, though unfortunately it appears that standards for inclusion continue to decline and simply the fact that an artist has works in a few collections (and yet has very little written about their life and career, making the article a perpetual stub unless and until that artist gets written about and reviewed more in the future) is enough for inclusion. However, that can and may change in the future, so there is nothing wrong with my having nominated this article for AfD. I note that neither of you bothered to work on the article prior to this AfD, and even now there is still not much IMHO justifying this article at this time. Mansheimer (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the artist verifiably meets WP:NARTIST, then they are notable and there is no need for an AfD. It is pretty simple. It also appears to be backed up by the seven editors voting keep here, citing that reasoning. --- Possibly (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He clearly meets NARTIST 4(d) and HEY per @AllyD:'s work, as Possibly and Vexations have noted. Theredproject (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peri meets criteria 4d of WP:NARTIST, the article should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NARTIST as having several collections in notable galleries. GooeyMitch (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion, and a man who is also notable for being one of the world's most unusual set of triplets (per lead sentence "He lives and works in London, where he was born with his wife and dog.") deserves a well-earned Wikipedia page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
article seems to be self-published?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mracattack (talk • contribs)
Please Keep i am an artist and should have a wikipedia entry also galleries like it when i can show an entry on this website. Peterperiart (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no concern, the article looks safe and this removal discussion has reached the vicinity of WP:SNOW. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notwithstanding the obvious autobiography, per WP:SNOW. As Possibly and I have asserted, we're looking for pieces of art in multiple major art museums, and the like, to show WP:NARTIST. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 7 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) 17:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir Pelinku[edit]

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

Never played or coached in any fully professional league. Fails NFOOTY Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand that the Maltese Premier League isn’t a fully professional league as it states. My issue with that is that not only he is a former coach or a former player who coached and played on a non-professional league, but he is also a convicted criminal whom he bribed a player and charged with match manipulation and bribery. As for that, even as a non-professional coach, with a criminal record, I will let the discussion go on as I’m going to be neutral on that. Ivan Milenin (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: I am not questioning how not notable he is, but again, as a non-notable coach, he is also a convicted criminal, as he committed bribery and match manipulation, as sources say. Ivan Milenin (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ivan Milenin: If there is significant coverage on the subject then he would pass WP:GNG regardless of what league he played or coached in. For him to pass, the article needs more sources that are not trivial mentions from reliable sources. As it stands, the article does not pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for football coaches. The convictions do not even come close to meeting our inclusion criteria for criminals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Okay, so if he did fail the notability guidelines for a coach, then what are the notability guidelines for criminals in order for this article to be included? Even if he didn't play or coach in a non-professional league, how come some reliable sources such as Times of Malta tell me that he had been convicted for bribery and match manipulation? Ivan Milenin (talk) 17:50, 6 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 10:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher K. Tucker[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:BIO; the links referenced in the article are primarily about In-Q-Tel, the geospatial industry, and the academic institutions the subject is affiliated with rather than being about the subject himself. A variety of Google searches did not uncover significant information about the subject separate from these institutions. The article's claim that the subject was a dark-horse candidate for CIA Director in 2008 appears to be referenced in passing in a single interview with the subject and does not appear to have been widely discussed at the time in news articles about possible candidates for the position. Some of this article's information may merit inclusion in the articles about In-Q-Tel or some of the geospatial or academic institutions referenced. This article has almost no other articles that link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.16.209 (talk) 03:31, April 3, 2021 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 04:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman lacking significant coverage of him at a level that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He might be notable, but much of the article is cut, pasted, and redacted from here: click on his name or his LinkedIn page. He's not especially well-known and has almost exactly half the followers that I have on Twitter. We're two degrees of separation from each other, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 7 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 New Zealand National League Championship[edit]

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Would either revert to draft or delete. But the local leagues have only just kicked off to choose who will represent the regions later on in the new national league. When that happens there will be more sources as it stands there is only the NZ football reference about the new competition so far. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CRYSTAL does not apply when an event will happen in the future, as this appears to be? Giant Snowman 17:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GiantSnowman Nexus000 (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is normal practice to write about forthcoming events which are not speculative. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:36, 8 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 10:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Cooper (bridge)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no independent third-party coverage, and death does not establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alas, he doesn't seem to be in the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, though his wife Kitty Cooper is. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer. I got this information (or lack of information) from a second-hand source, not the Encyclopedia itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 3 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) 17:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Northern League (New Zealand)[edit]

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

Not too league in new season, not professional league so shouldn't have it own season article. Fails WP:NSEASON WP:NFOOTY and not WP:GNG NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Nexus000 (talk) 00:02, 5 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus to delete, or to redirect this article to another title. This closure does not preclude a potential separate proposal to merge this article to a suitable merge target. BD2412 T 00:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 personas para salvar al mundo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG can't find much in the way of independent sources for this Spanish series of documentaries. Theroadislong (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep..."Can't find much in the way...." Did you even consult the Spanish Wikipedia, as the article's tag suggested? Do you speak Spanish? What did you discover...? Perhaps, multiple published reliable sources that you do not understand? That is NO reason to nominate this for deletion. If you are going to be an AfC reviewer, you must do better than this. The mere existence of such sources is supposed to be considered adequate to retain the article, according to that often-cited guideline. A loose necktie (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources added with this edit [5] support the content? and " once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface" Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have specified sources, as best I know how, see below. "Seldom persuasive..." ? Is that policy? A loose necktie (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Both the Spanish and English language articles are based on self-published sources (the defunct "Infinito" channel, which produced the series); but it is worth to be mentioned on Jorge Lanata's bio.---Darius (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the editor who rejected this article in draft as it was previously declined with the request to add reliable sources. The article was then resubmitted, still without sources. The sources that have since been added do not establish notability, nor do the ones in the Spanish Wikipedia. Also, a Google search does not find any notable independent mentions. I still stand by my decision to reject. David.moreno72 05:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David, do you speak Spanish? Did you independently verify that none of the Spanish language sources gave evidence of this article's notability? And why did you ignore my request to reconsider the decision to decline it for publication? A loose necktie (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A loose necktie. Yes, I did independently verify. Why did I ignore your request? Because you ignored the great big edit notice on my talk page which says "If you have an Article for Creation, DO NOT ask me to review it or ask for help on how to improve it." Only I get to decide which drafts I review. Thank-you David.moreno72 04:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC

David, please understand that I did not ask you to review the article or ask for help on improving it-- you chose to review it. I asked you to reconsider your decision to decline it for publication, to which you did not respond. Is there someone else I should have asked? A loose necktie (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- provided the Proceso link is real (its redirecting me to the title page) that should count. Additionally, I found other discussions [6], [7], [8], [9] matt91486 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources cited are promotional, mere advertising of Lanata's documentaries, exception made of El Litoral newspaper, whose page is just a review of Lanata's book based upon the series. Promotional pages or passing mentions fail to establish an article's notability. Darius (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have a very different interpretation of what promotional pages/passing mentions means than you do, if the El Dia article would not count. It is an article in a newspaper about the debut of a TV series. This is promotional in the sense that every article in a newspaper about a TV series debuting is promotional; however, it is certainly not a press release (which is how *I* interpret that policy). And definitely not a passing mention. matt91486 (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are over 11,000 Google hits for this title. I realize many of them don't count. Don't at least two of them?? Here is just one that seems like it should. Here is another. Did no one look?? A loose necktie (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A loose necktie. First one is a passing mention, the second one is promotional ie. Go check out this show. So no, they don't establish WP:GNG. Thank you David.moreno72 04:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the article's current sourcing? A loose necktie (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A loose necktie . First source appears to be mostly a copy and paste of the transcript, and so appears to be more about the opinions of the interviewees than about the show. Second source is promotional. Third source is about the creator, not about the show. WP:GNG states that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also as an indication of notability, the page since its release into mainspace has only around 150 page views, and for that past few days its rate is lucky to hit double digits. Every indication suggests that the topic is not notable. My userpage gets more views. Thank you David.moreno72 04:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a discussion of the transcript of the series, it isn't a copy-and-paste of anything (the transcript itself might be, and certainly should be, but that isn't the point). That you cannot see even this means you are not willing to accept that the topic might, in fact, be notable, no matter how much evidence is provided, because you will always reject it as insufficient, even if the reason for that rejection is unfounded (as it is right there, with the first source). I know it is difficult to reverse your position; I would feel the same way if I were you. It would be wrong of me, though. I am not saying there is any overwhelming tide of evidence that you are refusing to see, I am saying there is enough evidence... I do hope you can see that (the number of hits relative to your userpage is irrelevant and kind of insulting, though). A loose necktie (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: with history & possibilities Rcats to Jorge Lanata where it is mentioned, albeit lede-only (which is incorrect), and which not be a WP:SURPRISE but leaves a valid search term. No real issue with a keep if someone successfully digs further.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 03:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dug further. A loose necktie (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean you added a source to the article 5 days ago. In that case it was a comment raised by Jorge Lanata himself in an interview in answer to a question (the article seems abstract because the article seems the interview of Lanata). It does not in my opinion constitute WP:RS so my earlier !vote of of redirect stands.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand. You are saying that Lanata is not a WP:RS on the subject of the series he made? That doesn't seem to make any sense (like some of the rest of the remark there). I appreciate the willingness to consider a redirect, but the request for additional sourcing was met and then apparently dismissed out of hand as "unreliable" (?). A loose necktie (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there is no progression towards a delete consensus, I would be happy to support the redirect ivote of Djm-leighpark. Considering that the article already exists on the Spanish Wikipedia, and the show is predominately for a Spanish audience, that should be more than enough for anyone interested in learning more. Thank you David.moreno72 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this means. You mean that the fact that the article exists on the Spanish Wikipedia means we should have a redirect here on the English one? So that English readers can... refer to... the Spanish article... which they won't understand without translation? If anyone is interested in learning more about this subject via the English Wikipedia, shouldn't we just have an article on it here, provided it is well sourced? (as it now is). A loose necktie (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a difficult one, prima facie it appears not to be notable, however there being a Spanish language Wikipage, version suggests otherwise. The article in its current form needs to be tidied up + expanded. --Devoke water 11:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to know how you believe it is currently "untidy" or how you think it may be expanded. I have expanded it as much as I know how and given that, I believe it is as tidy as it can be. A loose necktie (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - leaning towards keep based on the discussion above. Riteboke (talk) 16:37, 13 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. Sandstein 10:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Bryce[edit]

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

Non-notable perennial candidate who has ran for office 3 times but he hasn't won anything. He hasn't ran for office higher than US house, and I don't see any evidence of other notability. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep, his 2018 run received a huge amount of media attention Kingofthedead (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus that Shahid Buttar didn't have notability, and I would argue that his claim to notability is similar to Randy Bryce's as they both challenged the sitting speaker of the house and don't have much other notability. If you challenge the sitting speaker of the house you are bound to get some media attention, but that isn't enough notability for an article by itself unless you win. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Buttar now redirects to the election in which he ran against Pelosi.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm not familiar with the Buttar discussion but consensus was probably wrong there and it would be wrong to delete (or redirect) Bryce as well. Non-victory doesn't mean he's not a public figure who garners interest from a broad audience. — Mainly 20:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the policy on candidates rather than victors, and while I disagree with it generally I especially disagree with it in the case of a person who has received so much scrutiny. — Mainly 20:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet GNG, a number of sources profiling him in detail. Eldumpo (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, but the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always be exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. Rather, to make a non-winning candidate for office notable enough for a Wikipedia article, said candidate needs to pass one of two tests: either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy, or (b) he can demonstrate a reason why his candidacy would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (think Christine O'Donnell), such that even if the candidate loses the election and then never accomplishes another more notable thing again as long as he lives, people will still be looking for information about him in 2030 because of the sheer lasting importance of his candidacy itself. All coverage is incidental to only one of his three campaigns for office. The fact that there is almost no mention of his candidacy in any news, books, etc. all of three years later is indicative that it was not influential enough to pass the O'Donnell test.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 03:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has in-depth press coverage from a variety of reliable sources. Just to highlight a few cited in the article: [10], [11], [12]. This is significant coverage meeting WP:GNG. This coverage cannot be dismissed with WP:BLP1E — among other things, he continues to give quotes to the media and seek public attention, and therefore is not a low-profile individual. Nor can the coverage be dismissed by an appeal to later developments. Notability is not temporary. Once he has been the subject of significant coverage, he is notable permanently, irrespective of later events or the amount of later coverage. There is no notion of "inherent un-notability" that negates general notability simply because he ended up losing. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, he was not elected (unlike some other politicians), and most of the publications about him are in local press. But I counted at least 3 publications in major newspapers that describe him in non-trivial manner. This is a good enough reason to keep. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he was a failed candidate for the US House. It is high time we declare that all such people are just plain not notable unless there is coverage not at all related to their candidacy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, He has run for high offices several times, although never won. The coverage in reliable sources makes this a week keep. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is a perennial candidate who got scads of coverage in 2018. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete losing candidate who has never appeared to receive coverage outside of his losing candidacies and not independently notable. We can discuss him in the articles of the elections in which he ran, but I don't think he's up there at "perennial candidate" status yet either. SportingFlyer T·C 11:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unlike most political candidates this person received coverage on a national scale, meaning that they clearly rise above the routine coverage that all candidates receive, making them exceptional enough to deserve an article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:11, 11 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 Northern Lights (bluegrass band). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Sleepless Night (album)[edit]

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

Clearly does not meet WP:GNG with no secondary sources covering the album. Also does not meet WP:NALBUM. Delete and create redirect to the artist, Northern Lights. Ajshul 😃 03:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 03:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 03:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and alter the entry at Another Sleepless Night to link to the band. Nothing much found in the way of coverage. Anyone searching for this album is going to end up at the disambiguation page - I don't see any benefit to retaining this as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was only able to found the label that released this CD Billboard. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly nothing significant to consider here. GooeyMitch (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northern Lights (bluegrass band): Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 5 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 14:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middle Eastern superheroes[edit]

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

A search brings up nothing that indicates "Middle Eastern Superheroes" are notable as a topic. The existing references do nothing to justify the existence of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if the topic "Middle Eastern Superheroes" is not notable, the topic "Superheroes" is. If we delete this list, we'd also have to delete all the other regional lists (see Lists of superheroes), and then create a new list of all the superheroes, including all the regions on Earth. I won't be the one to do that job, if somebody else wants to volunteer, fine. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If WP:WAF were applied correctly to this page, it would be about (always fictional) superheroes created in the (real-world) Middle East, or for some reason or another prominent in the culture of (real) Middle Eastern people. None of that appears on the page that is up for deletion here. I was looking for a meaningful place where List of Middle Eastern superheroes could redirect to. It is quite disturbing Wikipedia appears to have relatively little content on culture in the Middle East or on Middle Eastern fiction, but that's the way it is, so the "best", but actually truly unsuitable, redirect target I could find was Orientalism#Pop culture. Articles such as Middle East Film and Comic Con or Culture and Conflict in the Middle East seem to have no coverage on Middle Eastern superheroes, so, apart from being unsuitable as redirect targets, they also seem to illustrate there is little demand for an article on the superhero niche in Middle Eastern culture or fiction. I had a look at incoming links to the list page from mainspace pages: apart from two redirects, there are only five pages that link to it. Among these pages linking to the list, Ethnic stereotypes in comics would, imho, be the most promising as a possible redirect target candidate for the list page (specifically its Ethnic stereotypes in comics#Middle Eastern section), but that page has a {{multiple issues}} tag for over a decade, and its Middle Eastern section is not in list format – so if redirected there, List of Middle Eastern superheroes would be up for deletion at WP:RfD without much delay. So, seeing no suitable well-referenced content on the page, nor seeing a viable redirect target for the title, the only option would be deletion, afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This non-notable article has caused editors to have to waste time (most recently on WP:FTN) debating which superheroes should be classified as Middle Eastern superheroes. It does not necessarily follow that all regional lists need to be deleted, just the ones for which there's no evidence of notability (although it can be argued that any such topic runs into in-universe problems). Even if all regional lists were deleted, Wikipedia could survive for a few months without a consolidated list of all superheroes until one of the thousands of editors who like working on pop culture topics gets around to making one. During that hypothetical few months when fictional superheroes are inadequately listed, we could defend ourselves against charges that we neglect pop culture by pointing out that Jabba the Hutt gets more coverage than many Nobel prize winners. NightHeron (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started that discussion on WP:FTN, not because of this article, but because of the fringe theory that all Jews may be called "Middle Eastern". Editors promoting that theory also cause problems in other articles, e.g. Middle Eastern Americans. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where's the source for this? Is this some kind of a fan page? Not Wikipedia content but certainly could be some other kind of wiki.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and delete the other “by region” lists as well... primarily because such lists are heavily based on Primary Sources (the comics themselves) and notability requires independent secondary sourcing. Also, I think there are more appropriate ways for us to divide superheroes into sub-lists - by publisher (Marvel, DC, etc.) for example, or by “age” (Golden Age, Silver Age, etc). When it comes to creating sub-lists for fictional characters, we should avoid “in universe” criteria, if possible. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no established inclusion criteria. North Africans are included apparently for the sole reason they are "similar". Editors have included superheroes as far reaching as Afghans and Muslim-like Aliens. It does not seem worth putting in the effort to create reasonable, non-biased, inclusion criteria for a list that adds little to no value. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure that Middle East is the best heading for this but List of Arab superheroes redirects to the same page and that's got potential – see Superheroes in Arabic Culture, for example. And then there's the recent trailer for Marvel's First Arab Superhero but that spoof demonstrates that it's not much good looking to the US for this. See Arab Comic Strips – Politics of an Emerging Mass Culture. The initials to be looking for are not DC but others like AK... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD is not about an "Arab superheroes" page: if you think such page can exist, please start it. List of Middle Eastern superheroes is a different topic, and can not even be a correct redirect to an Arab superheroes page, so, anyhow, List of Middle Eastern superheroes is up for deletion here, while it does not seem to have a viable reason to exist in Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to pass WP:NLIST. A different topic (Arab superheroes) might, and you have at least given a few sources that seem to indicate its viability, but none of these sources talk about "Middle Eastern" superheroes. The Middle East and the Arab world are not synonyms. Also, the problems that appear to exist for the Middle Eastern variety (see WP:FTN#Are all Jews to be called "Middle Eastern" ?) may dissipate on an Arab superheroes page, but that doesn't mean we should keep the problematic Middle Eastern superheroes variant, which rather seems an anomaly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Arab is not synonymous with Middle Eastern I agree with Francis. There has been tremendous bias on the page of including anyone vaguely Muslim or Arab-like, irrespective of how much of a connection they have with the Middle East, while the excluding Jews. This is why I added the POV tag to it. I would have no problem if the page was deleted and a new list of "Arab Superheroes" was created. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is reasonable to group people and fictional characters by region of origin. And the Middle East is a long-established region. Dimadick (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ultimately, most of the Middle East is already part of Asia, specifically Western Asia (though most of Egypt is part of North Africa). Most of the heroes on the "Middle Eastern superhero list" are already mentioned on the List of Asian superheroes page. With the exception being heroes/comic book character of North African origin (which isn't even correct, because Egypt is the only Middle Eastern country mainly in North Africa). Off topic, but I guess, one could suggest to rename the page to be a list of Arab superheroes (which would probably be far more substantial/noteworthy), but that's a discussion for another time. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - per Clear Looking Glass. Instead of trying to parse out different overlapping but distinct groups (Middle Eastern, Arab, Muslim, again, all distinct) it is best to cover this in something that meets Wikipedia’s standards for WP:IINFO. This is already covered by a clearer article. Archrogue (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FANCRUFT at best WP:IINFO at worst. Essentially WP:INUNIVERSE to boot. jps (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:FANCRUFT, lacks WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on what Clear Looking Glass and other users said, I changed my mind. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:48, 5 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 15:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In My Lifetime: A Presentation of the Nuclear World Project[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage beyond one local news story that is already in the article. SL93 (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found some listings in academic books, but nothing that would establish how the documentary is notable. If the director had an article then this could maybe redirect but other than that I don't know that this needs an article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ROTP/TG79. Essentially a WP:1S. Kolma8 (talk) 20:09, 7 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. Sandstein 10:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agean Cymbals[edit]

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

NCORP fail. A web search found one sketchy source. --- Possibly (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: they're an independent maker, so don't have the kind of coverage as Paiste or others but they've been a popular make for a little over a decade, as a quick browse through some of the drummers' forums will tell you (as a drummer myself I can also attest to this anecdotally). Here is a full review from an established drumming magazine and they appear within and here and here in top-5 low-volume cymbal roundups from similar online publications. Chrishillflute (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention Paiste. That article is quite long, yet has all of three references — two of which to the company's own website, and the third a complete irrelevance. Compared to that, this one is downright over-referenced! :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ I simply hate paid editing. It inevitably results in a lot of irrelevant fluff and peacockery, as is the case here; and even if that is removed, the POV still shines through from whatever is left. For that reason, this might need WP:TNT, if there is to remain an article on the subject. And should there be one? I'm not too sure; Turkish cymbals are clearly a big thing, but there are any number of makers, and there's nothing to suggest this is one of the more notable ones. (Which is presumably why the company paid for this article to be created in the first place.) As for referencing, the Jazzdrummer World piece looks okay; the Modern Drummer article could be also, but regrettably it's behind a pay wall. (And a search finds nothing more or better.) In the light of those sources alone, this is borderline at best, hence I'm erring on the deletionist side, but could be easily persuaded to !vote the other way if another solid source was found, and/or someone with access to the MD article could verify it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep (& improve) After careful consideration I'm changing my !vote to keep. I said earlier that I would be happy do this if another solid source was found, and in fairness one has: the recently-added Anadolu Agency piece, also picked up by Milliyet, counts as RS in my book (even if their RS'ness has been declining in recent years!). So the sourcing now consists of two specialist mags, a solid mainstream news agency, and also a regional lifestyle title (not RS, but not every source needs to be). Promo blurb needs to be weeded out, and generally the article could do with a once-over, but I don't want my lone vote to be the reason this gets deleted. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 26 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 12:32, 26 March 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) 02:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article is retained, then this article may need to be WP:TNTTP.--Alcremie (talk) 10:37, 5 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 10:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Cliffe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actresses, and that is her activity where she comes to the closest to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 6 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 Matt Gaetz#Alleged sexual relationship with minor. Numerically, opinions are roughly evenly split between delete, merge and keep. There are sensible arguments for all three outcomes, but in the end it is a matter of our collective editorial judgment to what extent we want to cover these allegations; as such I cannot determine on my own whose arguments are stronger. I can, however, determine that rough consensus is against deleting this article but also against keeping it as a separate article at this time. This makes "merge" the most consensual outcome of this discussion.

It has been noted that the content of this article is not more that what there is already about this topic in the main article Matt Gaetz, which also indicates that most people think that there does not seem to be very much content for a subarticle at the moment. Consequently, given that most of the merger seems to have been already done, I think it best reflects this discussion and is best in terms of article quality to simply redirect the title, allowing editors to merge whatever they think is useful from the history. This does not preclude the recreation of a spinoff article per WP:SS if our coverage of the matter grows substantially, but I advise discussing this on the talk page first to avoid a re-run of this discussion. Sandstein 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations[edit]

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

Prod declined, redirect to his main page declined. The reporting on this is all less than what, 12 hours old? I have yet to see an actual story that says he was charged. All the reporting is about the fact that someone found out he was being investigated. Not enough for our BLP rules. Merging all this to the main article might be OK as he has been responding to the claims in the media. But keeping an article ~~with the title format "firstname lastname child sex scandal"~~ when the investigation has not been confirmed and charges have not been laid? --- Possibly (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: this is being discussed at WP:AN#Matt Gaetz. I moved the article to Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations per BLP. Fences&Windows 01:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete Far WP:TOOSOON. This is a developing story. It may well end up being a major news story that deserves a separate article, but we're not there yet and things could go the other way as time goes on.LM2000 (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:TOOSOON, doesn't deserve anything more than a paragraph at Matt Gaetz at this point. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's adequately confirmed it may deserve a mention at Matt Gaetz, but it's not yet at that point. As a separate page, no. Athel cb (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sensational breaking news story, essentially based on the reporting of one source. Grossly premature to call this a "scandal." It is early to even give this a mention in the Matt Gaetz article, due to BLP and undue weight concerns. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ keep, not delete. It's trivially easy to obey WP:BLP by limiting ourselves to reporting the coverage in WP:RS media. As for now, WP:TOOSOON certainly does apply, but this topic can be added to the Matt Gaetz page for now, with the option to fork back out into its own article when that section is more fully fleshed-out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I changed my above vote to keep, per below comment by User:Internetronic and User:Scanlyze noting that WP:TOOSOON is an essay and not a policy, and noting that Wikipedia does indeed have current events among our articles all the time. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Eg, imagine if we were debating whether to keep an article on the Tohoku disaster as it was happening. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm really uncomfortable with this. It says in the article that no charges have been brought, yet the article name uses the phrase "child sex scandal" without any qualifiers, which could well give the impression that not only charges have been brought but they've also been proven. I know WP:BLPPUBLIC sort of allows this, but while the article may be within the letter of that guideline, I don't think it is within its spirit. If it were my call, I'd say speedily delete this as wholly negative BLP that's also just WP:TOOSOON. But given that the story is merely a day or two old, I guess I could live with it being draftified for a while, pending further developments, assuming that's okay legally etc. (And just to say, I've never heard of this chap, I don't even know which party he represents, so my comment is entirely unbiased in that respect.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per what literally everyone else said. Maybe send some info to Matt Gaetz a day or so later, or something. AdoTang (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a speedy and a speedy vote would require that you specify a speedy criterion. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SPEEDY, especially WP:NOTCSD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto the main page for reasons stated above.JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 15:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (partial) to Matt Gaetz. Widely covered in reliable media: he himself has acknowledged. Djflem (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those voting merge, a note that this material has now been covered in the main article here. --- Possibly (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic of this article is not a random piece of gossip that can simply be dismissed by claiming it is a "hit job," it is an investigation being conducted by the US Department of Justice into whether a US congressman has committed the sex trafficking of a minor. Coverage in this article (as in the press, where it is a major story) balances both the serious allegations and the denials by the alleged sexual predator. The investigation which this article is about is very much a real and notable subject and therefore the article is completely appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UrielAcosta (talk • contribs)
Keep and speedy close this. Yet again again again, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot with stupid deletion tags, on another big and somewhat complex story that people are looking up and wanting to learn about. It's as if someone dreamed up the most evil strategy for giving a bad image of Wikipedia, to be widely spread whenever Wikipedia is most useful / most visited. Instead, there oughta be some sign put on the page "ANOTHER GREAT BREAKING STORY EXPLAINED SIMPLY AND ACCURATELY AND WELL BY wIKIPEDIA, YOUR FRIEND. BE SURE TO REVISIT THIS PAGE AS MORE FACTS BECOME AVAILABLE. WE ARE PROUD OF WHAT WE DO. CONSIDER DONATING $1,000,000 TODAY." But no, our message is "We are stupid and divided!". --Doncram (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree totally. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not Wikinews. This is just a handful of allegations at the moment. No charges have been filed, and we aren't exactly sure where the investigation is going, though I'm sure Twitter is loosing it. TOOSOON, we'll see if this develops into anything, then we can have our article. At the moment, a small paragraph on the Gaetz page will suffice. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Premature WP:CONTENTFORK that clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS. Problematic title as well. KidAd • SPEAK 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This article does not violate any of the four points in WP:NOTNEWS. The article is not OR, it is not written as a news report, it's not a who's who, and it is not celebrity gossip or a diary. However, it is valid to suggest that at this time, this is a premature fork. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Matt Gaetz article. This page is simply not large enough to justify a separate article.★Trekker (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Though I think the content should be saved for possible merging into Matt Gaetz or to even be released as its own page in the future, we don't know enough about the story, the validity of the claim, or the motive of the claim to merit its own article. I agree with DoubleGrazing that the title and spirit of the article are quite harsh for something that hasn't even been officially proven yet, upon looking at the most recent developments to the story today I would argue there is not enough information for its own page. Possibly also makes a good point that there is already a section for this topic on Matt Gaetz's page. Yy958 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matt Gaetz: per WP:TOOSOON. A section in the main article is suffice for now. Curbon7 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more than enough reporting from a vast number of reputable sources to qualify this for its own article. All it needs is a WP:CET, and then we should get to fleshing out this article rather than scrapping it. (Everyone here citing WP:TOOSOON should maybe find an actual Wikipedia policy that backs their argument rather than an essay Internetronic (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the Delete votes cite WP:TOOSOON. It's debateable whether WP:TOOSOON itself is a valid reason for deletion given that it is an essay and not a policy. Be that as it may, WP:TOOSOON states, "For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources." By that standard, the article is *NOT* WP:TOOSOON. Scanlyze (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You changed my mind for me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This scandal is getting worse and worse by the day. If deleted prematurely, it's likely to need being added again later. For now, I suggest keeping it. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 10:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least change title. It's not very NPOV to have an article title referring to a girl who would be old enough to legally have sex with a thirtysomething in 39 states that aren't Florida as a "child". Khemehekis (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- changing the title does sound like a good idea to me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the problem is not that it happened in Florida, but that he allegedly crossed state lines to do it, which is a federal crime. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 22:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Doncram Kiltpin (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Matt Gaetz article. Not much is even known about this at this time so it would be appropriate to merge to his main article until more info comes out. Article is not NPOV as well because age 17 is or is above the age of consent for many states. Minor and child differ. Chloe0303 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: the article is premature, particularly with respect to its title. soibangla (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above by User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, this is not a speedy vote. Internetronic (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don’t know what the precise protocol is here, but this article is exceedingly problematic and should be promptly nuked at the earliest opportunity. soibangla (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - for a speedy deletion, you need to specify the speedy criterion as per WP:CSD. (Actually speedies aren't even supposed to be done in AfD.) If you instead feel it is problematic (e.g. you think it's a WP:BLP violation?), you give the explanation why you think so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, easily passes the notability criteria. Pointless nomination. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: Saying it's pointless is kind of pointless, seeing as more than 50% want to delete and the outcome is very much in contention. It's your basic relevant discussion.--- Possibly (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a situation where an article about a rapidly-developing story gets AfD-ed when there's less coverage of it, and as more information comes in it's obvious that an article is needed. Note that most of the delete votes were from a few days ago, and most votes now are to keep. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This story is evolving slowly but surely, and there's no doubt that there'll be further developments as we move along. At best, this could require a rename if more people are dragged into this scandal. Love of Corey (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is definitely WP:TOOSOON. Right now this is an unnecessary WP:NEGATIVESPIN. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article has been moved to Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations by User:Fences and windows with summary Boldly moving per BLP. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 01:01, 3 April 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 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Scanlyze. My only concern was the article title, but that's already been addressed. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the only thing I’ll say because I tried commenting then the page was deleted. I tried again and I got edit conflicted twice. Too soon to know where this story will go or if it is even substantiated. Trillfendi (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Trillfendi, sorry for the inconvenience. You can comment now. Fences&Windows 01:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant press coverage/sources and the problematic title was changed.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an WP:UNDUE spinout of a BLP subject that is far too soon. The parent article itself is only 5500 words right now, and it absolutely could be trimmed further; there's no basis for needing a spinout article (that as pointed out essentially makes assertions of criminal conduct in the very framing). There's no reason that this article should exist as a separate topic. Suppositions that it could "blow up" or involve tons of people that require a separate article are entirely jumping the gun; we judge suitability for merging or deleting by the sources we have now, not on the idea that maybe something will happen later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Majority of the article is about the extortion attempt. This is an article engaging in sensationalism as very few facts are available to actually cite about the allegations. Instead, you can already see the WP:Coatrack to tie this to Q, Roger Stone and Human Sex Trafficking. Slywriter (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I struck out "~~with the title format "firstname lastname child sex scandal"~~" from the AfD nomination as the article title has been changed.--- Possibly (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, do not delete - Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELAY. The allegations are simply too recent. We can probably summarize everything in about 2 paragraphs in the main Gaetz article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its gonna become a major devolping story, lets kep it so its ready Phillypaboy123 (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2021 (EST)
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per WP:N and ample, substantive coverage of a public figure. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has so much mainstream media coverage (including from major newspapers in other countries that one might hope are sufficiently farther removed to provide a less-politicized point of view) that it's obviously notable by now and it would overwhelm the main Gaetz article if we didn't keep it separate. It's an unstable and fraught situation but that's only an argument for why it can't be a Good Article now, not an argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Matt Gaetz - this is clearly a notable incident with reliable sourcing, that is not in doubt. However, I don't think there's enough coverage to warrant a discrete article (yet?). ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Scanlyze. Gazamp (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is far too premature for a standalone article on this. The article is still short and the main Matt Gaetz article has a discussion of these allegations which is more detailed than the one in this article. Nor do we have any good reason to believe that these allegations will have much lasting significance, as they haven't been confirmed, they haven't led to any charges and the person they relate to is only a congressman. I don't see anything to merge given that the main article covers this in more detail already. Hut 8.5 14:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least for now. If charges are filed in court, then restart the article. Too much sheer speculation at the moment. Personally, I think he looks like a putz, but he might be an innocent putz. 104.169.24.168 (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep: because by the time this is closed it will meet notability requirements. versacespace talk to me 15:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Per WP:SNOW, The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes. Nothing about this page's notability is "likely" or "quite likely." KidAd • SPEAK 16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matt Gaetz#Alleged sexual relationship with minor, where it is already covered in sufficient detail. Too soon to spin out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Matt Gaetz, at least unless there is an indictment and trial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete At present it's a clear BLP/NCRIME violation, and at any rate if the allegations are borne out, it is just part of his biography and will cease being just allegations. Mangoe (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Blindingly, Obviously. 1, the topic is seeing sustained, widespread coverage in both national and international sources. 2, as long as the article is focused on the allegations of a crime and not stating that the subject actually committed a crime (until he is indicted, of course). 3, WP:BLPCRIME is not applicable, as the subject is a public figure. If there are concerns about improper language used in the article such as "child s**" or "s** trafficking", than those can be handled by reverting to err on side of caution, and discussing. Finally, a merger is not appropriate given the scope of what has been reported so far. It would be undue to include this much info in the bio. Zaathras (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's far too early for this. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Matt Gaetz. While this is certainly notable, per WP:SIZERULE the length of this and the main article do not justify a split at this time. Username 6892 00:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge This very obviously shouldn't be its own article. Whoever closes this discussion should consider the Delete votes to be the same as Merge, as this content will be covered in Matt Gaetz regardless. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - At least half the verbiage is already in the parent article. There may be a time when a stand alone article is justified, but it isn't today. Seems like an unnecessary fork for what will easily fit in the main article, where some of this is going to be anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge&redirect, do not delete. A completely different title may be appropriate as a substantial portion of the article of about David McGee allegedly extorting Gaetz for $25M. "Gaetz and McGee investigation and allegations", not exactly that but it's hard to come up with a clear title that covers both. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider rename to Matt Gaetz scandals given the sprawling nature of the scandal which some sources suggest extends beyond sexual misconduct. Neutrality^talk 03:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this, especially due to the fake ID aspects just starting to come out.

https://www.rawstory.com/matt-gaetz-2651324756/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-text-messages-led-the-feds-to-matt-gaetz Internetronic (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: Maybe "Matt Gaetz misconduct investigation". It seems the word "scandal" is rarely if ever used in a title together with a name. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is Jack Abramoff scandals. Neutrality^talk 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Larry Craig scandal, Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal, John Ensign scandal, Mark Foley scandal, Petraeus scandal... 162.208.168.92 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and this topic continues to circulate in the media. As per above, the title is not inclusive as there appear to be several distinct controversies surrounding this person including an extortion scandal, sexual solicitation scandal, and sexual conquest scandal related to his previous legislative positions, and FBI and DOJ investigations. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Matt Gaetz. It's part and parcel of his career, not a separate, long-running story. It's better handled as part of the main article. no matter what happens. →StaniStani 12:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just out of curiosity, what if the scandal section of the Matt Gaetz article ends up growing until it's 90% of the article? That would still be okay and not a case of WP:UNDUE, would it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypotheticals have no bearing on the issue at hand and your comments thus far haven't advanced the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The story has gotten comparable coverage to the Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations. The explanation of the story is too long to include in the main article, and will only get longer. Davey2116 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ WP:OTHERSTUFF KidAd • SPEAK 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That's if my argument was solely based on the other article existing, which it is not. That sentence was merely another way of saying that the story has received lots of coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "argument" is that this controversy has gotten as much coverage as another controversy which has an article. That's WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd • SPEAK 00:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't just whenever someone mentions another article. Davey was very clearly comparing the coverage of the two incidents, which is the metric we use to determine notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged Elli (talk | contribs) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with a redirect - I don't really see the rationale for deletion. It's a developing story receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources. The only question is where we should cover it (here or on Matt Gaetz), not whether or not the content should remain on the encyclopedia full stop. This should have been listed as a merge discussion on the talk page, not brought to AfD. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, leaning towards Keep. I think this is actually very similar to the Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign AfD. Initially yes it was WP:TOOSOON but over time it developed much more into a complete article. As the investigation pans out, I am certain there will be more information which will make this a more complete article, but we just need to be patient and find out how much merit these claims have. Right now, I think this article is in that sweet spot of being too short for its own article, but too long to merge with Gaetz's article. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main article currently contains more text on the "scandal" (18 sources/ 659 words/ 4250 characters) than this standalone article (16 sources/ 520 words/ 3350 characters) does.--- Possibly (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For now. We got tons of coverage but most of it are just allegations, and didn't merit its own article. Merge all of these to his own page. SunDawn (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Merging is not the same as deletion. And when merging, the article would typically be converted to a redirect for multiple reasons including attribution purposes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now. There is certainly reliable source coverage here, but not enough (yet) that it couldn’t be covered in the main article. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMmmm,isthattrue (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Note:SPA and this is their only edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is definitely important reliably sourced content here that we should be covering, but it is covered well on the main Gaetz article. There is no need for a content fork. If they story grows considerably, we can re-consider at that time. Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything that is reliably sourced can be covered in the article on this individual. There is no reason to have a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now Once we have specifics (and I'm pretty sure they are coming) we can have this. But for now, it seems to be mostly coverage of rumors. Well-sourced coverage of rumors, but still. Topic easily meets WP:N, but I feel there are too many BLP and, frankly, common-sense issues with having an article about rumors. Hobit (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now too small currently, can fit onto the Matt Gaetz article. --Pithon314 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say merge, but all that does is change the venue for Republican apologists to argue about its inclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 7 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. Wizardman 02:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Reitz[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player and manager. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for minor league baseball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:13, 8 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 10:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Vincent's Club[edit]

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

Was proded for absence of wp notablity factors. Was de-proded, without explanation as to how it met wp standards. --2603:7000:2143:8500:284F:1640:953:7AA8 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. Notable presidents can be mentioned in the main article (and are!), we don't need a separate list of everyone. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Firefly, for the second time today. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. If we accept Firefly's argument, then it should be merged to ensure all notable presidents are mentioned in the main article - currently they are not. On the other hand, most of the presidents actually are notable even if they don't currently have articles. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reviewed WP:Listpeople, this should certainly be a keep. There is no such thing as 'listcruft'. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the note/reply below about listcruft, your comment leads me to ask a question -- precisely how many people on this list, who have wp articles, do you not see on the list in the other article? Plus - you have not indicated what wp notability criteria you believe this meets.--2603:7000:2143:8500:E500:A993:E39A:99BE (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPINOFF. It’s a notable club, and the information is useful and encyclopedic. Moving the list to that main article would make that article too long.4meter4 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too long? How is that measured? The other article is 6,621 bytes at the moment. Much of the notable presidents here are already there. What byte size do you view as "too long"? But per wp:article size, "At 10,000 words (50 kB and above) it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles." This is not of course any where near that. I do not see any weight in the comment at all. And moving any notable presidents missing into the other article would not expand volume such as to create an undue weight problem; nor is the other article large requiring a spin off; nor does this have many summary sections - it's simply a non-notable list, and wp:spinoff does not require the retention of non-notable lists. This said, despite my view that at the end of the day I'm not in favor of retention at all. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E500:A993:E39A:99BE (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With a note that "listcruft" perhaps has no "official" definition, but is generally considered to be a real thing. Concerning a possible merge, I note that the proposed target article itself is also tagged for notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Firefly. Some of these individuals are notable, but not because they were presidents of this club. The fact that the only source cited in this article is a page from the club's own web site suggests that this topic is not of significant interest outside the club. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 3 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. WP:V is core policy and says that articles need reliable published sources. None have been found for this topic. Whether or not this is an accredited institution is immaterial in this respect, leading me to discount the "keep" opinions. Sandstein 10:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Baptist College and Seminary[edit]

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

Non-notable college, only has a primary source. BilCat (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is a stub that needs a lot of improvement but the subject is a legitmate, accredited institution. ElKevbo (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no working indepdent sources. The fact that the sponsoring church and the origanzation itself both have a website, and the former website mentions this place, is not enough to show that this is in any way a notable institution. In the US any church can set up a seminary, we should not treat these as default notable just because they exist. The situation if applied will lead to ludicous considering a seminary with 5 students ever notable but a church with 1500 members not, because we actually require something more than existing to show a church is notable. This is not a notable institution in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In the US any church can set up a seminary, we should not treat these as default notable just because they exist" may be true but that's definitely an unhelpful exaggeration when we're also discussing an accredited, degree-granting institution. It would be highly unusual for us to delete the article about an accredited institution even if the article is a poorly sourced stub in desperate need of expansion. ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as accredited seminarys are usually kept but reliable sources coverage would make it a solid keep imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:36, 3 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. Sandstein 10:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midgham Lock[edit]

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

I believe this Kennet and Avon Canal Lock article does not meet WP:GNG (WP:NBUILD), as there is no significant source coverage directly addressing the individual Lock available. I believe there is little possible notable information to include, and therefore the article is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The information in this article is also duplicated in List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal (Grid Ref/Listed Building/Rise or Fall are all part of this table - hence deletion of this article would not result in any loss of information anyway).

I am also separately nominating the following Locks for deletion as well - however I will nominate them individually, as it is possible some may have more notability or be deemed worthy of keeping for a different reason and may hence deserve their own AfD discussion (as per WP:MULTIAFD).

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only looked at the first one, Midgham Lock, only later realising it was merely the first of a long list. I can't think of a good reason why it is beneficial to remove the sourced information about who built the lock and when. If all this type of information was included in the list, converting to a redirect (maintaining the history) would be a reasonable possibility. The nomination is factually incorrect for this lock but I haven't checked the others. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this didn't quite go out of my mind. There are many references to this lock in books about the canal or the region and, although each is somewhat in passing, together they would make up a substantial article. The Kennet and Avon Canal article, when it discusses the restoration of this lock gives a reference (Lindley-Jones, Peter (2002). Restoring the Kennet & Avon Canal. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 978-0-7524-2387-6.) that suggests to me it has greater coverage but the contents do not seem to be accessible online. If I splashed out £3.68 I could see what it says. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 3 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. Sandstein 10:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heale's Lock[edit]

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

I believe this Kennet and Avon Canal Lock article does not meet WP:GNG (WP:NBUILD), as there is no significant source coverage directly addressing the individual Lock available. I believe there is little possible notable information to include, and therefore the article is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The information in this article is also duplicated in List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal (Grid Ref/Listed Building/Rise or Fall are all part of this table - hence deletion of this article would not result in any loss of information anyway).

I am also separately nominating the following Locks for deletion as well - however I will nominate them individually, as it is possible some may have more notability or be deemed worthy of keeping for a different reason and may hence deserve their own AfD discussion (as per WP:MULTIAFD).

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Padworth Lock[edit]

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

I believe this Kennet and Avon Canal Lock article does not meet WP:GNG (WP:NBUILD), as there is no significant source coverage directly addressing the individual Lock available. I believe there is little possible notable information to include, and therefore the article is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The information in this article is also duplicated in List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal (Grid Ref/Listed Building/Rise or Fall are all part of this table - hence deletion of this article would not result in any loss of information anyway).

I am also separately nominating the following Locks for deletion as well - however I will nominate them individually, as it is possible some may have more notability or be deemed worthy of keeping for a different reason and may hence deserve their own AfD discussion (as per WP:MULTIAFD).

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 3 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.

[1] "Francis Durbridge". March 29, 2021 – via Wikipedia.

[2] ttps://www.amazon.com/Francis-Durbridge-Presents-Desperate-Australia/dp/B01FR367MO/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

[1]

[2]