Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 23	August 25 >

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 no consensus. Moving to NC rather than a 3rd relist as we have now been open for 24 days, and without seeming change in position (the same arguments have occurred throughout without major change).

The dispute primarily factored as to whether BLP1E was met, or not. Numerically it was very close as to whether the answer was just "no" or whether there was sufficient notability from areas other than his death (such as the court case).

Since both positions were policy-valid, it's fairly numerically even, no-consensus seems applicable. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Farrel[edit]

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

I think this goes without saying that this unfortunate any way look at it.

In my opinion an article for Mr Farrel would have failed any number of tests for notability WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ANYBIO and so on, when he was still alive.
The Wikipedia articles Newsmax and Newsmax TV have no mention of him
Analogous to WP:BLP1E, this would appear to me a "Biography of a dead person notable for only one event"

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was notable before his death for incidents like this one. Icky people can be notable too. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP1E applies. He is not notable for an on-air derogatory comment that ended up in the courts. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He seems to be notable for two events, a court case and his death. PaulinSaudi (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: his death has been noticed in German-speaking media (and his famous last words, too):

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22+Dick+Farrell+%22+site%3A.de --Präziser (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per OP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he was covered both for a main controversy and after his death, giving enough coverage for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The substantiveness of the provided sources hasn't been discussed in detail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 09:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable for the circumstances of his death and the media coverage. --Echtner (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is notable for the circumstances of his death and the media coverage. Check back in a few years and see what we think then. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting again and can only reiterate the previous relister's comment: The substantiveness of the provided sources hasn't been discussed in detail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Radio host wouldn't have been notable if he hadn't died. KidAd • SPEAK 00:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 1E and because the first source provided above doesn't establish notability, he insulted someone and that's it. Avilich (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with delete comments. Most of the provided references are connected with COVID-19 infection and subject's death, with notability not being evident. The WP:BLP1E guideline should be followed here.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Farrel doesn't pass GNG. FWIW I used to listen to him but that was probably over 25 years ago. I haven't listened to talk radio in at least 20 years....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. He seems to be notable outside his death. That includes: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 18:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Leong[edit]

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

This person is simply not notable. The article was created by an editor with a huge history of COI articles and creation, most of them have now been deleted but this one remains. Nothing about the article, except pure fluff, denotes him as notable. The references are simply super local news reports on minor incidental mentions. Yes he's mentioned in the references, and there are local news articles about a fire at his place of business, but that doesn't make the person notable. I can find incidental mentioned here and there, but nothing that passes WP:BIO. He even self published his own book. I contend this is simply another case of COI creation for a generally non-notable local personality known to the original creator. Canterbury Tail talk 22:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As Canterbury Tail has said, this article's creator has a track record of this. In this specific case, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability under "Criteria supporting deletion": "Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art); perhaps also avoid even mentioning them in the article of the art unless they are one of a few high-ranked artists in an art that has thousands of students." Even based on the article creator's own evidence- itself coming from a source the quality of which has been much criticised- including at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Felix_Leong , where the article creator's responses ought to raise an eyebrow- this is really all that can be said for Felix Leong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.223.102 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the sourcing is not really about him and doesn't meet the Martial arts project. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the other editors' comments, with which I agree, I could not find a single IRS to Leong. There is IRS coverage of the (non-notable) fire of his gym; but the only article about him is the Adelaide City article, which doesn't really meet IRS but would probably work amongst several other stronger sources, but there aren't any. Fails GNG. I also note Grahame's relevant comments regarding the article's creator. Cabrils (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The comments regarding the article's creator were actually inserted by an IP and unsigned.--Grahame (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Practitioner/teacher is not very notable. Yinglong999 (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe the coverage meets the GNG and I don't think the notability standards for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandals1 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 31 August 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Ballerina[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Possible redirect to artist, but potentially ambiguous title, so could misled readers. has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus Spiliotopoulos[edit]

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

Indications of notability, but hard to pick out as the tone of this is promotional. No Greek article and has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. I couldn't establish that he has the significance or coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find in Greek anything on him besides a couple of listings. And the article doesn't have secondary sources covering the subject. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been tagged with a NN tag since 2009, and there has been no attempt to update the article with references, hence there is no valid sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noor-ud-din Qureshi[edit]

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

Hints of notability, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ran into the same issue about inability to establish GNG. Really needs an Urdu speaker (for source accessibility) as English-language sourcing isn't there. Star Mississippi 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find anything online in Urdu to support the article. Mccapra (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an URDU speaker, i can confirm that no SIG COVERAGE available about the leader.Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack significant coverage.--Hippeus (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my initial comment, and the input from Mccapra and Faizal batliwala, and thank you both for the necessary insight for an informed !vote. Star Mississippi 13:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Urdu speakers' comments. FiddleheadLady (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBased on one references fails WP:GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 11:51, 26 August 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. Taking into account the comments from the first AfD and this one, it appears there are many mentions, but a lack of significant coverage to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. Wray Gill[edit]

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

Re-nominating in the hope of getting a consensus - limited responses to first. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, so I really hope we can get an answer. There is some coverage, but I couldn't establish he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local lawyer fails WP:ANYBIO. Seems like he had a pretty interesting life and career, but that does not confer notability. KidAd • SPEAK 23:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable in local terms but not in Wikipedia terms. Similar articles could be constructed for hundreds of thousands of other lawyers. Mccapra (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Basically a run-of-the-mill locally successful lawyer. BD2412 T 01:13, 1 September 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loveville, Delaware[edit]

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

Delaware Place Names calls this a "locality", and this bit of amateur history claims it was a very early post office which never really took as town. A boosterish bit of writing in the late 1800s gives it a population of 50, which is highly questionable: Cram's Universal Atlas of the same period doesn't list it. Topos and aerials consistently show it as a T intersection and nothing more. I don't think this was a real settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. jp×g 22:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. jp×g 22:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: USGS maps show the coordinates as a part of Mill Creek with a couple houses on a couple roads in 1901, 1904, 1943, 1954, and 1993. There's no "Loveville" label in any of these years. In 1993 there's "Alliance Church" to the south, "Stuyvesant Hills" to the northwest, "Cokesbury Village" to the northeast and "Westgate Farms" to the southeast. In 2011 (when USGS topo maps started being automatically generated by computers from GNIS data), the label appears -- but I don't see any evidence that any human being in the last 130 years looked at a map of the area and said "yep, that's Loveville". On Google's satellite maps you can see that the coordinates are located on a "Loveville Road", which I think is where the label comes from; unless someone can come up with sourcing that refers to Loveville as a real populated place, I think this is a "delete". jp×g 01:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although the name was used in reference to the area around the intersection for a long time (I found an article from 1957 about a house fire near Loveville), it doesn't appear to have been a distinct community and doesn't meet the GNG requirement for a populated place without legal recognition. –dlthewave ☎ 13:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This place is discussed in early histories of Delaware (including The Biographical and Genealogical History of the State of Delaware and he History of Delaware, 1609-1888, Volume I) and in early newspaper articles. It's clear the hamlet's heyday was the 1830s to the 1860s, based on those references. Loveville was the site of the mill of noted abolitionist and Quaker Thomas Worrell, with the mill being a likely site of the Underground Railroad.[6] Loveville itself was called a "hamlet" with a population of 50 in the 1870s. User:Mangoe is to be commended for checking Cram's 1890 atlas for population figures, but by the 1870s, Loveville had lost its post office and was in decline. I've reworked the article a bit, making it clear this is a historical hamlet, not a modern town. More work will be done soon. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references establishing it as historical community. Djflem (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and Firsfron's banger of an expansion. Woo! jp×g 22:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Firsfon has demonstrated this this is/was an actual community, with census figures many years ago. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:09, 27 August 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 Michael R. Eisenson. Sandstein 07:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenson[edit]

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

I PROD'd this with the rationale "Non-notable surname. Only one article contains the name so not suitable for use as a disambig." De-PRODder added two redlinks sourced to IMDB, which doesn't really make the case - we don't put redlinks on a disambig, and IMDB is not an RS due to the user-generated content. I've now removed those redlinks, so we're back to square one: a non-notable, unreferenced surname. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki-search indicates that there are a few hits within the encyclopedia for sources including Eisenson as an author surname, but there is currently only one article on a person with that surname, and no other noteworthy uses. Redirect to Michael R. Eisenson for now. BD2412 T 20:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as {{R from surname}}. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:28, 24 August 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 Frederica von Stade#Musical charities. Up to editors whether to merge anything from the history. Sandstein 07:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People's Choir of Oakland[edit]

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

I am generally the last person to nominate cultural organizations for deletion, as I believe they're important to and significant parts of their communities. However, I cannot find any evidence this meets WP:ORG as the coverage is not there. Creator even indicates it's true that the People's Choir of Oakland has so far been overlooked by traditional newspapers and broadcasters Would not be against a redirect as an ATD, but that seems contentious, so we're here. Star Mississippi 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no denying that if Wikipedia's general notability guidelines are applied to this article in their full, merciless rigour, it should certainly be deleted. But there are, I think, several grounds for a stay of execution. Firstly, although the People's Choir of Oakland hasn't yet been covered by the mainstream media, it has attracted interest from several classical music websites, and these are, in my experience, at least as reliable secondary sources as books, newspapers, magazines or broadcasters. (I've written more than 100,000 words about classical music for Wikipedia, and in researching my contributions, it has been in what Wikipedia deems to be the most reliable kind of secondary sources that I've found the most numerous and most egregious errors.) Secondly, the People's Choir of Oakland is a charitable organization, and it seems to me that, for that reason alone, a degree of leniency might be appropriate. Thirdly, the Choir is still only in the early stages of its development, and it seems likely that it will attract more media attention when it's properly up and running. All things considered, I think that there's a case for allowing the article to survive for the time being, and for then reassessing it in a year or so. Niggle1892 (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Niggle1892 I'd actually say that makes the case for a draft article until it's notable. And I have no question about your editing experience and contributions, this is absolutely a good faith creation. A charitable organization is wonderful, but there are hundreds of thousands of them so it's not a factor for notability unless there's coverage to meet the GNG, which I haven't yet found. Maybe some will turn up during the run of this AfD. Star Mississippi 13:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Mississippi Thank you for those kind words—they mean a great deal to me. Niggle1892 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the institutions does not meet GNG, we should clearly delete the article. Showing "mercy" for the coverage of inadequately covered topics, just leads to Wikipedia not complying with the guideline it be built on reliable secondary sources, which is bad for the porject over all. Mercy has no part in creating a good encyclopedia, and to attack policies for the lack of it shows an inadequate commitment to having good coverage of topics. Removing an article is not a punishment, it is a determination that the article does not meet our inclusion criteria, so the trhetoric of something being "merciless" really makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from secondary, independent sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Frederica von Stade, the choir's founder, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. The redirect can be undone once the choir has received significant coverage in reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally agree Cunard and that was the case but it was contended so brought it here for discussion and hopefully consensus. Star Mississippi 13:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of college sports teams in the United States with different nicknames for men's and women's teams[edit]

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

This list doesn't appear to pass WP:LISTN or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The closest I could find to discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources is this, but that's only one and it's more of "here are some examples" than "here is a list". I think the topic could be covered adequately at List of college team nicknames in the United States or Athletic nickname. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am actually the creator of this list, although I have no recollection of creating it (I did it 10 years ago). I also on further reflection think my method of creation was horrible, in that I created an article with no sources. I have to say that this is a far better list than the one of team nicknames, which does not even start to scratch the surface of name changes over time. For example, the University of Utah used to have Redskins as its nickname, Wayne State University used to be the Tartars, Eastern Michigan University used to be the Chippewas, and there are lots of other changes. The team nicknames page has no sources. This has three, but considering the size of the article that is non-sensically small. I am also not 100% sure that team nickname non-uniformity is always found in the men's/women's team divides, or if there are some notable cases of other forms of non-uniformity. I would like to see more sources on the subject as a whole before we justify any of these articles. Making this article was one of my worst forayas into creating articles that Wikipedia does not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article creator. Bishonen | tålk 20:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete as fails WP:NLIST (no sources treat this as a group) and the creator of the article agrees this should be deleted. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FiddleheadLady (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.JeepersClub (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to what has been said above, the WP:LEAD at List of college team nicknames in the United States says If two nicknames are given, the first is for men's teams and the second for women's teams, unless otherwise noted., making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of that page. TompaDompa (talk) 23:53, 28 August 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 Ben Carson#American Cornerstone Institute. Not yet established as notable, but a reasonable search term to find the section in his bio article. RL0919 (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Cornerstone Institute[edit]

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a variety of news items mentioning this organisation, and inspection of their website shows that they are hard at work pushing their political views. In addition, I think we're better to be shedding light on groups like this, rather than granting them cover of darkness. RomanSpa (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Carson#American Cornerstone Instutute Just came into existence in February; we're not under WP:DEADLINE to see if it does anything outside be a second line on the bottom-third graphic when Dr. Carson is on a show, and doesn't really serve a purpose. Nate • (chatter) 22:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Agree with the above note to redirect to his page. All the press is about him starting it or interviews that just say he is a founder. Until there is more coverage about it, I think it should be moved FiddleheadLady (talk) 14:35, 26 August 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 18:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Road[edit]

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no sources for anything beyond the fact that it exists. It wouldn't be surprising if it's a very different story two years from now, but there's no point making the article speculatively. ApLundell (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. work on unannounced game is not notable. --hroest 15:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. It is not impossible that this becomes notable in the future but at the moment, we only have WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sources covering the studio's own announcements. IceWelder [✉] 14:11, 28 August 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 deleted (G11) (already done) by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tappr[edit]

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe even Speedy. This is blatant promotion: "Through our wide range of services, brands can rapidly start leveraging the benefits of NFC within their products." Of course, this can be fixed. 150.000 euro is a startup with tiny seed money. With such a budget you can buy some code from e.g. India or Ukraine but not employ a lot of employees. According to the article it's two?! Already tougher to fix. No in-depth coverage. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. gidonb (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy (and tagged as such); none of the existing revisions are encyclopedically acceptable either; and this is obvious promotion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:04, 31 August 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amenity Analytics[edit]

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:55, 24 August 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 19:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education Snooker and Pool Council[edit]

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

My BEFORE search only found passing mentions, so I have not seen any evidence that this organisation meets WP:GNG. There are no citations in the article so I don't think there is anything to merge. There may be a suitable redirect target. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, WP:NONPROFIT and WP:SIGCOV. As noted, the key consideration here is coverage. And, as with the nom, my own WP:BEFORE efforts have returned next to nothing. In national news sources for example (Irish Times [7][8] and Irish Independent [9][10]) there is nothing at all. Not a single/trivial/passing mention. The only other mentions that I can find, of any kind, are passing ones like this (in a local news story which is substantively about something else) and stuff like this (which confirms the subject's existence, but not much besides). While, technically, the title could be redirected to Colleges and Universities Sports Association of Ireland, I don't see the point. (The subject is long defunct and any redirect would be something of an EASTEREGG.) Not seeing it. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find anything particularly notable about this organisation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Osee Diboma[edit]

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

Article has existed for 11 years but has had multiple issues for the whole time. Article alleges that he was part of the Kadji Sports Academy and in the company of notable footballers like Nicolas Nkoulou, Samuel Eto'o and Georges Mandjeck. Even if this is true, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The club that he apparently played for, Nara United F.C., was not playing in the top tier at the time so he wouldn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL even if this could be verified. A Thai source search only yields Wikipedia mirrors. I will tag this AfD in the 'Thailand' delsort just in case anyone more proficient in Thai finds something in the Thai language version of his name.

I can find no coverage of his trial with Auxerre, the controversy surrounding his visa or his supposed association with some of the most prominent Cameroonian footballers of that era and, ultimately, I can't find any clear proof that he meets WP:GNG since every search I attempt just comes back with mirrors. Not ruling out WP:HOAX at this stage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a hoax as far as "this person exists" is concerned—mentioned in the headline of this 2010 news article by SMM Sport[11] (though older pages on the website are broken and the article text is missing). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012 thanks for looking into this. Did you see any WP:GNG-level coverage at all in your search? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's almost nothing else online at all—only mentions in the Thai Wikipedia and a football forum post discussing menorabilia. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:40, 27 August 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 19:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Mayélé[edit]

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

Notability tagged for 9 years, taking to AfD to decide. Amateur footballer who played literally just one minute of professional football over 10 years ago in Ligue 2 then, according to Football Database, dropped down to the 5th and 6th tiers, both of which are regional and amateur. A French source search and Google searches only show passing mentions in local match reports, meaning that any presumption of WP:GNG based on his one minute of football appears to be invalid. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 1 minute absolutely doesn't cut it. Geschichte (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:09, 30 August 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 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Killian Coquard[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP. Notability tagged for 9 years. Very often someone who passes WP:NFOOTBALL can be presumed to pass WP:GNG but there is consensus now that in marginal cases, this presumption isn't valid. This appears to be one of those cases. According to BeSoccer, he did play 30 minutes in an end-of-season fixture for Vannes in Ligue 2, after which his career dropped all the way down to the amateur 5th tier of France and below. According to Football Database, he last played for Questembert, who are way, way below professional level.

A French source search shows nothing better than the occasional local amateur match report mention so any presumption of passing GNG appears to be invalid. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who made a single appearance in a fully-pro league but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG (I can find no online English- or French-language coverage other than routine match reports, database entries and transfer announcements). Jogurney (talk) 19:07, 25 August 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Stacy Oriuwa[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person not properly sourced as passing Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The notability claim here is of the "first member of [insert underrepresented group here] to do a not otherwise notable thing" variety -- being valedictorian of one's graduating class at medical school is not a notability claim in and of itself, so being a member of one or more underrepresented groups doesn't automatically make her a special case of greater international notability than other medical school graduates all by itself -- and the referencing here consists mainly of sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, blogs, glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that aren't about her, sources that tangentially verify stray facts about other things without containing the words "Chika" or "Oriuwa" at all in conjunction with them, and/or Q&A interviews or pieces of her own bylined writing in which she's talking about herself or other things in the first person. There are only two sources here which actually represent real, notability-supporting third party coverage about her in real media independent of herself, but they're both from local media in the individual city where the university she graduated from is located -- which means that her coverage doesn't meet the geographic range or volume tests needed to establish her as markedly more notable than other university valedictorians. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have considerably more and wider media coverage than just a couple of hits in Toronto's own local media: if she had been the first black woman in the world to ever be a valedictorian at all, then there might be a case for a Wikipedia article, but not if she can only claim to have been the first black woman valedictorian at one specific school. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and improve) per WP:GNG. She's famous for more than being valedictorian of her medical class (which did get a lot of press coverage in 2020). There's earlier coverage of her poetry, and she has recently been all over the Canadian press because she's the model for a new Barbie doll.[12][13] Furthermore, to the nom's claim that coverage lacks sufficient geographical diversity (which is not policy based, afaik), Bearcat apparently missed the international coverage of her graduation in their WP:BEFORE.[14][15][16] pburka (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we do have a rule that a tiny smattering of purely local coverage is not necessarily enough to get a person into Wikipedia all by itself, if it's covering a person in not-inherently-notable contexts that wouldn't ordinarily have passed any of our subject-specific inclusion criteria. (For example, a handful of hits in their local newspaper is not enough to get a smalltown municipal councillor or mayor, a local restaurant or boutique, or an aspiring child actress or singer, over GNG in lieu of having to accomplish anything that would pass NPOL or NACTOR or NMUSIC or NCORP.)
Secondly, where is there earlier coverage of her poetry, considering that as written the content about her poetry is referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence whatsoever of any notability-building media coverage that would have gotten her over NAUTHOR on that basis? It's not enough to just say that media coverage of her poetry exists, if no media coverage of her poetry has been shown.
Thirdly, there's no indication that either Legit or Fab Woman are reliable or notability-building sources — and while the Jamaica Gleaner is a better one in theory, it's weakened in this case by the fact that the link you provided includes a "Thank you Marina Jimenez, global media relations strategist, University of Toronto, for facilitating the interview." coda, thus indicating that it wasn't organic coverage created independently of a directly-affiliated PR agent.
So no, none of that is compelling evidence of greater notability than the article demonstrates in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the applicable rule. pburka (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and yes, the article needs clean up, but WP:GNG/WP:BASIC appears to be met, e.g. Chika Oriuwa named valedictorian of U of T's faculty of medicine (CBC Toronto, 2020), The only Black medical student in a U of T class of 259, Chika Oriuwa graduates as valedictorian (Toronto Star (opinion), 2020), Chika Oriuwa - a story of inspiration and determination (The Gleaner, 2020), This Toronto doctor now has a Barbie made in her image to honour her work as a health-care hero (CBC Toronto, 2021), Canadian doctor Chika Stacy Oriuwa among 'role models' celebrated in Barbie tribute (The Canadian Press, 2021), Black Canadian Barbie: Toronto doctor makes history with classic doll in her likeness amid COVID-19 pandemic (Yahoo News Canada, 2021), Mattel honors 6 frontline workers with personalized Barbie replicas (NY1, 2021), New Barbie Dolls Honor Covid-19 Frontline Medical Workers From Around the World (Smithsonian Magazine, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC) And the notability claims per the independent and reliable sources appear to include e.g. overcoming "institutionalized racism" (Toronto Star, 2020), and "working to eliminate racism in the health-care system" (Washington Post, 2021)/"dismantle systemic racism in healthcare" (NY1, 2021)/"battled systemic racism in healthcare" (Reuters, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources and coverage found by Beccaynr. This seems to meet GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr and pburka - she definitely seems notable. NHCLS (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the 2020/21 references above, here's one from 2017. Meanwhile the sole black student made the Times in London (education supplement) and the Barbie announcement made The Telegraph (UK). Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per the sources found by Beccanyr. Subject passes GNG. Princess of Ara 07:27, 26 August 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. Rather obvious example of notability not being temporary... (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galloway European[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Company has stopped running bus services so probably has lost notability. Renamed user dfghtjd64 15:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A subject can't lose notability, if it was once notable then it always will be. NemesisAT (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:NTEMP. Possibly a procedural close, as nominator has been indefinitely blocked for an unspecified offence. Toviemaix (talk) 05:34, 26 August 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiruppur Urban Agglomeration[edit]

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

Article similar to the article Tiruppur, there is no additional information. Dhaneesh 💙 Ram15:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a census term for Tiruppur and its suburbs, like a Metropolitan statistical area in the United States or the Greater Toronto Area. It is not the same as Tiruppur district. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain, Thanks for your comments, just i want to let you know one thing, I didn't mention Tiruppur district for deletion request, I mentioned Tiruppur city, so please just go through the article. Thank you!Dhaneesh 💙 Ram 08:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete :~~ Article Tiruppur is also about Urban agglomeration of Tiruppur City, so no need to keep such article, it is impossible to maintain both article about single Urban agglomeration, and moreover we can't create 2 article for every Urban agglomeration, like Tiruppur.Dhaneesh 💙 Ram 08:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck through the vote. As a nominator, you cannot cast a voteFaizal batliwala (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Urban agglomeration is nothing but a city along with surrounding contiguous urban areas which census calculates for every city in India with over 1 lakh population. Its not governed by any unified authority like a metropolitan area and it does not meet WP:GEOLAND because its more like a census tract. The article appears like a WP:CFORK of Tiruppur. At best, it can be mention in the corresponding city article. Going for strong delete because keeping this sets a bad precedent. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Ab207. Note this is also the re-creation of an article already deleted in May, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiruppur metropolitan area. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is already exists with name Tiruppur, this is also about Urban agglomeration, so delete this duplicate article. I2karankiran (talk) 10:14, 2 September 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 Avella, Pennsylvania. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P and W Patch, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Newspaper articles dating back to the 1930s describe this as a "mining patch" which is a small village operated by a mining company. Maps show a small housing development at this location, but no sign of anything that meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 14:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 14:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 14:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: USGS maps seem like this could plausibly be a real community. There's nothing in 1904 or 1906, but the 1954 map shows a "P and W Patch" label on a big ol' church right at the coordinates from the GNIS entry, and some houses along the other side of the street on the south, as well as a school a little bit up the road near Avella. Alas, 1954 is the last 1:24k map. The 1:100k map from 1986 does show a "P and W Patch" labelled, and the 2019 map shows some streets (but no houses, since USGS decided in the 2010s to make all of their maps be unusably low-detail trash). Strangely, in the Google satellite map I don't see the church anywhere. That said, P and W Patch doesn't seem too big; while there's a library and fire department and town center a little bit north on the road, this is Avella. If anyone can find archive sources saying that this was a notable location at some point, I'll !vote keep; otherwise, I think it ought to be deleted. jp×g 22:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment As far as I can tell, the small development is P & W Patch. Various websites state that it was a company town. Possibly it is notable, though I'm having trouble with the sourcing. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avella, Pennsylvania. According to the Census Bureau, P & W Patch is within the boundaries of the Avella census-designated place. The articles I found about P & W Patch, which are probably the same ones dlthewave found, all refer to it as something like "the P & W mining patch" rather than a proper name, and a lot of them describe it as in or near Avella anyway. There's not much to merge as it is, and what there is to say about P&W can probably be said in the Avella article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avella, Pennsylvania. Four newspaper articles from between 1944 and 1952 state this was considered an area of Avella. Per TheCatalyst's arguments, I'm persuaded to redirect. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avella, Pennsylvania, per Firsfron and TheCatalyst's analysis, as well as my own failure to find anything interesting on topo maps. jp×g 11:05, 27 August 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen[edit]

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

Technical nomination only. A malformed nomination was created by Laura-Arrillaga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with the rationale "The person who is talked about in this page does not wish for her information to be displayed on it any longer". See a similar nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Andreessen for her husband. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References indicate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, high-profile, public individual. Not eligible for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. pburka (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notability is explicitly demonstrated. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if the nominator really is the article subject, still easily meets WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how do we even know that the real Laura Arrillaga Andreessen asked to delete this? It meets gng and doesn't seem very invasive. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usablenet[edit]

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

PRODded with the rationale: "Fails the notability guideline for companies. Highly promotional tone. Created by a single-purpose account from LaunchSquad, a PR firm (see diff". NemesisAT removed the PROD, citing the existence of this Macworld article as a possible basis for notability. However, the article is nothing but a rewritten press release, based almost entirely on quotes from a Usablenet employee. This sort of churnalism is not considered to be an independent source for the purposes of NCORP, and thus the original concerns over notability remain valid. – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources provided do not meet GNG, with none consisting of significant coverage on the subject. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:14, 24 August 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. – bradv^🍁 02:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geospatial information officer[edit]

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

Exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Geospatial intelligence ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete a single job in all the world, apparently, and while it's tempting to redirect the issue I can see is that it could be used somewhere outside the Pentagon to mean someone whose job is more generally geospatial information and not military intelligence per se. Mangoe (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many organisations for which geospatial data is vital – utility companies and the like. And the particular office in the US Army is a role of some importance. We have numerous articles about other lesser roles in the US Army such as Information Assurance Security Officer and so there's no good reason to delete a more important and senior one. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the referenced article, it ought to be deleted as well, and for the same reason. Mangoe (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect Mid-level individual job in one office, without clear broader application or notability for that position. That a utility company has people who use geospatial data is utterly irrelevant to the specific name "Geospatial information officer", and Geospatial intelligence and Geographic data and information speak better to this and workers in this field. Reywas92^Talk 05:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that this is one mid-level job in one office in the world, the article is much closer to WP:HOAX then WP:GNG. The article isn't even representative of the topic of working with/using geospatial data. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Newshunter12. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:22, 4 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. Srivatsa Chakravarthy[edit]

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

~~Does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:NTENNIS~~. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only trivial coverage not sufficient enough to establish notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Table tennis is not assessed using WP:NTENNIS. There is no specific criteria for table tennis, so just use the generic WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage does not rise to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per others.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefails GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Subject fails General Notability and Sports Criteria; references are bare URLs with no target page(s) (one is dead already anyway). No sign of notability. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The below "references" (if you can even call them that) are mere mentions—mainly just match score listings—and nothing significant. One even identifies him as a 'trainee'. They prove he exists, but we already know that. No notability is shown by such mentions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your blanket interpretation, but let's set that aside for a moment. My issue with your argument is that when looking over Wikipedia:Notability (sports), it seems to me that nearly every section states notability if they compete at the national or international level in a significant tournament or event. This person has and does (as a member of the MPTTA). I am looking at articles we have concerning india and table tennis, like Indore#Sports, Table tennis in India, and Table Tennis Federation of India, and International Table Tennis Federation, etc. If we consider other players who have competed at significant events at the national level to be notable, what's the issue here? - jc37 04:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was dubious at first, but when I did a search, I found this mention and this, and this, and this listing, and this pdf. - jc37 03:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Those are not good references. Do I really have to do a source assessment table? ––FormalDude talk 04:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I was looking for in this case, was mentions, per my comments above. I will freely admit to not knowing enough about this topic or this person, but out of fairness to the topic, if this was an NFL player in Detroit, I'm wondering, would we be having this discussion? It would be nice to see more effort in AfD discussions than drive-by voting. If it fails GNG, please explain why it does. WP:AADD is merely an essay, but there are reasons for those best practices. Not to mention taking a moment and trying a bit of WP:BEFORE. If the subject turns out non-notable, fine, I'm cool with that. But can we, as a community, do better than this please. - jc37 04:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be having this discussion if it was about an NFL player in Detroit, as long as they had the same abysmal amount of coverage as this person does. In fact, I have PROD'd several articles about NFL players with similarly weak sources. I cannot help what the community does and does not want to see as generally notable, but I am capable of applying Wikipedia guidelines and policies equally across topics.

My point is that it fails SPORTCRIT. My reasoning is that SPORTCRIT states trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability, and I think this article has only trivial coverage. I did do a search on the subject per WP:BEFORE, and could not find any non-trivial coverage. ––FormalDude talk 05:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am I misreading WP:NGRIDIRON? It states: "American football/Canadian football players and head coaches are presumed notable if they: Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Canadian Football League, the National Football League..."

So as long as they played in a game, they're notable? Or am I misunderstanding?

So why should we not apply the same guidance to someone who plays a Table Tennis Federation of India game at the national level? What do you feel I am missing? - jc37 05:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline on table tennis that says what you're trying to claim. You can't just WP:SYNTH your own version of inherent notability from completely different sports.

Since there isn't one, we should go by WP:SPORTCRIT, which says: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Emphasis on non-trivial, footnote #3. ––FormalDude talk 07:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Family of Joe Biden. To an extent to be determined by editorial consensus. Sandstein 07:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Biden Sr.[edit]

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All of this article is about Joe Biden Sr. in the context of his famous son. No coverage exists to establish WP:GNG independent of his son. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:BIO criteria. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If deleted, I think all the information here should be moved over to Family of Joe Biden. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Family of Joe Biden. Not independently notable, and WP:NOTINHERITED runs up the ancestral chain as well as down. BD2412 T 18:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If your only claim to notability is that your child was notable, you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Family of Joe Biden: Despite my initial leanings being toward keep ("I mean of course we have an article on William Jefferson Blythe Jr.", WP:OTHERSTUFF), I'm now in concurrence that there aren't enough independent sources to prove this passes the relatively low bar for such a figure at WP:GNG. In this case, a merge is preferred to an outright delete. Curbon7 (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTINHERETED doesn't mean that coverage in context of a different subject doesn't count towards notability, only that you actually do need coverage. This article demonstrates that the subject indeed has coverage significant enough to establish notability - such as [17]. I don't see a convincing case for how deleting this article does not improve the encyclopedia. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If a source is only reporting on a subject because of its relation to a notable subject, how is that not a prime example of WP:NOTINHERETED? Where's the independent coverage of this subject? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 05:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @FormalDude: the coverage is still independent, that is, independent of the source. Biden Sr. wouldn't be notable if Biden Jr. didn't exist - but Biden Sr. has received significant coverage in reliable sources. If you look at NOTINHERETED, none of the arguments there even begin to approach arguing for the subject passing any notability guideline. I believe Biden Sr. passes GNG, so he is notable - even though the reason for that coverage is due to his relationship to Biden Jr. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me quote from the essay - Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. If you don't think Biden Sr. passes GNG, that's one thing - but if he does, even if solely due to his relationship with Biden Jr. - the essay does not discourage having an article on him. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see, that's a good point. WP:INVALIDBIO also explains it well. It would appear to be a question of whether or not there is sufficient significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Family of Joe Biden - not independently notable / WP:NOTINHERITED. Ingratis (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Family of Joe Biden this guy isn't noted for anything for anything of his own merit (i.e. things that don't involve family affiliations), and notability isn't inherited (as others have mentioned). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: You've explained the exact reason why it also shouldn't be merged. Family of Joe Biden must adhere to WP:BLP policy, and Joseph Biden Sr. does not meet any of the WP:BIO criteria. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 05:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, WP:BIO is about whether people warrant their own pages, and has no restrictions against mentioning them within general family pages. Neither does WP:BLP for that matter as long as the sources used are trustworthy. What I'm saying is we're better off talking about him there than having a separate article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP does indeed have restrictions against inherited notability. For example, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLPDELETE are all policies that this merge would defy. For that reason, I'm saying this article should be deleted and not merged. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 05:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: To be clear, are you saying that Family of Joe Biden should make no mention of Biden's father? BD2412 T 02:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: No, just that what is already there now is sufficient enough, and nothing needs to be merged from this article. I think we should just redirect the page to Family of Joe_Biden#Parents. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think there's about 80% overlap with what is already there. To the extent that more can be added that is sourced, I'm not seeing a problem. BD2412 T 02:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, I'm obviously in the minority. Not trying to hold up the clear consensus to merge at this point. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 09:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's been a fairly long consensus that the parents of United States Presidents are notable. If the consensus has changed I need to see at least four arguments. At worse, it could be merged, but I want to be convinced because this would be a change of consensus since at least 2007. A change in the policy should have a very high standard, and many long-standing editors would have to disagree with me. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, where is there a consensus that parents of POTUS are notable? What exempts them from GNG? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can search it on your own, you know. See, e.g., John Adams, Sr, Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks Lincoln, Jesse Root Grant, Joseph Ruggles Wilson, James Roosevelt I, Ida Stover Eisenhower, Francis A. Nixon, the biological father of Gerald Ford whose mom left him after 16 days of domestic violence and had so little to do in raising him that Ford took his step-dad's name, James Earl Carter Sr., Jack Reagan, Prescott Bush, Talk:Barack_Obama_Sr., Hugh Rodham (born 1911), Frederick Trump, etc. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Muboshgu, I respect your work here, but deleting this article will upset the apple cart and require a debate, one by one, of 92 articles. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I saw the categories Category:Fathers of presidents of the United States and Category:Mothers of presidents of the United States. Many of the fathers of US presidents are notable in their own rights. James Earl Carter Sr, for instance, was a state legislator. Prescott Bush was a US Senator. Barack Obama Sr. has been written about extensively. John Adams and George Bush 41 are not notable for being fathers of presidents for obvious reasons. Also, more than half of the mothers of US presidents don't have articles. So, this is a case by case basis situation, and Joe Biden Sr does not appear to have that much coverage. Deleting this will not result in the deletion of articles that meet notability standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Muboshgu wrote, WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes mentions nothing about Presidential parents, and trying to use that as a basis for keeping feels like a cheap cop-out when it specifically says This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones. Whether other moms/dads of Presidents warrant their own articles is also irrelevant here per WP:WHATABOUTX and therefore not a convincing argument. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: your deletion argument seems to imply that coverage of him separate of his relationship with Biden Jr. is necessary. This is not what WP:NOTINHERITED says in any way. Biden Sr. is only known for his relationship to Biden Jr. but that does not mean he is not notable - the sourcing here is decent enough to establish notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My initial argument reads too much like that, but I just meant there isn't enough coverage of Biden Sr. for his own article. Parents of POTUS aren't some category that we presume notable, as many parents of POTUS are notable in their own right. Barack Obama Sr is obviously not notable without his son's career, but he's been written about extensively. I don't see that in sourcing of Biden Sr. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or at least redirect to Family of Joe Biden -- as per others, especially WP:NOTINHERITED. Used references are also in majority connected with Joe Biden Jr. Doesn't seem notable to me as an independent article.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Family of Joe Biden I have not seen enough independent coverage to warrant an article. --Enos733 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Family of Joe Biden. I don't see WP:NOTINHERITED as being particularly relevant here since, for better or for worse, Biden Sr. has indeed received coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet the GNG. (The coverage in the NYT, the Independent, etc. makes that clear.) But notability is not a guarantee that a stand-alone article is appropriate: per WP:NOPAGE, it may be better to merge the information to a page where additional background and context can be provided. Since (as appears to be uncontested) Biden Sr. has only received sigcov because of his son, it's far better to merge this article into a broader one, allowing for him to be situated in context instead of isolating him in the abstract. In other words, this is a case where "other information" and "related topics" "provide needed context": discussing the impact of Biden's family on him is best done in a single location, where all relevant events and family members can be considered holistically. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Joe Biden. I would say merge, but all the worthwhile information seems to already be present at the target article. TompaDompa (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sargon Cicek[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 10 years. A Swedish search only yields weak passing mentions, which don't establish WP:GNG.

Fotball only covers appearances in Oddsenligaen, the third tier in Norway. Soccerway only has him down for the third tier in Sweden, Ettan Fotboll. Neither of these are listed at WP:FPL. Alleged caps for Turkey are at schoolboy level so do not confer notability. No relevant appearances at Football Database, GSA or FlashScore as all listed appearances are at semi-pro/amateur level in Norway and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor media coverage, not sufficient for mentioned criteria.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite far from meeting guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dweeb (band)[edit]

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

They don't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Has been in CAT:NN for 8 years; additionally, all its album articles are in CAT:NN, some for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for @Boleyn: - The band has two album articles, one of which you have already proposed for deletion. But action is needed for the other, Feels Like Dynamite. We don't want that one to fall through the cracks if the band's article is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The issue above has been resolved. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is a close call because they did get some media notice, including the two articles that are currently cited, plus this: [18]. However, I could not find much else, and the coverage they received appears to be local/regional. I don't think it quite adds up to the significant coverage needed for notability, but they did come rather close. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:NBAND.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:23, 24 August 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. Clear consensus that the article shouldn't be retained below. Inclusion in the list of supercentenarians appears to be sufficient so no merge required. Daniel (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Ligny[edit]

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

This article has nothing more than extremely trivial and non-notable content on the life of a person who has never done anything more than live to a very advanced age. Possibly the only useful paragraph in the whole article is the last one, and I propose that either the article be merged to a mini-bio at List of French supercentenarians or that it be deleted completely. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with citations to Le Courrier Picard, France 3, and France Bleu. You might not think that someone should be notable for living to an advanced age (I sometimes think that people shouldn't be notable for playing sports), but if there are multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, they're in. Furius (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just fanfluff. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per numerous other Afds of supercentenarians, extreme age alone is not an indication of notability (per WP:BIO1E. WP:NOPAGE trumps GNG, all worthwhile encyclopedic information is contained in List of French supercentenarians. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- being supercentenarian alone does not neccessarily require person's article. Mention of her in List of supercentenarians by continent and other lists should be enough.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from being particularly old, she hasn't accomplished anything more in her life that a "normal" person has, and as such, I believe merits no article here. MattSucci (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Furius. 172.58.107.255 (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. 45.144.113.202 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer As a longtime editor in the topic of longevity, please look at the blocked edits on my talk page and the conversations I was mentioned in at here. The two above keep votes are not genuine and are by the same blocked editor. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chicdat and DerbyCounty. The sources that supposedly cause this article to meet GNG all detail mundane life facts that do not make a person notable. The subject's notability is solely contingent on her supercentenarian status, which means that BIO1E trumps GNG. Avilich (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Meets WP:GNG, but the article is too trivial for a relatively unknown person. I'd recommend merging it into the List of French supercentenarians, as a blurb over there would suffice. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOPAGE. All the encyclopedic content (name, life dates, nationality, age) are included succinctly at List of French supercentenarians and elsewhere. The article is fanfluff puffery, which is why half or more of the article is about other people, not her. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:NOPAGE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. WP:NOPAGE doesn't apply. 172.58.107.175 (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in particular do you think demonstrate that GNG is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As others have mentioned, WP:BIO1E is an issue here. None of the sources seem to demonstrate why she is notable beyond her age. Inclusion in the lists mentioned by Melaleuca and Derby is sufficient. -Pax Verbum 07:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2023 World Aquatics Championships[edit]

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

This event is two years in the future. Does not meet NSPORT. Whiteguru (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until something more than the city is known. The next champs are the best part of a year off yet, and most of that article is about selecting the host. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and recreate when more information becomes available. One unreferenced sentence is not enough for an article on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 15:03, 25 August 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rath Yatra (Nabha)[edit]

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

Like its associated temple Saty Narayan Ji Mandir, Nabha, Could not find third party RS for wide coverage. The references in the article are about generic Hindu facts, not Nabha's Ratha Yatra Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:27, 24 August 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 George Zimmer#zTailors. History is preserved for any content to be merged. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZTailors[edit]

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as they're all based on interviews/quotes with related people or based on announcements. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company whose website now redirects to that of Generation Tux (whose article was submitted by a disclosed connected contributor). Both are mentioned in this Inc feature about the founder. Regarding zTailors, the available coverage is announcement-based, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Judging from this PR Generation Tux was envisaged as a front-end to zTailors, so a merge-redirect may be an option, but would I think need coverage of the relationship. In its own right, it fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to George Zimmer#zTailors, the company's founder, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard's suggestion of the page on the founder, which already has some (probably sufficient) coverage of this venture, seems a good redirect target. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I agree that a redirect is a good ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 30 August 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. Daniel (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Butterfield (comedian)[edit]

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

just a random youtuber FMSky (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources show widespread media coverage on several occasions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable comedian fails WP:GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've tightened up the article to only include content that can be reliably sourced, of which there's enough to meet GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He had an Amazon Prime comedy special so must be notable enoughGrapepinky (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - caused some temporary controversy, but no evidence of sustained notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. All the sources I'm able to find are either WP:INTERVIEW sources or passing mentions. WP:BLP1E also appears relevant. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Seems the only thing he is known for is making an occasional controversial remark that might get people talking about him. No seeming lasting contributions. -Pax Verbum 07:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete it please. Patachonica (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Brewer[edit]

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

Only played in the semi-pro era of English football. Tagged as a notability concern for over 11 years with only one independent source, a passing mention in BBC Sport - a match report for a game in which she was sent off. Searches of her name in conjunction with the clubs that she played for yield nothing better than more passing mentions in match reports for that one fixture where she was one of four players red carded; Guardian and Lancashire Telegraph. Although the sources are reliable, they do not show significant coverage, in other words, they do not address Brewer in sufficient depth such that we can build a reasonable biographical article on the player from the sources alone. Taking to AfD to establish consensus for long-term WP:GNG concern. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV and the redcard event doesn't meet 1E. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:05, 27 August 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 11:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamos Efstathiou[edit]

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

Has two appearances on Football Database but neither of them meet WP:NFOOTBALL. On his Soccerway, we have his domestic cup appearance here but PAEEK were not playing in the 2012–13 Cypriot First Division so this was not between two teams in a league listed at WP:FPL. World Football has the European substitute appearance but it was against a Maltese side so, again, not between two FPL teams.

Searching "Αδάμος Ευσταθίου" comes up with articles on namesakes, mainly the general secretary of AC Omonia. Articles on this Efstathiou are very limited. The best I could find are Kerkida (translated), Sigma Live and Cyprus Basket none of which are even close to showing the depth of coverage required for WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for athletes. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ravenloft#Domains of Dread. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenloft domains[edit]

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

Pure and unadulterated fancruft that fails WP:GNG and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Largely FANDOM-type material only of interest to fans, and the further reading all falls under primary sources to the tabletop game. Ravenloft already has a rather large section on its fictional setting. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ravenloft#Domains_of_Dread. Not that there is much to merge, but a bit here and there that's referenced may survive. Two references mention domain in their title, [19] and [20], the latter even gives an overview of several (but not all). PS. Just in case anyone goes 'aha, so we have a source', keep in mind that source is an overview of a possibly notable RPG sourcebook about this concept: Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft. We don't need a fancrufty CONTENTFORK and this is what we have here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ravenloft#Domains_of_Dread - Some of the more notable domains do have a bit of coverage in independent sources, but that is not the case for most of them, and there are not enough of the former to warrant a split into a separate article. The actual concept of what a domain actually is, is best covered (and already is) on the main article on the setting, and the most notable examples should simply be covered there. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ravenloft#Domains_of_Dread - There's definitely material to be preserved according to WP:PRESERVE and WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 19:45, 24 August 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 11:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isopress AG[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP The Banner talk 10:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether this is notable or not, the entire text (written by a now-blocked sockpuppeteer) is unsourced and therefore worthless. If this company is notable, the article would in any case need to be recreated from scratch with proper sources. Sandstein 08:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above, totally unsourced and I'm unable to find anything to establish notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generativity Theory[edit]

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

Concerns were raised on the talk page that this covers 2 similar theories. Unclear that this is a distinct concept and notable enough for a standalone article. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existing sources are a random presentation about "creativity in the workplace", a dead link, and several writings by the inventor. A serious overhaul would be necessary to bring that up to code. For the earlier history of the term "generativity", see Generativity and Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the difficulty of finding evaluations of the topic that are clearly written, reliably published, and independent of its inventor. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 26 August 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. No consensus to delete or anything other than retain, after a 2 week listing period. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrike Frank[edit]

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

Successful actress, but I couldn't back up the claims to meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG with suitable sources - similar issues in her other language articles. Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In spite of the basically unsourced article, this subject seems to be notable under WP:NACTOR, criterion 1. She played a significant role in Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten, which used to be one of the main staples of German daytime TV, and in Großstadtträume, a notable spin-off. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Modussiccandi's arguments. Koikefan (talk) 05:07, 25 August 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 11:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Kerteh F.C. season[edit]

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

4th tier Malaysian season with no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG and does not gain any presumed notability from WP:NSEASONS either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to draft. It was a mistake on my part as i plan to complete the article first with complete data and sources, but mistakenly published it before finish editing it. I'll edit the article first with relevant info and data. --Manarianz5 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. The AfD is still in progress and there is no consensus to send to draft from this discussion. For what it's worth, I would oppose sending to draft due to the fact that there is nothing to suggest that this topic is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Draft space is only for notable topics that just need a bit of work or topics with a credible claim to notability in the very near future. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the draft move, and moved back into mainspace. Giant Snowman 13:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologise, so should i just improved the article in the meantime while the Afd still in progress? --Manarianz5 (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to continue to work on the article, just not allowed to move it or remove the AfD notice from the top Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, as they didn't play in a high enough league. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 25 August 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. Daniel (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PROIV[edit]

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

Not my area, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N. Takes a while to look past the clear promotion, but even then, I couldn't find the coverage or significance needed. No obvious WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years - hopefully we can now get this answered, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Product with a notably long lifespan, a code generator with integrated database touted as a 4GL initially and still going and rebranded as a low code generator. Many early advertisements in computerworld and then then computerworld actually gets the founder to speak to computerworld about how successful the advertisement campaign had been and how many quality leads it has generated. We do need to present some references here so starting with the ICE(GB).^[1]Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC) We'll continue with an actuary ... my banter is the only good actuary is a failed actuary ... though I'm very well aware there's exceptions!^[2] Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ICE(GB), ed. (1988). Proceedings - Institution of Civil Engineers: Design and construction. Part 1. Vol. 84. United Kingdom: Institution of Civil Engineers. p. 168.
^ Harsant, John (31 October 1989). The construction of Computer Systems and the use of Fourth Generation Langages (PDF). Staple Inn Actuarial Society.

Userfy/Draftify: Problematic article for a long time, but might have some promise. I would propose to userfy/draftify and incubate it from there to a full-fledged article. Pyrite Pro (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Pyrite Pro Object userify/draftify unless you are committing to sorting it out. I've already cleared a fair bit of the advert stuff since nom. I presume you believe its notable from your comment and AfD in not cleanup. Draftify is typically a way of delete unless properly stewarded. I suggests closer either deletes or keep. In general draftify is only really approrpriate at AfD for new articles when the author is about and has moved inappropriately to mainspace. In general if an articles deleted then simply request a refund to draft if you'd like to work on it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Djm-leighpark. NemesisAT (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 24 August 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LabShare[edit]

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

Repeatedly declined draft at Draft:LabShare. Copied and pasted to mainspace in an identical form. Recent start-up with concerns around WP:NCORP. Most of the references are just the usual company profile pages on databases. Startup Reporter is largely built on comments from the company CEO Bakos so fails WP:ORGIND. Forbes is largely an interview with the CEO so has a similar issue. They did win a competition for start-up companies, which gains some coverage in Origo, Hir and Blikk but all of this falls short on WP:CORPDEPTH. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per failure of WP:NCORP. Java Hurricane 09:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Theroadislong (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any independent and secondary sources that could help towards WP:NCORP. --bonadea contributions talk 10:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total spam fails WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 21:07, 30 August 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 11:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of grunge bass players[edit]

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

I don't think there are enough independently notable bassists from grunge bands to make this a useful list. Most of the list is just a list of grunge bands, not grunge bassists. There'd be four entries if the list was stripped down to only include bassists with articles. I can't really think of a suitable merge/redirect target (the main grunge feels like it would be undue), but I'm open to ideas. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a list of grunge artists, not bassists. Ajf773 (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources in the article or in my WP:BEFORE provide coverage of grunge bass players as a group and therefore fails WP:NLIST. As it stands the page doesn’t even list bass players but bands which is pretty terrible. I know this is fixable but still. ‘Grunge bass player’ isn’t really a thing - maybe ‘bass players in grunge music’ would make more sense but ultimately they both fail WP:NLIST. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Huh? Like the nominator I noticed that this list starts with four actual bass players, and then it becomes a list of grunge bands that happen to have bass players. Completely uninformative and nonsensical. The history of the article indicates that someone started it four years ago as an item of personal interest and then forgot to finish it off. I agree that this fails WP:NLIST. If anyone is interested, see also the similarly scattershot List of grunge bands. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage of this intersection in particular, and the list is not even what it claims. I know as has been said before that can be fixed, but why bother when it does not conform to any standard listings. I do not think I have ever seen a list come up here that was falsely claiming to be something it was not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, faulty list. Geschichte (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best this would be a category.BuySomeApples (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom apparently misapprehends WP:CSC: Notability of any list member isn't necessary for a list. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's you that's misreading CSC, actually. CSC Point 2 (where every entry is a notability fail, like character lists in media) and Point 3 (about objectively/verifiably complete lists) don't apply to this list, so you must be talking about Point 1: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future (bold mine). You're missing or misreading that last part. With the exception of the four independently-notable bassists currently listed, the majority of bassists from the majority of the bands listed are not sufficiently notable to warrant independent articles about themselves, so the list does not satisfy CSC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This "keep" voter may have only read the title of the article under discussion. It contains 4 bass players followed by 37 bands, but it inaccurately calls itself a list of bass players while there is already a partially duplicative List of grunge bands elsewhere. A "list of grunge bassists" might (I repeat might) satisfy some list rules if it actually lived up to its own title. (And as an aside, the two lists neglect thousands of eligible grunge bands and bassists, and are just plain sloppy and embarrassing for WP.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no question this list sucks. But suckage is not a reason to delete, the essay WP:TNT notwithstanding. Don't like it? Pare it back--that's how to fix content. Deletion is for when no such list should exist which is not the case here. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why my comment on the quality was prefaced with "As an aside..." and placed in parentheses. The rest of my comment and previous vote are policy-based. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for sure, not bassists Idunnox3 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's an WP:NLIST failure, and as per Doomsdayer520, it doesn't even really make any sense, as it quickly devolves into listing bands instead of bass players. And we already have a List of grunge bands. The best one could really hope for is a draftify consensus - "keep" isn't viable result when dealing with such an incomplete, poorly constructed article. But I don't think that's even worth pursuing honestly. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 27 August 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. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums longer than 70 minutes[edit]

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

Created in good faith following the deletion of several album-length-related categories (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 21#Category:70-minute and longer albums). However, I believe this does not meet WP:LISTCRIT, for many of the same reasons that the categories were deleted - basically that the length cutoff is arbitrary and non-defining. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. There must be thousands of albums longer than 70 minutes, and for the life of me, I can't see how it's defining in any way. I was playing this album yesterday. The run-time isn't important. What about double/triple albums? An unmanageable list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No objection as creator of the page / CFD closer, but let me ping Mikus (talk · contribs) who created the categories and Marcocapelle, Grutness who suggested converting to a list.– Fayenatic London 07:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A List of albums with the longest running time would work, but 70 minutes is totally arbitrary. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still think that listifying is better than outright deletion, though the arbitrariness is a concern. IIRC a standard compact disc has a maximum running time of 74 minutes - would that be a less arbitrary cutoff? Grutness...wha? 07:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the limitations are for a single CD, but I have several that clock in at almost 80 minutes, with this one, for example, being 78 minutes plus. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples highlight another issue with the list - live albums, compilations, and greatest hits albums. As collections of existing material, it's typical of them to be longer than studio albums, so their length isn't even an unusual/notable characteristic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to List of albums with the longest running time in combination with a stricter cut-off would be the most practical solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There would be literally thousands of artists on this list considering most LPs on CD have a maximum length of 80 minutes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per many of the arguments above - WP:INDISCRIMINATE, 70 minutes is arbitrary, non-defining and not particularly rare when you look at the history of recorded music. Sergecross73 msg me 11:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, too indiscriminate of a list. Remember that, in the era of Compact Discs, the max a CD could hold was usually around 75 minutes or so, and bands, in cooperation with their labels, would try and cram in as much music as possible, as close to that 75-minute threshold as possible. Of course, now you don't see much of that anymore in the digital/streaming era, with most albums topping at around only 40 minutes. --MuZemike 11:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:SIGCOV dealing with this as a group so fails WP:NLIST (I found one Drowned in Sound article). Criteria for inclusion is arbitrary and captures innumerable albums as noted by others. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To be fair, I can remember the beginning of the CD age when bands that were previously confined to 45 minutes on vinyl suddenly went nuts and made the news with long albums that crammed 77 minutes onto CDs. This may have been a newsworthy list if Wikipedia had existed in 1991. Today, I agree with everyone above on problems of arbitrary definitions and the "indiscriminate" issue. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might be of some interest if it was based on the technical limits of an LP or CD, but the entries here include two-LP or two-CD sets. There's no limit to how long an album can be if multi-disc sets can be considered (see this 200-CD, 240-hour set of Mozart's complete works). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, we already have lists of some unusually long LPs at Unusual types of gramophone records#Unusually long playing times, and CDs at Compact Disc Digital Audio#Storage capacity and playing time, which are based on albums exceeding the standard technical limits for those formats, not on multi-disc sets. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a category, not a list, and without coverage of such things, it's an indiscriminate, user-generated list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am persuaded by the arguments above that this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE for reasons of having arbitrary WP:LISTCRITERIA as well as being too broad per WP:SALAT. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 24 August 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. sockpuppet ST47 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Research Plot[edit]

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

Non-notable website, article relies on duplicative advertisements on different sites. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:57, 24 August 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 08:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Marcus Jr.[edit]

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

Rapper who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, coverage cited in the article consists almost entirely of social media, as well as a single passing mention. A search only brought up this, which is pretty clearly not a reliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete lack of WP:RS and there's nothing out there that I can find. Schwede 66 03:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This artist was the first mentor, collaborator and producer of notable star rapper The Kid Laroi. Being the mentor of a notable artist is enough for a credible claim of significance WP:SIGNIF. The artist is still prominent in the South Australian music scene today. South Australia is not known for embracing rap music or local artists so getting written press would be difficult. What is provided here as references are quite credible, especially ABC Radio Adelaide, Hype Magazine and The Scene. The Facebook pages noted are a credible timeline of Marcus Jr working with The Kid Laroi and the projects and songs they worked on at the time. I believe this page is valid and important to the history of the rap artist The Kid Laroi as most has been wiped from the internet most likely by Sony Music when signing him. Instagram post by Marcus Jr detail that too.Grapepinky (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapepinky: Read WP:NOTINHERITED. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unambiguous failure of GNG and NMUSIC. Like Schwede66 I can't find a single reliable source that mentions this guy. Notability is not inherited from working with a notable rapper early in his career. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Asteroids in fiction#Ceres. To an extent to be determined by editorial consensus and the work needed in the target article. Sandstein 07:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid Ceres in fiction[edit]

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

Having just finished rewriting Earth in science fiction from a fancrufty list of trivia into a proper article, I stumbled upon Template:Astronomical locations in fiction, and ouch. It's full of more listcruft; some of which might be salvageable by rewriting, some of which fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:OR, and so on. This is probably one of the worst - I wouldn't be surprised if topics like Mars or Venus in (science...) fiction could be given similar treatment to what I just did to Earth. Ceres, I am afraid, is not likely to be salaved, I certainly couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV dealing with this topic, which is sadly just a trivial and mostly unreferenced list of 'works that mention Ceres'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed a few works without a bluelinked article or author. Many of the remaining entries are minor appearances or passing mentions, or don't have enough context to determine plot relevance. There is no attempt to establish LISTN, and all references are likely primary sources for their respective works (several works by Robert A. Heinlein, a novel by L. Neil Smith, and Zone of the Enders). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has a stubby entry for Ceres leading to its main entry on asteroids . We have an equivalent page at Asteroids in fiction and so might do something similar per policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. As a dwarf planet with the same status as Pluto now, it merits attention which will only expand as we move out into the belt in the manner shown in The Expanse. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Asteroids in fiction#Ceres. From a quick perusal, it appears the asteroid plays a major role in Exiles to Glory and The Killing Star, maybe The Expanse (TV series and novels) too. The other entries, not so much. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asteroids in fiction#Ceres per others as a WP:ATD. However, too crufty right now to stand on its own._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Asteroids in fiction#Ceres as per Clarityfiend.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asteroids in fiction#Ceres per the above - There are a few notable examples, but a WP:SPLIT from the main article on asteroids in fiction in general is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asteroids in fiction, which in turn needs a major cleanup/rewrite. There is nothing worth merging here, just a bunch of examples. Listing every time X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage in WP:Reliable sources to warrant converting this into a stand-alone prose article (as was done with e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction), however, so redirecting seems to be the best option for now. TompaDompa (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ceres is a dwarf planet, a world apart from the asteroids, all of which are a magnitude less notable than Ceres itself.XavierGreen (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have mistaken the topic of deletion here, which is not Ceres but Ceres in fiction (as your argument has nothing to do with the topic being discussed). And if you object to terminology, note that dwarf planets can be asteroids, at least that's the impression I get from a quick glance at our Good Article on Ceres (dwarf planet) which states in the lead: "The first asteroid discovered, Ceres was first observed on..." and "In 2006, it was reclassified again as a dwarf planet because, at 940 km (580 mi) in diameter, it is the only asteroid large enough to be rounded by its own gravity". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 1 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rony (musical artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist with no charting or certified songs. Every single article is either overly promotional (paid?), on blogs/unreliable sources or flat-out written by the subject himself. Can't be WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's clearly been doing a lot of promotion this month with links to follow him on social media posted on every single website that will allow him to do so. I agree that there doesn't seem to be any coverage that isn't paid for and Wikipedia should not be an extension of his promotional campaign. Some of the press releases are even marked as being written by Rony himself!! Clear WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN fail. I see that this got moved from Draft:Rony (musician) without actually passing AfC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is a concurrent AfD for a duplicate article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rony (musician). MarioGom (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete both articles: attempts at promotion, failure of WP:BIO. Java Hurricane 09:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete this and also Rony (musician). Not notable at all. Using unknown websites to promote himself. --Trickipaedia (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Idunnox3 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 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 Lobachsville, Pennsylvania. RL0919 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Waters, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. News articles mention events at a privately-owned park/farm/golf course in the 1930s through 1950s. This clearly was not a community, and does not seem to have received significant coverage either. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence this place was ever populated. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's obviously populated; even a cursory glance at topo maps or satellite imagery will confirm this. The issue is whether it's a notable and distinct locale that warrants a Wikipedia article. jp×g 22:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Still, couldn't find any sources on this place other than some directory listings so there's no article to be written here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lobachsville, Pennsylvania per Firsfron's comment below. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: USGS maps show a couple of houses on a winding road (Heiligs School Road, per the 2019 quadrangle) in 1902, 1943, and 1957 (when it is first labeled "Pine Waters"). The label is there in 1984 and 1999, although no real development seems to have occurred there between 1902 and 2019 (wowzies). Google satellite maps show that, indeed, there is very little here. The southern terminus of Heiligs School Road seems to be in Pike Township; while a couple people live in this area, it's not obvious to me from a bird's-eye view that there is going to be much notable activity here. Like with other geostubs I've done this analysis for, if someone can come up with archive sources that establish notability, I'll !vote to keep, and if not, I'll !vote to delete, but it doesn't seem likely that any will exist. Looking forward to being proven wrong! jp×g 22:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Lobachsville, Pennsylvania. The June 4, 1947, issue of the Pottstown (PA) Mercury) makes it clear that this was a location in/around Lobachsville, not a distinct community. This was a popular picnicking spot/country club and as Dlthewave says, privately owned. All news articles I can find are between 1942 and 1961. Must have been a lovely place because people would call the newspaper the moment their reservations were made, and then gush about it afterwards! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Firsfron's confirmation from archives -- doesn't seem that this was ever a real locale. jp×g 10:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huguo Boss[edit]

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

No indication of notability. lack of significant coverage that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Huguo Boss? Funny, funny...But not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable musician -Xclusivzik (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no doubts it's not notable at all Idunnox3 (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regretfully because this is a very punny name. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of school shootings in the United States#2020s. ✗plicit 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Washington Middle School Shooting[edit]

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

Routine American gun violence. We are not a news site. No indication of lasting impact or any ongoing broader coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As nom I'm also fine with a redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or~~ Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States - This school shooting was a tragic incident of senseless gun violence. However wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS, and the event at this time does not pass notability criteria for an article. If it has an impact in the future on changing school policies within a wider net, or the specific event continues to have ongoing news coverage then an article may be appropriate in the future. Sad as it is to read about these awful shool shootings, especially with 13 year olds involved, we can't include each one as a separate article. It could however be added to the article List of school shootings in the United States along with associated citations. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States#2020s. Fails WP:NOTNEWS as an (unfortunately) routine school shooting in the US. It's already been added to the list so nothing to merge at this time. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States#2020s, doesn't warrant a separate article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Presumably there will be a trial and/or inquest which will be covered in reliable sources and which may have lasting impact. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment even if that's the case it's too soon for an article as there's nothing but routine coverage on this event right now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:07, 25 August 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 02:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rony (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. The article has been reference bombed with a large number of unreliable blogs, SEO spam articles and user-generated sites like IMDB and Genius, but I don't see a single reference that counts towards notability. (I'm especially amused by this supremely dodgy outfit masquerading as the real Billboard.) Perhaps the only thing keeping this from being an A7 candidate is the claim that one of his songs "peaked at number 5 on the Portland US Charts", however the "Portland US charts" do not appear to be a real thing - the only Google results for that phrase are the subject's IMDB profile and one of the paid puff pieces about him. Spicy (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's clearly been doing a lot of promotion this month with links to follow him on social media posted on every single website that will allow him to do so. I agree that there doesn't seem to be any coverage that isn't paid for and Wikipedia should not be an extension of his promotional campaign. Some of the press releases are even marked as being written by Rony himself!! Clear WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN fail. I see that this got moved from Draft:Rony (musician) without actually passing AfC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is a concurrent AfD for a duplicate article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rony (musical artist). MarioGom (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete both this and Rony (musical artist). Not notable. Using unknown websites for promotion.--Trickipaedia (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Dokić[edit]

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

Runs contrary to WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:BIOFAMILY. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Damir Dokic was significantly notable (particularly in Australia) during his daughter's tennis career, and was frequently featured in the media himself. There are plenty of independent sources conferring notability so he meets WP:BIO himself. This should be a no-brainer for keeping the article. Deus et lex (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that this a case of WP:SNOW, as you seem to imply. If this individual wasn't a famous tennis player's hell-raising parent, he would just be another person making a ruckus on the street. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that there is enough information in the article to make it warrant a stand-alone article rather than simply a section of Jelena's article. I also think that the sources show more than just a trivial mention of Damir, so WP:GNG would appear to be met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The depth and breadth of coverage is irrelevant if the only reason for his notability is the fact he was the parent of a notable athlete. If this wasn't the case, no one would care, and there wouldn't be articles written about him. I'm not sure threatening a diplomat with a hand grenade meets WP:CRIMINAL either. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the depth and breadth of coverage relates to, the question is whether he has received substantial and independent coverage himself (and the answer to that is very clearly yes). You need to stop implying extra requirements into Wikipedia policy. WP:BIO is very clearly met here. Deus et lex (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is one of those borderline articles. Is he notable for anything tennis related... no. Hence this article has no WikiProject Tennis tag on the talk page. However, people can certainly meet GNG by being in the press enough. It looks like Damir Dokic has done so minimally. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this isn't a marginal case of WP:BLP1E or inherited notability. His antics were covered as events distinct from whatever his daughter was doing at the time. Yes, oftentimes those events converged because he attracted more attention when his actions were directed toward his much more famous daughter. He's not some run-of-the-mill Dance-Mom-style "celebrity parent", and the coverage he received (including that beyond the point where she had not much to do with him) is enough. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG in his own right. Most of the current references are IRS sources, and there would undoubtedly be more. Cabrils (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG Nitesh003 (TALK) 03:43, 31 August 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. Source assessment shows at least some non trivial independent reliable coverage by each source, which can be combined to meet notability guidelines per WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prerna Kohli[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fail of WP:GNG. Awards cited in the article are non-notable. nearlyevil 665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[21] [22] seem to be reliable sources; I'm not clear why the award is non-notable; we often treat things like 100 Women (BBC) as suggesting notability. Furius (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That first TOI source has no byline and appears to be the same promotional bio that appears on her website in the "About" section. Per the second TOI source, the awardees "were selected by the women and child development ministry", and the President hosted a lunch for them, so this may need some clarification if the article is kept. Other sources in the article include what seems like an advertorial from Silicon India, which states in its About Us section: "Siliconindia has cemented the US-INDIA technology boom and provided the most relevant and critical content for this ecosystem by projecting stories of burgeoning entrepreneurs, outstanding technologists, and accomplished CEOs, along with business analysis and opinions specifically impacting business and technology in India and the U.S. [...] Over the past 22 years, the edition has recognized thousands of such companies and has become a powerful platform for proud entrepreneurs," a Tedx Talk she gave, a link to purchase the book she wrote, and the citation for the book she wrote. On the other hand, there are sources in the article that suggest she may have WP:BASIC notability as an expert, e.g. Free Press Journal, 2021, India Today, 2020, TOI, 2016, and there are twenty links to news articles I have not yet closely reviewed on her website in the Other Media section that might further support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. The References provided here either paid articles or press releases look at 'Free Press Journal', 'Siliconindia' and India 'Today'. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO.GermanKity (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This source assessment table reviews sources that make a WP:SECONDARY assessment of her as an expert, including articles from mainstream news sources listed on her website, as noted above, and others found during an online search:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
How safe is your daughter? (The New Indian Express, 2013)			~ At p. 4 of a long article about the sexual assault of children in India, Kohli is quoted for her opinion as a psychologist, and shares details from her work with a client; at p. 5, she is quoted as a psychologist for her opinion and shares details from her work with another client.	~ Partial
20s is the new 40s! (Times of India/Entertainment Times, 2015)		WP:TOI The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government.	~ quoted twice as a child psychologist for general statements, including about "Today's kids"	? Unknown
Understaffed and overworked, Aligarh prison guards lead stressful lives (Times of India, 2016)		WP:TOI The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government.	~ Brief reporting on her past and future work in jails, and quotes her opinion on contributing factors to guard stress.	? Unknown
Food de-addiction is the new thin (The New Indian Express, 2016)	? This article is entirely based around Kohli, and reads like an advertorial for her "one-of-a-kind food de-addiction centre at Gurgaon, where she plans to counsel food junkies"			? Unknown
There Is A New Body Type In Trend And It's 'Rib-Popping' (Outlook Magazine, 2017)			~ quoted as a "leading psychologist" for her opinion on the fad and anorexia nervosa.	~ Partial
Dhinchak Pooja’s ‘Selfie maine leli aaj’: Why are cringeworthy videos so popular? (Hindustan Times, 2017)			~ quoted as "a Delhi-based clinical psychologist who has worked extensively with patients suffering from social media addiction."	~ Partial
Four things you should know about smell (The Hindu, 2018)			~ quoted as a psychologist for her opinion, including biological differences and genetics.	~ Partial
In-law and out of love (Deccan Chronicle, 2018)			~ quoted as a psychologist for her opinion after "Queen Sofía and her daughter-in-law Queen Letizia of Spain were arguing in public."	~ Partial
Arjun Rampal And Mehr Jessia Part Ways, Here's How You Can Deal With A Divorce The Healthy Way (Doctor NDTV, 2018)			~ several paragraphs quoting her as a psychologist about divorce, i.e. "we spoke to psychologist Dr Prerna Kohli as to how two people can have a positive and healthy attitude towards a divorce."	~ Partial
HT Brunch Game Show: Your childhood buddy, your girl friend, or your dog— who is really your best friend? (Hindustan Times, 2020)			~ "Psychologist Dr Prerna Kohli has been an adviser to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and is a member of a nutrition committee" [...] "Kohli, a four-time gold medalist, clinical psychologist and a social worker. She lists five rules to being a dependable friend:"	~ Partial
Worried about your kids’ mental health? Here’s what experts recommend (Hindustan Times, 2020)			~ quotes her opinion as a clinical psychologist	~ Partial
Don't let the walls close in (India Today, 2020)			~ "Other experts also observe similar issues. Dr. Prerna Kohli, a Clinical Psychologist who is an adviser to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights says,"	~ Partial
Losing a parent: Here’s what families can do to help children deal with grief and loss (The Indian Express, 2021)			~ substantial quotes as "Clinical psychologist, author, and founder of MindTribe.in Dr Prerna Kohli — who has also been an advisor to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), and is a member of the Niti Aayog Nutrition Committee"	~ Partial
Prince Harry undergoes EMDR for dealing with past trauma; here’s everything you need to know (The Indian Express, 2021)			~ several paragraphs of her opinion/explanation: "In order to understand more about EMDR, indianexpress.com reached out to Dr Prerna Kohli, a clinical psychologist, author, and founder of MindTribe.in, who has also been an advisor to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), and is a member of the Niti Aayog Nutrition Committee."	~ Partial
Snow White and her social media filters: Why is India still obsessed with fair skin? (The Indian Express, 2021)			~ several paragraphs of her opinion, after being introduced as "an eminent psychologist and founder of MindTribe"	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

There also appear to be additional independent and reliable sources available, similarly quoting her as an expert in varying amounts of depth. Beccaynr (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely fails WP:GNG. References are not in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. DJRSD (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, per the source assessment table above, which supports WP:BASIC notability as an expert by multiple independent and reliable sources, and is WP:SECONDARY commentary, as well as the award, which adds support to her notability. WP:BASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and these are not trivial mentions. Beccaynr (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly meets WP:BASIC notability as a clinical psychologist expert. Acrols (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the source analysis above shows that at least WP:BASIC is met. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote, I wouldn't consider The New Indian Express to be reliable, they are already suspected to carry undisclosed advertisements masked as news and their article seems to affirm that suspicion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:54, 31 August 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 02:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.G. Devasahayam[edit]

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

Non-notable subject, fail of WP:GNG, WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:NSOLDIER. nearlyevil 665 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jarprakash : I wonder how he is not a notable person as per your guidelines. There are reference about him in Wikipedia itself. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scott_Christian_College_alumni 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragyan#2016 even you can google to find his notabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarprakash (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name being present in other articles is not a notability criterion in and of itself. For one thing, anybody can add just any name to any Wikipedia article at any time regardless of whether that person would clear our notability criteria or not. So if all anybody had to do to make themselves or somebody else notable enough for a Wikipedia article was to add the name in question to just any list of anything, then we'd automatically have to keep an article about every single person on earth. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Fails also WP:ANYBIO, as he ultimately didn't receive the highest Ashok Chakra Award. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jarprakash : Agree with Գարիկ Ավագյան and removed it from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarprakash (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is Indian but doesn't have a Hindi Wikipedia page. Pointly (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better references can be furnished. Of the eight references in the article, two are dead links. Some were written by Devasahayam himself. Others quote him in an interview fashion. One is a list. None are significant coverage of Devasahayam by independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no strong notability claim here above and beyond "he was a person who did stuff", and the sourcing isn't solid enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to have a strong notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 24 August 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.

[bCivil1988-1] ICE(GB), ed. (1988). Proceedings - Institution of Civil Engineers: Design and construction. Part 1. Vol. 84. United Kingdom: Institution of Civil Engineers. p. 168.

[Hansant1989-2] Harsant, John (31 October 1989). The construction of Computer Systems and the use of Fourth Generation Langages (PDF). Staple Inn Actuarial Society.

[1]

[2]