Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 19	June 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brylian Aldama[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He has only played youth team football in Croatia. Simione001 (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, still non-notable. Giant Snowman 11:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If he has played only in the youth team, then delete. I couldn't find out if it was really only the youth team. Tec Tom (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, youth team player. Geschichte (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part above.Muur (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dr Salvus 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:44, 24 June 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 23:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carsforsale.com[edit]

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

I PRODed the article for the following reasons:

created by a single-purpose user
the only sources are either own references, or references from sporting events sponsored by the company (which are things companies simply pay for)
no treatment in sources that is not superficial

The article was deleted when the PROD expired.

Shortly after, yet another single-purpose account was created, and was used to request the undeletion, which was granted as per procedure.

I am therefore AFDing it. I believe Wikipedia should not be used as a marketing tool. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also, in searching for coverage, I found only three articles that had any sort of coverage of this website: [1], [2], [3]. The first two sources are pretty niche coverage and really don't tell us much about the subject. And the third source is just run of the mill business news. I'm usually pretty liberal when it comes to defining "significant coverage" but given the issues flagged in the nom and the relative lack of coverage, I vote to delete.DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure marketing, no RS. Bishonen | tålk 07:26, 22 June 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. One editor has presented sources which may satisfy GNG. However, despite a relist to attempt to discuss these. That has not happened and the consensus as it stands is to delete. If any editor feels they alcan use the sources here to create an article which will satisfy GNG, I am happy to restorecthe article to draft space to all of further work. Fenix down (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian football club owners[edit]

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

Page has not been updated in 10 years 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as per WP:NEGLECT, the page not being updated for 10 years is not a valid reason to delete it. If the topic itself does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG then that would certainly be grounds for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable list, fails GNG/LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 18:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. This list is focused on mostly unsourced claims about the extent of various people's wealth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above: firstly, it fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, and secondly it has BLP implications/violations for unsourced claims of people's wealth. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list craft, complete WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can you tell me where you looked to come to such a strong conclusion that there's no coverage? (See links below). Did you consider the fact that the sources may be concentrated in another language? 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:B41E:E3B5:F7E4:45F9 (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep So should List of owners of English football clubs be deleted as well? That page has an outdated tag from three years ago, so it's outdated like this one. Though its patchy wealth figures are all sourced, some of the owners/sources of wealth are not, so that's against WP:BLP and WP:OR according to your own rules. Then as for WP:GNG and WP:CRUFT, can anyone actually write in Romanian and search for whether there is coverage of football owners in that country? Have you even looked for evidence before saying there are no sources? I put the keywords into Google translate and got this from Romania's main sports website [4], so to say that nobody has ever listed or compared Romanian football owners is quite frankly a ridiculous thing to say, and forgive me for sounding like an SJW but it's privilege and entitlement to assume something doesn't exist because sources aren't available in your language. There's absolutely no reason to delete this article: being outdated, unsourced or generally under quality is not a reason. Here are more sources, though you probably don't care as it's not BBC. [5] [6] [7] Try "patroni fotbal romania" in your Google search if you can even be bothered. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:B41E:E3B5:F7E4:45F9 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That English article is actually up to date if you look at it. as far as the teams being listed in their current divisions after the most recent promotions (so bolton in league one and so forth)Muur (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, the fact this article doesn't source the wealth is a severe BLP violation, something which is not present on the English article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument, just remove the column about the wealth then? If I added a column on the English one which was contentious and unsourced, would you remove the column or nominate the page for deletion? I think we all know. The basic thing here is that nobody has backed up their word that there are no sources which concentrate on owners of Romanian football clubs, and are instead throwing out any WP:RELEVANTACRONYM to delete the page for no reason. This is like citing prior case law to prosecute someone when we haven't even established whether he was at the crime scene to start with. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:D93D:C09F:D05F:7568 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the owners is sourced, and only two of the net worths. By that logic, we should remove everything else but keep the article?! Joseph2302 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen BLP be proposed as a policy to delete a whole non-BLP article unless the page concerned crime, sexuality, religion - certainly not net worths or sources of income. While we're here, let's detonate 99% of season articles (example 2020–21 Super League Greece) where the managers, captains and sackings aren't sourced. Heck, is there a policy on trademark infringement because we could bring that up to delete the page because the sponsorships aren't sourced and could indicate an endorsement that doesn't exist. Has anyone ever read WP:AFDBEFORE, if pages could be deleted just for looking shoddy, then very little of this website would remain. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:A013:85F5:415E:5865 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: General consensus to delete but late addition of new sources requires further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept it should be moved to List of owners of Romanian football clubs to remove the ambiguity in the current title - it is not clear from it whether the clubs or the owners are Romanian. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought it meant Romanians that own football clubs and initially though "why does that matter?" lmao.Muur (talk) 16:20, 21 June 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 Pokolgép. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

György Pazdera[edit]

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

Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this article for notability on the grounds that this article doesn't contain any sources despite the fact that this is an article on a living person. Also, the article is on the level of what we call a "sub-stub" on huwiki (I believe that was a thing around here too). A short introduction about him and a short blurb (misleadingly cited as a "source" - this is not a source) about him becoming 50 years old in 2007. According to that blurb, this was released on the official site of the band, so it's not independent. Couldn't find anything reliable, only trivial mentions and databases. The only thing that comes close to a reliable source is this interview from 2014 in Hammer World (Metal Hammer). Still, this is just one good source and one is not enough. He doesn't have an article on the Hungarian Wikipedia either, even though we have a lots of articles connected to Pokolgép. Unnotable musician. Pokolgép is a notable band (although I have noticed that there have been an Afd here back in 2017), but not everyone who was ever part of the band is notable.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The birthday reference is among the daftest I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokolgép per WP:BANDMEMBER. It's not unusual for members of notable bands to be interviewed, but that doesn't grant them independent notability (and interviews are not necessarily reliable nor independent). Although he has played with at least two other bands (according to Encyclopedia Metallum), neither appear notable, nor does there appear to be sufficient reliable sourcing to support a stand-alone article. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Metallum is not a reliable source anyways. So if interviews are not necessarily reliable, then I can cross out that one as well, and we are left with no reliable sources whatsoever. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Cleaver[edit]

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

~~I don’t see the in-depth coverage in RIS to support a stand alone biography of this subject. A redirect to Vote.org would be a possible ATD. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawing nomination as there is clearly a consensus to keep. Mccapra (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Not seeing it either. Agree with the redirect if others do.~~
Weak Keep or Merge: Changing my iVote: Sufficient sourcing for a GNG pass has now been added to the article by Sdkb, but still have possible TOOSOON concerns. The first two sources listed, however, are rated questionable on Cite Unseen, but the others will suffice for our purposes here. Just have to watch the NPOV compliance on this one. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:BEFORE really should not have been hard for this one, so it's disappointing to see the nomination not even attempt to address the article's present sources. Laying them out, the three contributing to notability are:

Thorpe, JR (7 March 2017). "Debra Cleaver, Founder Of Vote.org, Is Making Women's History Now". Bustle. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Hatmaker, Taylor (13 May 2020). "Vote.org founder launches VoteAmerica, a nonprofit using tech tools to help Americans vote by mail". TechCrunch. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Schleifer, Theodore (28 April 2020). "One of America's key voting rights groups plunged into chaos when it was needed most". Vox. Retrieved 11 March 2021.

The first two are profiles of Cleaver, which is quintessential SIGCOV, and the Bustle piece in particular is quite in-depth (roughly 2000 words). Both Bustle and TechCrunch are mainstream American publications, and while neither are stellar on the reliability front (they're both no consensus at RSP), these particular articles appear to be reported profiles, not churnalism, so I do not see any issue using them. The Vox piece isn't structured as a profile specifically of Cleaver, but she is the central character, and it mentions her 48 times. I'm not sure whether the nominator doesn't consider 48 mentions enough for SIGCOV or doesn't think Vox is reliable (it's RSP-greenlit), but either way I strongly disagree. As ever, I remind editors that an article being short doesn't make it non-notable, and I suggest the nominator withdraw. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was indeed the shortness of the article that originally drew my attention, and I thought I’d try to expand it. The first thing I found was that apart from the existing sources, I couldn’t find any others. That took me back to the existing sources. My view is that they are not in depth coverage of the subject at all. Bustle is an extended interview with her, not independent coverage of her, and it isn’t about her, it’s about vote.org. The TechCrunch piece also quotes her extensively, but likewise isn’t about her, it’s about the organisation she founded. The Vox article seems the most in depth coverage of her and the least reliant on interviews with her or comment from her. But ultimately it too is mainly about the organisations she has founded rather than about her. So out of all of this, the article as it stands is hardly capable of expansion. All we can say about the subject, based on these sources, is that she founded vote.org and then went off and founded vote.America.org. My conclusion is if that’s all we can say about her for the moment, she does not warrant a stand alone bio. Everything to be said about Debra Cleaver is already included in the vote.org article and this stub adds nothing. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good profiles are built around an interview with the source, but it's a reported profile with plenty of information stated in the journalist's rather than Cleaver's voice, not a Q+A. And it would be a very bad profile if in 2000 words it said nothing about her beyond her work with Vote.org. But luckily there's a whole bunch in there to mine about her early life and more; I'll add it later, and this should be no problem at all to get to DYK length. At that point, it would be undue to try to merge it into the Vote.org article, thus justifying a standalone page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: I've just expanded the article's prose size by 12 times. A portion of it focuses on her work at Vote.org, as would be expected given that it's the biggest part of her career, but plenty of other elements do not, and especially now that she's left Vote.org I would expect that aspect to become more pronounced going forward. I hope that editing is sufficient to demonstrate that the article was indeed capable of expansion. If you'd be willing to withdraw now, I would appreciate it, as that will clear the way for a DYK nomination before the time limit expires. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t want to be argumentative and maybe there’s something here that I’m just not getting, but I’m afraid I’m still not seeing a clear notability pass here. The sourcing isn’t strong, and the detail recently added looks like the kind of stretch you find in promotional articles. The rest is still more about the organisations the subject founded than about her. So I’m happy to be proved wrong if consensus says this subject is notable, but I’d prefer to wait for that result as I’m not convinced at this point that a withdrawal is the right course of action. Mccapra (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:BASIC, and because a redirect and/or merge does not seem workable, because 1) she is no longer at Vote.org, 2) her current work at VoteAmerica has been covered by e.g. The New York Times (2020) with a focus on her; and her career overall, in addition to the sources that were in the article, has also been profiled by Fast Company (2020), and 3) she also has WP:BASIC notability generally as an expert commentator on elections issues, and I have added state-level and national sources to the article that range from 2018 through 2021, including The New York Times (2018), Washington Journal/C-SPAN (2018), Insider (2020), various state news (November 2020) 1, 2, 3, and CBS News (2021). Beccaynr (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like we have enough reliable coverage of this person to write a decent bio on them. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:53, 28 June 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. General consensus to delete. Some suggestions to draftify. I'm happy to restore to a user's draft space if requested, but nothing in this discussion to suggest from any editor that sources yet exist to suggest GNG for any article listed here. Fenix down (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Boreham Wood F.C. season[edit]

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

there is concensus that National League seasons fail WP:NSEASONS and no evidence of GNG, especially given that the season hasn't started yet. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail GNG and NSEASONS:

Draftify National league seasons can pass WP:GNG - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–09 Cambridge United F.C. season. None of these do yet, but they will in a few months at the earliest. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify per TOOSOON. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 08:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally season articles don't pass WP:GNG if the team isn't fully-professional, and it's too soon for this article to demonstrate that it's an "extraordinary" season that merits an article. If they have an extraordinary season that gets lots of good sourcing about it, then article can be re-created then. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The National league gets national coverage, it's safe to assume all of these topics will be covered significantly, and NSEASONS doesn't trump a GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't demonstrate coverage to pass WP:GNG right now. If in 6 or 12 months this season does generate GNG-level coverage, then it can be recreated. But we shouldn't be keeping it on the assumption that it might be notable in future. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many EFL 2021-22 season articles demonstrate coverage to pass WP:GNG right now? Not many, I'd bet.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Joseph2302. Giant Snowman 11:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per SportingFlyer. Skyblueshaun 13:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For failing WP:NSEASONS, Skyblueshaun Should know not create level 5 or lower season articles, unless under it's a special season. Govvy (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify all - WP:TOOSOON Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify all - there is clearly the potential for these articles to pass GNG - the level of national coverage of the National League is not noticeably lower than that of League Two, and the suggestion that all League Two season articles should get automatically kept while all NL season articles should be automatically deleted is ridiculous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify , WP:TOOSOON, Alex-h (talk) 10:15, 23 June 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. Whether to move another article to this title or convert it to a redirect is left as an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patapon[edit]

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

Although there are six games in the series. The series is really made up of a trilogy of PSP games that mostly were ported onto PS4 with the exception of the final one. The rest are promotional web browser games that are covered in the respected articles they promote. Overall, three mainline entries isn't enough to make a whole series and Patapon (video game) does a good job at covering the sequels. If consensus agrees to delete, we can also move that article to "Patapon". Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am fully aware that this is a series article and not the article on the actual game Patapon, but I think this article is necessary. There are many, many reviews for Patapon 1 and 2 Remastered, making them "separate" games that the article should be updated to contain. If it was only the PSP games, then I'd probably vote to delete._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a stretch to try to cover them as separate games. Even if each three entries in the series have a remaster (2 so far), how much can we really expand a series article? They're not really separate games, just ports. In Japan they're not even called remasters.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I am aware, according to the general consensus of the VG Wikiproject, the minimum threshold for a franchise page/series overview page should be 3 games. There are 3 unique games in the series so far; just because "Patapon (video game) does a good job at covering the sequels", doesn't mean it needs to do so when the sequels and each of their ports/remasters already have sufficient coverage. Haleth (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said above, according to what VG Wikiproject sees as a series, three games meet the requirements. And perhaps in the future more entries would follow. Sykess (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sykess: and @Haleth:, are you absolutely sure about that? I've seen Final Fantasy Dissidia (series), Mercury (video game series), and Life is Strange (series) get rejected at times for not having more than 3 games?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you left redlinks here, instead of a relevant discussion which resulted in the articles no longer existing. I can't see any record of a page and its talk page being deleted as a result of an AfD or abandoned draft. As for Life Is Strange (series), the article exists. Where is the discussion showing a consensus that it's been rejected for not having more then 3 games? Haleth (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Having three mainline installments are good enough to justify a series article. OceanHok (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix/archive/19#Dissidia (series) page?, I also see Life is Strange#Overall page, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 145#Mercury Hg GA review?, it's a little unclear, one says over 3, while the other says 3 is the cut-off. Regardless, I think the Patapon as a series doesn't get a lot of coverage, just the individual games. For that reason alone, I've looked for coverage on the series as a whole. I can find individual games, but nothing covering Patapon as a series or even a trilogy.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stated by other editors three main entries in the series is enough for a standalone article, broadly speaking. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that WP:VG's stance about "3 games is enough for a series article" is merely the absolute minimum requirement. Failing it is an "auto-fail", but passing it is certain not an "auto-pass". It's just the lowest hurdle to overcome. So stances should really be based on more than "there are three games in the series". It should really be about if there's enough content from reliables sources that covers the series specifically that doesn't really fit into the scope of the separate games. (I haven't checked enough to weigh in on that yet.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page, as it stands, is quite short, and while it is not an auto-fail as Sergecross notes, it is not an auto-pass either. The article does not really justify it standing alone. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abryn. The "3 entries is a series" mantra is just a rule of thumb. The mere existence of 3 entries is not by itself enough to justify a series article. It needs development info, it needs reception, it needs specific coverage as a series. I don't see that at the current article. Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. We do not and should not rubber-stamp every series that reaches three entries for automatic independent notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Patapon (video game) (and then move that article to here). There's no connective glue to tie the games together beyond that they're in a series, and that can be documented in a section in the first game's article. If there was historical development section that said how one game led to the development of the next, that might be a reason to keep but that's just not there. The "3 games" is a necessary but not sufficient reason to have a series article. --Masem (t) 15:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - There's not enough here to warrant a stand alone article. It's a paragraph about each title's basic release data. It's completely redundant to what in each game's individual article. I'm not opposed to recreation if someone, let's say, tripled the size (its small) with reliably sourced commentary about the series as a whole. But as is, it's completely redundant. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything worth merging—mostly summaries of the existing sequel articles. Merge from those existing sequel articles into the Legacy section of Patapon (video game), which should then be moved to Patapon as the primary topic. In the absence of dedicated (GNG) of the series unto itself, the proper route is to build the "series article" summary style within the main series entry's Legacy section. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NGAME. Bungstnk (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungstnk: you're the first to say it meets GNG. Can you please verify or explain how a simple a table of three main games and two promotional flash games meets GNG? Otherwise you're falling into the problem of WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How? What's in the article certainly doesn't show that. You can't just come in and say WP:ITSNOTABLE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In response to many of the keep votes, three games is a requirement but not justification for series articles. There is not much sources say about the series as a whole, and like the nom said, is better to summarize in the first game's legacy section. To the closer: just make sure Patapon (video game) gets moved under this name. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 01:30, 3 July 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 23:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Walsh (astronomer)[edit]

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

Only reference is his own website. Is he notable? Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems to have recently retired from the European Southern Observatory, but I got that from the website researchgate, and I can not tell what they mean by "recent". My search did not come up with any reliable sources, nor anything indicating that Walsh would meet the guidelines for academic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't appear notable to me, no reliable sources found.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 04:49, 24 June 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. Wasn't mentioned at Rangers, so a mere redirect wouldn't stand. Geschichte (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broxi Bear[edit]

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

Delete or merge/redirect with Rangers Football Club. Not a pass of WP:GNG to warrant a stand-alone article. nearlyevil 665 18:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rangers F.C.#Crest and colours (maybe in its own sub-section?) Giant Snowman 20:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect doesn't merit its own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rangers F.C.#Crest and colours - some coverage in Scottish media but not enough to pass WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Rangers F.C.#Crest and colours.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as suggested above. This mascot is not notable enough for its own article. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rangers F.C.#Crest and colours. Alex-h (talk) 10:20, 23 June 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 Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IRIB HD[edit]

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

It was only a test channel for HD broadcasting and it was closed 2 years after its launch. It does not merit its own article. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a short mention to Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything referenced and worth keeping, per PRESERVE. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:09, 20 June 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absol[edit]

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

Non-notable Pokemon with no SIGCOV. Most refs in the article are listicles of "the best __ pokemon".

Alternative to deletion is redirecting to the list article List of generation III Pokémon, as it is similar to other Pokemon AfDs (here here here). Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of generation III Pokémon#Absol not enough non-trivial coverage in the sources to show notability. Link20XX (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to list article), non-RELIABLE sourcing and lack of notability. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of generation III Pokémon. The article isn't aligned with the MOS for video games' statement on what's appropriate coverage for in-game elements. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:44, 22 June 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 17:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black cube art museum[edit]

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

Essay-like article unimproved and unsourced for 10+ years, no clear evidence that this term is in wide circulation for this phenomenon. —Kusma (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it appears to be a Neologism and not a common term I've ever come across before in the art world. I can't find any evidence online (unlike "White Cube") that convinces me otherwise. None of the galleries listed in the article describe themselves as "black cube" galleries. Sionk (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to white cube gallery. I found this paper to attest that the concept has received some scholarly attention, but not enough to merit a stand-alone article. More like a couple sentences in the white cube one, contrasting the two forms. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kncny11: I'd be happy with this as an ATD if there is a second scholarly paper using the term. From the article you cite, I can't tell whether the term was invented by the author of that paper, and I see no evidence that it has caught on. —Kusma (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note I actually started this article years ago under CDM1500. "Manasseh, C" used the term often in his lectures and I made it for an assignment while in his class. I believe he uses the term in other scholarly works but I don't know if this page should remain if it's a term not used outside of scholarly contexts. There's also now an actual museum called "black cube" which may cause confusion. —CDM1500 (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
the author's other works
black cube

Delete I am unable to find evidence beyond the article Kncny11 cited that this is a type of gallery that exists and is discussed as such in reliable sources/ Star Mississippi 20:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although an infrequently used term, there is increasing use, especially with digital mediums becoming prominent. User:Asandersgrant User talk:Asandersgrant 14:43, 14 June 2021 (BST)

scholar text example
That's the same article Kncny11 found, so we still have exactly one source. —Kusma (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a thing, lack of RS proves it. WE are not the urban dictionary. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:15, 20 June 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 Mandaluyong#Education. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes School of Mandaluyong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES also states that "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD." The article also refers to a notable entity (WP:N WP:ORG) especially in references to topics regarding Single-sex education and considering that such schools in Metro Manila and in the Philippines are increasingly rare. I believe that the article does not violate promotion norms WP:PROMOTION and references to social media are only in aid of giving users access to further information. Instead of deletion of the article altogether, such external references may simply be removed if one finds them inappropriate or suspicious. This school is a historical landmark in the area with notable alumni and there is value that it has its own article. Improvements in the content may be considered but deletion of the article itself may be an unnecessary and extreme action. JoyfulJourney (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoyfulJourney: Where are these offline sources that you are talking about? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HueMan1: Reseña histórica de los Capuchinos de Filipinas, Bienvenido de Arbeiza (1972 English Version is offline, 1969 Spanish first edition is at here); 100 Years of Capuchin Presence in the Philippines, Delos Santos, ed., 1986; among others. The article will be improved over time. —JoyfulJourney (talk • contributions) 06:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoyfulJourney: I would suggest adding these information elsewhere (like the education section of Metro Manila or education in the Philippines) since it simply mentions the school. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HueMan1: References to the institution do not comprise of passing mentions there. There are also university thesis papers made of the pedagogy employed at the school. And I reiterate that the institution is noteworthy in itself for its historic value in the area even if, in order to establish this, merely a collection of "mentions" is established. In addition, following most sternly such rules, then would schools of similar repute and history as Lourdes School of Mandaluyong like Xavier School, Don Bosco Technical College, La Salle Green Hills, and Aquinas School also face deletion? —JoyfulJourney (talk • contributions) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoyfulJourney: Kinda. That's pretty much how Wikipedia works. If a subject has no significant coverage from independent sources, it will fail WP:GNG. I don't know why we still keep these poorly written and poorly sourced articles here. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See OTHER STUFF EXISTS GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. A sixty year-old school should have more sourcing than this. It should have made its mark by now if notable. Unfortunate. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandaluyong#Education: There's a sentence which describes the mentioned school. It's best to put the sources there and add a few more sentences about the school if needed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandaluyong#Education since I agree with Superastig that a redirect is the best option. This is a private school, the bar for notability is much higher for private schools, and this one clearly doesn't meet it. I'm fine with the article being redirected though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 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) 23:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syn Cole[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this artist. Only sources found are of his releases, which are not independently notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he does have a staff written AllMusic bio here and has charted on some specialist Billboard charts as shown here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SIGCOVER. Also, you do know that AllMusic is not considered very reliable, staff written or not? GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic has been determined as a reliable source quite recently at the WP:RSN, it's listed under Rhythm One in the perrenial list, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Don't know if this helps with a consensus, but I agree with Atlantic306's assessment of the sources. The AllMusic bio helps and the DJ has a few other brief pieces in sources like Broadway World ([8]). I admit it's not much, but probably enough for a basic stub article. This one needs to be beefed up with more biographical info however. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:50, 29 June 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. Even though no consensus to delete exists, it is clear from this debate that there is some issues with the article. I encourage participants to explore potential renaming, hack-back-and-start-again, or alternative editing options on the article talk page. Daniel (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018–2021 Arab protests[edit]

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

Article that makes a soup of separate Arab protests in a span of 3 years without a single reference connecting them to each other, WP:SYNTH Cainschuck (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SYNTH. There’s been a rash of these articles recently, along the lines of “Protests in random country between random dates.” The specific protests in question are well handled in the main articles for each, and there’s no solid basis for this stitching together of different events into a specific topic. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Arab Spring 2.0 or Arab World protests (2018–19) - the original article was about a series of 2018-19 Arab protests most notably Algerian and Sudanese revolutions, nicknamed the second Arab Spring (see sources [9],[10],[11]). Quote from Q&A on Arab Spring 10 years after: "We have also seen renewed protests throughout the region starting in late 2018, including in countries that didn’t see much activity during the 2011 protests. In what some dubbed an “Arab Spring 2.0,” Algeria and Sudan both saw their dictators toppled by protesters in 2019, while Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan, among others, all saw new bouts of protests as well.".GreyShark (dibra) 10:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article was created originally as Arab World protests (2018–19), but then renamed to its current ambiguous title, which was then updated to 2018–2020 Arab protests and finally 2018–2021 Arab protests while loosing any connection with the content and original intention.GreyShark (dibra) 10:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if it's out there GreyShark but I failed to find the reference using the term "Arab Spring 2.0" Cainschuck (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgiven.GreyShark (dibra) 18:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article topic is notable and well referenced. No reason to delete. Future expansions and creation of new content could be integrated into this or this could be integrated into another article. It's wasteful and destructive to trash a perfectly good article. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:No original research. It's well referenced, but an original analysis/ synthesis of the sources which move beyond the supporting content/context of the cited material.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article features numerous reliable sources describing these protests a part of new protest wave. Charles Essie (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and TNT a recreation using sources, not opinion or editorial analysis. Per SYNTH and OR. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Lebanon, Syria, Libya, and Egypt should be removed from the article. Reliable sources have drawn connections between the protests in Algeria, Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, and Gaza, so that aspect of the article does not run afoul of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. I haven't seen a reliable source which has connected the more recent protests in the other four countries to the older ones, so those should be removed from the article until a reliable source is found which draws the connections. Mlb96 (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to removal of those countries from the article. Especially Lebanon, because of the striking similarities between those protests and the ones in Iraq (corruption, foreign interference, particracy, poor public services and sectarianism are common grievances). Charles Essie (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems to be coverage/ discussion of this as a topic of interest. Adding further references and maybe a critique section of it existence as a unifiable "revolution" may help to outline the issues addressed above. Jamzze (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The amount of sources on this subject and the fact this page clearly covers an extremely broad set of important protests on a national scale, with international ramifications make me actually confused as to why this a deletion request. Therefore I support a strong keep. Des Vallee (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be kept but improved with new information.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I-20/59[edit]

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

This only disambiguates to two articles, and it has a very low page views, averaging less than five views per day for the past year. Imzadi 1979 → 17:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews and number of entries (if > 1) are irrelevant, but this doesn't make sense as a disambiguation page. I-20/59 does not refer to either the I-20 or the I-59 highway, it refers to an apparently long section that's shared by both (i.e. a concurrency). On at least two occasions in the past editors have created articles on the topic (here's the latest one), and an article certainly makes more sense than a dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now and revert back to the prior version before the edits made by @Fredddie:. As Uanfala mentioned, there has been a substantial article here in the past and the sudden switch to a disambig and then AFD seems unwise to me. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert to disambiguation as a neologism. --Rs chen 7754 03:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one or the other road, or perhaps to Interstate 20 in Alabama or similar, with a note added there to explain the shared section and a link to the other one. PamD 08:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.✨️Serious Black^@Contribute 12:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not all highway concurrencies have the type of sourced notability that, say, U.S. Route 1/9 does, and this one doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article. Any potential content would ultimately be forks of the individual articles. A disambiguation page sets a bad precedent, in that we don't need such pages for potentially every concurrency, and there is no single redirect target, in that I see no rationale to pick one route over the other, even if I-20 is considered a "major" Interstate. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have brought this back to a minimal version of what it said before the IMO wrong-headed disambiguation version. I have no opinion as to notability, but kept or not the article should be reasonable. Mangoe (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. –Fredddie ™ 04:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—as shown now, the "article" fails WP:GNG as a topic distinct from the two overlapping Interstates, and this version of the "article" should definitely be deleted. Based on page views, it's an unlikely search topic to warrant the disambiguation page. Imzadi 1979 → 07:54, 24 June 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. Sandstein 14:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam[edit]

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

Non-notable group of Pokemon with no SIGCOV. However, it seems that there was a few "lawsuits" or controversial elements, so unsure if those contribute to notability.

I would suggest deletion or redirecting to List of generation I Pokémon, as it is similar to other Pokemon AfDs (here here here). Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say the lawsuits and controversy over racist imagery in that section certainly contribute to notability. While there is some WP:REFBOMBing, overall, I think their notability is shown. Link20XX (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the controversy section seem to be enough to pass GNG on their own. Add in the other reception sources and I would say there is enough to keep the article. Certainly more coverage than the other Pokémon articles up for AFD now. Rhino131 (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokémon#Criticism and controversy section per PRESERVE. Most of the article is trivial, except the cited content of the controversy section. Not a stand-slone quality article. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument would suggest that the article should be trimmed down to remove fancruft, not be deleted entirely. If the topic is notable and there is enough material for a standalone article, then why delete it? Mlb96 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GenQuest: to clarify, so are you suggesting to delete / redirect the main content, but copy the "Controversy" section to Pokémon#Criticism and controversy? Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The article's content and referencing regarding the controversy seems notable. The article's content regarding the subject matter is non-notable, trivial, and trivia that should be deleted and redirected to a line-item in the list article. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The assertion that this topic has no significant coverage is incorrect. I don't believe that any potential issues with the article is insurmountable that can't be fixed with judicious editing, and if the content of the article is proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion. Haleth (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There are certainly justifiable reasons for reassessing the article's GA status due to concerns about quality of prose and sourcing, but I believe the title and sccope of its contents should be kept as is. Haleth (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Pokemon seems notable, although some parts are really reaching. Stuff like "IGN called Abra "unimpressive", but "worth raising" because it evolves into the "more powerful" Kadabra." is just restating the obvious for literally every Pokemon. It may be worth refocusing the article only on Kadabra, since that was the only one involved in the controversy._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Zxcvbnm, I am really not convinced the controversy warrants anything but a merge (at best). We have three trivial incidents (one from a self-published book). Granted, they got mentioned in books, but they still seem very trivial. It's not enduring coverage of this character, IMHO. If several scholars would pick this up, particularly the religious controversy... but I cannot find this incident discussed outside this one book. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GA Reassess and then make Kadabra (Pokémon) a stand alone article: All of the good sources revolve around Kadabra anyway, The only problem left would be how to preserve the history of this article? (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The history can be preserved by moving the article to Kadabra (the disambiguation is unnecessary; it's a WP:TWODABS situation) and then pruning the mentions of the other evolutions from the article. I also absolutely think it needs to be reassessed, doesn't nearly meet the current standards of GA, IMO._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The GA review was over a decade ago, and I doubt the article still meets the standard in its current state. I would also not be opposed to moving this article to Kadabra, since that appears to be the only one of the three Pokémon in the article that has actual coverage. Link20XX (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per above (and maybe rename it to Kadabra?).🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. I agree that a discussion about remaking this into a Kadabra (Pokémon) article is worthwhile (but obviously separate from this AFD discussion). There does seem to be coverage on this, particularly Kadabra. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reassess the GA and change to be only about Kadabra. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my comment, there appears to enough coverage, especially that generated from the controversy, to meet WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Closer should remember WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:KEEPER (to avoid a deletion review...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Pokémon#Criticism and controversy The controversies are very minor and there is no evidence of major coverage (also one of the two books cited is self-published), so I find GenQuest's merge argument sufficient. The entire "Critical reception" is the usual low-quality collection of passing mentions, generally from articles that are not about those characters, but just mention them in passing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough with the deletion of all Pokémons. This article is significant. The coverage is significant. Significant coverage of lawsuits, religious criticism. They have also been critiqued. Pikavoom (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above, but rename the article into Kadabra. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is The controversy makes this Pokemon non-ROTM and thus notable as others as said. I disagree with the idea to remove Abra and Alakazam, as they are on the same evolutionary line having them in this article would be closer topically than in the generic Pokemon list. Jumpytoo Talk 20:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abra and Alakazam are simply non-notable Pokemon. For the same reason, Lucario is not "Riolu and Lucario". It would not benefit the informativeness of the article from adding them._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:43, 24 June 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) 23:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzchak Mirilashvili[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Routine PR make up the references. scope_creep^Talk 17:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are sufficient independent references to establish WP:SIGCOV.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:SIGCOV from the sources in the article.4meter4 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be nice to hear what these sources actually are.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. some references: [12], [13], [14] Tec Tom (talk) 14:49, 21 June 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) 20:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Web News Observer[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (media). No secondary coverage of this news website except on Alpha News Call, which I suspect may be connected to the subject, due to the two websites' similar styling. This is not directly related to the AfD, but I also suspect that many of the website's "authors" are completely made up; the images used on there are similar in resolution and ratio to ones generated by thispersondoesnotexist.com. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator said, the article is not notable and has zero secondary coverage. Furthermore the article is not informative at all, it just says that it's a newspaper. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NMEDIA is a difficult criteria (at least for me). But this one clearly doesn't meet it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not found to include this in an encyclopedia. See more Wikipedia:Notability -- Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 05:13, 25 June 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 23:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Star (film)[edit]

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

Film does not appear to be notable, as I cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film, so far as I have been able to tell, does not pass WP:NFILM. I also have concerns about a string of single-purpose accounts covering the actress Robin Bain, and her work, namely this film and the films: Girl Lost, Hollywood Sex Wars (deleted), Eat Cake (deleted) and Wishful Thinking (deleted). — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did some researching but I could not find anything to deem this film as particularly notable. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Does not pass GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references currently in the article are not reliable or notability-making sources, and I share in other commenters' failure to find anything better. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 25 June 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) 20:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Brannan[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Minor league baseball player. Military service does no reach notability either. MB 15:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MB 15:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MB 15:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a pass of WP:NBASEBALL. Coverage is trivial or local. Has coverage on CBS news and Fox Sports for making a pitch in Major League but these do not constitute a pass of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 17:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC and WP:NBASEBALL. Mztourist (talk) 14:19, 25 June 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. Weight of the policy-based arguments is towards deletion. As a note, Discogs is user-generated content and is considered to be an unreliable source. Hog Farm _Talk 20:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Cooler Ruler" Divine[edit]

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

Not sure quite what to make of this, could be OR, could be even hoax. In any case, the sources cited are non-RS, and a search finds nothing of substance, therefore none of this is verifiable. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NMUSICIAN. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a hoax but a masterpiece of notability leaps. Most of the article's sources are self-created social media, and the rest are about other people. He once produced a group in which one member was related to someone notable; a song he produced was played by a DJ who knew famous people. That stuff is written into the article with glorious importance but it does not confer notability in his own right. He has some production credits under the name Big Dex [15], but he is not currently in "broadcasting" because his current so-called radio show is self-uploaded on YouTube [16]. He's a longtime behind-the-scenes guy, and he can stay that way. This is no place for a glorified autobiography. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The name of this guy also made me thought "this is surely a hoax", but turns out it is not. However, he is unnotable. Also, the article was created by a SPA/COI editor. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The production credits are shown as required in quite a few references. The article provides enough detail of the individual to the point that editors agree that "it's not a hoax". Notability may be little but not missing. The recorded radio shows were aired via Airtime pro for the years of 2016 & 2017 with no visible documentation to represent the broadcasts other than what's on the social media. Then eventually the shows were reduced to only social media. I would only be in favor of removing the article if it could be proven to be untrue which it can not. D. N. Wells (talk) 1:01, 21 June 2021 (EST)
- I appreciate that as the article creator you are in favour of retaining it, but just to clarify, the onus is not on us to disprove the contents; the onus is on you to establish notability, which YouTube videos and Google search results etc. do not do. Please cite reliable, independent, secondary sources showing significant coverage of the subject. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly understandable. However every reference is possibly the best one available on the internet (maybe). Discogs I assumed would be pretty reliable as well as some of the others if you are familiar with them. Every ref can't be found online. For instance, an Ego Trip book recognized Big Dex as a writer on the song Renee by the Lost Boyz. You can't find it on the web. And as far as notability is concerned, Big Dex has platinum and gold plaques which aren't available online to show (other than social media). The credits on the back of the "Legal Drug Money" album (Gold status) shows 7 songs "produced by Big Dex" if you are able to physically pick it up and look at it. He's also the ONLY rapper on that album besides the group. Problem is, many confused him with Mr Sexxx so they put Mr Sexxx's name in place of Big Dex online. Hence, one of the purposes of this article which is to clear this up once and for all. I will however continue to search for more reliable sources and add them to the article. (Also note that I made a correction to one of the references, #8, which may help with notability) -- D. N. Wells(talk) 09:27, 21 June 2021 (EST)
  - At Wikipedia we assume good faith and welcome newcomers, but it is crucial to understand that this is an encyclopedia in which people and things must qualify for inclusion. Therefore notability is a very specific concept here, and a person is notable if they have been covered significantly in reliable sources. Please read through these blue-linked Wikipedia policies. Big Dex/Cooler Ruler indeed has some credits and he is known to some people in his scene, but that does not appear to be enough for our purposes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I must add that I noticed a lot of my refs and citations were somehow different from what I first entered...and some were repeated. I just fixed the ones that I noticed. Hopefully those fixes give the article the credibility it deserves. D. N. Wells(talk) 10:36, 21 June 2021 (EST)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Atanes[edit]

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

To fix a botched nomination by user @Tomaatje12::

article already deleted 6 times on WP: es.
a contributor has been blocked due to sockpuppeting activities

To my opinion, this is selfpromo/orchestrated promo by multiple people The Banner talk 14:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, although there is nothing here that can be qualified as a notable event. D.Lazard (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources were provided in the previous AfD towards an argument for notability. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No delete, I think it has enough notability to remain in Wikipedia. It has enough relevance. --Javiguardameta (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to have been a spam article on the es site which was either simplified or machine-translated into 11 different languages, likely in an attempt to advertise. Fails WP:PROMO, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't fault a sysop for deleting this under A7 or G11, but if an AfD is really needful, then I'd go with clear and obvious delete.—S Marshall T/C 13:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a teenage "activist" who fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:10YT. Geschichte (talk) 20:29, 27 June 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. Ignoring the input of ZuJani--B per WP:COI and WP:TLDR. Sandstein 14:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Anto & Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven Art Prize[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article was written by an editor who is on the Art Prize Committee and is related to Maria Anto. Half of the citations are to this editor's self-published blog. The other half are press releases and trivial mentions by connected (non-independent) art galleries and museums. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like nom and Justlettersandnumbers in the article history, my search does not turn up any reliable, independent sourcing for this award. I don't read Polish, but the French article is also unreliable sourcing, so nothing there from which to expand/improve this. Star Mississippi 14:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability: nothing on JSTOR, nothing on Scholar, no verifiable result on GBooks. Also blatant promotion by an apparently closely-connected editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was created as part of a Polish Wikipedia GLAM initiative (pl:Wikiprojekt:GLAM/Kolektyw Kariatyda), so the COI is at least partially mitigated, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have done a source review and I concur this niche prize is not notable. I've also nominated the corresponding pl wiki article for deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Prize is first independent INTERNATIONAL Art Prize in Poland. Fairly important for art scene. The international Artists were honoured and accepted this Prize. I'm in the Committee, but it wasn't me who created the article in Polish Wiki. Please do not write such information. I was trying to make an English version for the international laureates, as they would like to have it. The award is important and also it's a part of the idea of inclusion and visuality of women artists.--ZuJani--B (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to delete The article was created by Kolektyw Kariatyda - (pl:Wikiprojekt:GLAM/Kolektyw Kariatyda). And for the art scene - the Maria Anto & Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven Art Prize is a new, inclusive way of promoting visual art and make woman artists with a long carrier visible widely. The woman artists has been awarded in 10-12% so the project is about to change this situation, plus the event is well known internationally already, promoted, located in the most important Polish Art Institution: Zachęta National Gallery and MSN / Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw - both involved. And more. The Art Prize is one of the new, independent idea of promoting art. It "is notable" for visual art. Artists, including Phyllida Barlow where present and active on the ceremonies even online. The National Gallery participated in a financial prizes for Polish Artist. Is notable for artist. Still young award but important. As the Art Prize is a new idea - the blog is at the a relevant and simple way of record the pictures and videos of the events, which people ask for. Why to delate from Wiki such a brilliant idea and so important for woman artists? --ZuJani--B (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ZuJani--B, "Why to delate from Wiki such a brilliant idea and so important for woman artists?" Because WP:NOTSOAPBOX and saying WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a good argument. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Panie Piotrusiu, pisanie do mnie po angielsku nie ma sensu. Chcę tylko powiedzieć, że użycie słowa "important" - było skrótem myślowym, wobec równie nietrafionego argumentu "not notable" (?!) użytego przez wikipedystę angielskiego. Nawet trudno mi to skomentować, bo nie wiem, czemu to służy. Polska wersja jest dobrze linkowana i cytowana. Angielska w trakcie uzupełniania i poprawy. W obszarze sztuki ta nagroda jest prestiżowa, honorowa, nadana przez artystki dla artystek i tak jest przez laureatki traktowana, bardzo "ważna" (important), tak została nazwana przez nie właśnie. Ta idea jest pionierska w Polsce, choć oczywiście nie na świecie, bo np. są nagrody i stypendia imiania różnych artystów, choćby międzynarodowe stypendium Pollock-Krasner czy inne nagrody imienia zmarłych wybitnych artystów nadawane przez spadkobierców-fundacje, lub spadkobierców-rodziny. Nie ma w tym nic dziwnego. A że tłumaczenie robi osoba, która się zna i wie o takiej potrzebie - to chyba tylko lepiej? Tak sądzę. Po zapoznaniu się z artykułem w wersji polskiej uznaliśmy, że artykuł jest mocno osadzony w cytatach do portali najważniejszych instytucji sztuki współczesnej w Polsce - Muzeum Sztuki Nowoczesnej, Zachęta Narodowa Galeria Sztuki, uczelni - Akademia Sztuki Szczecinie, Akademia Sztuk Pięknych w Krakowie i Warszawie, a także mediów jak GW, SZUM (specjalistyczny) i szereg innych portali, w tym własną stroną/ blogiem Nagrody, jako źródłem ilustracji i wiedzy szerszej i dokładniejszej niż WIKI. Obecnie trwają pracę nad kolejnym wydawnictwem i dwoma pozycjami książkowymi o Marii Anto, której powrót na scenę sztuki jest bardzo widoczny (łącznie z publikacją obrazu w Le Monde w tym roku, czy planowana wystawa w Londynie i NY w przyszłym), więc jak najbardziej trafiony artykuł i uznaliśmy, że na tyle jest to już znane, iż nastąpiła próba przetłumaczenia na różne języki, choćby z tego powodu. Artykuł oryginalny w WIKI.pl, nie był pisany przez osobę "related", tylko przez niezależną osobę, znawczynie tematu, z wykształcenia historyczkę sztuki, znaną w środowisku, jako specjalistka w problematyce sztuki współczesnej. Natomiast próba przetłumaczenia na angielski i tylko próba [przetłumaczenia, a nie "pisanie artykułu" (jest mało osób znających się na sztuce współczesnej, więc czekamy w nieskończoność na tłumaczenia o nagrodzie międzynarodowej na j. ang.), - rzeczywiście, przez osobę zasiadającą w Kapitule Nagrody i główną Fundatorkę Nagrody Sztuki, pierwszej międzynarodowej, pionierskiej, niezależnej Nagrody Sztuki w Polsce. O ile w projekcie chodziło o stworzenie nagrody przywołującej wybitne artystki, w tym laureatki z USA i Wlk Brytanii, o tyle teraz chodzi o przetłumaczenie na wersję angielską (międzynarodowy dostęp), przecież bez dodatkowych faktów "related" (jestem osobą profesjonalną i nie tylko pracuję w sztuce ponad 30 lat, ale zdaję sobie sprawę, jak zachować profesjonalną neutralność w takich kwestiach), dlatego dokonałam tylko automatycznego przetłumaczenia z korektami linków (niestety automat niszczy tę pracę i trzeba żmudnie od nowa), dla obszaru językowego laureatek z USA i Wlk Brytanii. Rzeczywiście, można było poprosić inne osoby, ale akurat trochę czasu pozwoliło na zajęcie się tym tłumaczeniem. W końcu, jeśli Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus mówi po polsku i angielsku - to proszę - bardzo proszę o pomoc - może warto by pomóc w redakcji i proszę nie stać za usunięciem pionierskiego i historycznego polskiego projektu sztuki współczesnej, o charakterze międzynarodowym i historycznym w kwestii wiedzy o sztuce współczesnej i kulturze polskiej i międzynarodowej. --ZuJani--B (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ZuJani--B, I will reply in English since this is the English Wikipedia and the netiquette (wikiquette) asks that our discussion is easily understood by others. I will direct you to WP:ITSIMPORTANT, and second to WP:Notability. Those are related but not identical concepts. You are likely right that the award is important, but this is not the same as being notable. I was not the person who started this deletion discussion, and so far four voters here are convinced this award lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources to show its notability (this is the requirement of English Wikipedia, Polish tends to be laxer).
  - It is commendable that you attempt to improve Wikipedia coverage related to such topics, but please read Wikipedia:Advocacy (the purpose of Wikipedia is not to right some wrongs). Keeping that in mind, I'd encourage you to focus on bringing to English Wikipedia (and Wikipedia in general) articles about topics such as Maria Anto, an obviously notable artist. She would never be deleted, and I hope that you can see why an article about an established artist is much more notable ("encyclopedic") than about an award that is just three years old. Once again, activism is a great thing, but it is not always compatible with Wikipedia.
  - Lastly, so that your effort is not wasted, I would support a WP:DRAFTIFICATION of this article instead of outright deletion. In few years, this award may become notable, once it attracts more coverage (for example, once some scholars publish peer reviewed papers in which they say it is an important milestone and such). Then the article can be moved back to the mainspace. In other words, this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Woodroar - the original article in Polish Wikipedia was written by a person absolutely not related and I, as a co-Founder of the Art Prize - haven't know it is done, actually. Only was told much later. The English version - in fact started by myself, was my try to make a TRANSLATION of a ready article only. Please do not say "written article by person related". Yes, I must say - I tried for the first time a tool of WIKi to translate - to make a translation just for the laureates - British and American artists and the galeries connected to them, as they suggested - would like to promote and have an more "international language" - as English is. Also I'm a professional artist acting in art scene more then 30 years, also PhD of Fine Art habilitated in Contemporary Art and I really know how to keep a professional neutrality in such matter as the translation in WIKI is. Moreover, I'm a one of 4 children and I'm not a successor of Maria Anto, so this "relation" has no consequences but the prestige of the Art Prize and idea of inclusion of forgotten international woman artists. Please show me any "private" or "related" things added by me in such translation. There are no such. Sure, I'm the private Founder of the Prize, I'm the sponsor of the Foundation Miejsce Sztuki, I"m also fully into the idea of INCLUSION, I'm in Committee of this important project for the international art scene, linking American, Polish, British, German, French, Canadian, Japan and minority as Gypsy as well, art scene, but it's not making any relation to the Art Prize WIKI article, more then knowledgeable in contemporary art and need for having the same as Polish, but an English translation. I'm new at Wikipedia, but more then 30 years in contemporary art. Sorry for my spelling mistakes. Please help us to improve the article in English for the British and American laureates, if you can. Anybody can help to improve French version, would be really helpful for all artists, as well. Merci. Thank you.--ZuJani--B (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Star - Not to delete - but yes I agree that also French version need some improvement as well, as the wiki translation from Polish, which I also tryed is disappointing (sorry!), and I - as a new at Wiki- could't menage with it as well. Anybody can help? I speak French but not good enough right now (forgotten), so would like to collaborate with somebody to fix it. It may be some French language laureate in some future, so we'd need it as well. Thank you. Merci. --ZuJani--B (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Before anyone can help you, there needs to be reliable source coverage of the prize. That does not appear to exist yet. As you said, it's new, so it may just be too soon. Star Mississippi 01:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll do it asap--ZuJani--B (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (June 2021)" -- is not really as it it. Please remove such a confusing and not really fair information, which I assume is supposed to prove to remove the article. This it honestly not correct. Yes, as I said I make some updating and a try to translate from Polish to English for the Laureate. But, please let's treat each other like a human, not a bot or robot. My contribution doesn't ruin a neutrality of the matter of the subject. All mentions about "daughter", etc, and all notes about not professional but private connection, was done NOT by me. I usually avoid it, as my mother and me - we are professional artists, and I being a professional artist have been active 30 years with my mother artist and other members of the family also artist or connected, and we alway keep neutrality (except maybe the article about person-artist, which include "private life"), but not projects like this. So I find it over-reacting on such work I have done to improve the article for others not for me, honestly. I'd rather need some help to keep flow in between culture and art of the countries then cut it and put the language and unimportant details as a hard-border. Am I wrong? Apologies the spelling mistake - I'm going to correct it with time as well.--ZuJani--B (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - With all due respect, we're not treating you like a robot. We're treating you as an artist who is advertising themselves and their award and refusing to comply with our guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media site where you can write anything you want. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines in full before doing anything else. That page explains the reasoning behind our guidelines, the disclosures that you absolutely need to make, and the penalties for not complying—like having your account blocked. Woodroar (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Woodroar thank you for your kind answer. OK I understand that I cannot touch the article in such understanding. Honestly I wouldn't touch it from the beginning if somebody could do it, translate it into English without me. So I'm not doing it anymore, as you speak - I wanted to help, but it seams to be only wrong. Thank you for explaining it to me. --ZuJani--B (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- DO NOT REMOVE Woodroar I went through the conflict of interest guidelines, again and the main aspect" "Typically, a conflict of interest arises when an individual finds himself or herself occupying two social roles simultaneously which generate opposing benefits or loyalties" - is not accurate, because my positiona are not generating "opposing benefits or loyalties" in any aspects, but the same- knowledge about contemporary art. The Art Prize is not "promoting" me, but artist. And making english translation - not "promoting" Art prize but laureates. So even that according your suggestion I cannot touch the article now, but I would like you to understand our position here, when we do as much as possible to make artists visible (including British artist, laureates not known enough in Poland or other countries), that the milieu of contemporary art scene in Poland is so small and facing such difficulties of invisibilité and no-understanding art, that this is just a pro bono work for this matter. --ZuJani--B (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment you get one !vote @ZuJani--B:, just like the rest of us, which you noted up top. We know you do not want the article to be deleted. Please note any follow up, such as the one immediately above as a reply, or comment. Also, I think it may be a question of Polish-English, but please be careful in saying "our position here" as that could imply a role account, which isn't allowed. Star Mississippi 12:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ZuJani--B, that quote leads me to believe that you read our encyclopedia article on conflict of interests, not the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines, so I would make sure to go back and read the guidelines if you haven't. The article does explain a lot about conflicts of interest, but not specifically as they pertain to Wikipedia.
    That being said, what you're doing here is opposing our goal. As editors, we're supposed to summarize what reliable sources say about our subjects. And by "reliable sources", I mean scholarly journals, newspapers, magazines, and so on. It's not about what we as individuals know about. But you're using your own blog and gallery announcements (which are equivalent to press releases) to write about yourself, the award that you help run, and people who you've given the award to. That is absolutely a conflict of interest. And you're still doing it, even while this discussion is happening.
    I understand that your art scene doesn't get much coverage and how frustrating that can be. There's very little coverage of my local art or music scene, either. Much of the music I listen to—even international bands—don't meet our notability requirements so they don't have articles. But that's okay. We're not here to write about everything. We're here to write about subjects that meet a minimum threshold of coverage by reliable sources because (as I stated earlier) we only summarize what those sources say. Woodroar (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. I read both, Woodroar. OK - wrong quote. And of course - I understand. I just would like to tell you Woodroarand Star and all other who are here, that I don't know why and how it happened when translating into English, by wiki-translating-tool (which I only used, I haven't written this article in Polish neither in English. never made any link to the blog, as far as I remember. Except I made some little corrections of data etc. This wasn't me who created it, I told it already), any "reliable sources" from the Polish article disappeared just in this process of translating and links to our info-blog (not by me, I only copied what was already), stayed linked. And now it really may look like a mine work in purpose. But it isn't. Why is like that? I don't know. Sorry. I really don't know, how it works. Why is that? The translation-tool destroy it itself. I know that some magasine, newspaper and catalogue in Polish included it - so it may be a sources, but I'm not following it. I don't know what kind of links and citations was used by Polish creator of the article. Now I have to carefully look at it and find it and add, but again as you said -- I cannot do it, because I'm to close to it. So it's a trap. Sorry. Please do not blame me that I'm trying to do something against criteria, but I was trying to share a right knowledge. I appreciate your time and explanation and I'd love to make this article to be Ok to stay for our English speaking laureates, because this is International Art Prize. Anyways, to make it short - I'll try and ask, maybe somebody can found the sources and do something. Please also try to see closer and analyse the differences between the British and Polish art situation. I was living in London several times and there are more differences between art scene then you see it at first (just to say that we have 20 good galeries in Warsaw, you have 2000 in London, we act 30 year, you maybe 130 in art market, and we have almost no support from the officials, especially last years, so we act "out the box", independently as much as possible) -- so I can see now, Polish wiki is much less restricted then English is - maybe also because you have a wide problem of globalisation of the language and meet many strange articles in English. We are a "small language society" in term of our language, and here most of it is quickly and easily verifiable. On the other side - this Polish language is also like an invisible language-curtain, which make think invisible widely. But somehow "Le Monde" published painting of Maria Anto lately. Maybe the wiki (even En) works? --ZuJani--B (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - to be more accurate, I think that this part should be read and interpreted more openly in such case....

Citing yourself Shortcut WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.

Cultural sector "WP:CURATOR" redirects here. For the tool used by Wikipedia:New pages patrol, see Wikipedia:Page Curation. Further information: Wikipedia:GLAM, Wikipedia:Advice for the cultural sector, and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Cultural Professionals Shortcut WP:CURATOR Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources. If a link cannot be used as a reliable source, it may be placed under further reading or external links if it complies with the external links guideline. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. maybe we can also add: translation? Have a good day --ZuJani--B (talk) 14:26, 28 June 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Photography[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMAG. I'm not great at doing WP:BEFORE for certain kinds of subjects, including foreign magazines, but my searches didn't turn up much. Nonetheless, I leave it to editors who are more proficient than I. Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BEFORE fails to turn up anything to pass WP:NMAG. In light of new references I am abstaining from voting, as I don't feel I have the necessary subject matter expertise. nearlyevil 665 14:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is a long-running major and influential photography journal.[17]

https://www.worldcat.org/title/european-photography/oclc/873969571&referer=brief_results shows European Photography held in major public libraries and university libraries.

See the article on German WP. Its contributors of high standing include:

Hans-Michael Koetzle (b.1953) editor of Leica World magazine from 1996 to 2007, is contributor to European Photography, as well as Fotogeschichte and Photo International. He curated dozens of exhibitions world-wide and is the author of several books on photography.
Dorrell Merritt, UK based author/artist also contributor to Photomonitor Berlin Art Link, Paper Journal, Twin Magazine, BKN Magazine, Dazed Digital
Moritz Neumüller, author of The Routledge Companion to Photography and Visual Culture, curator, educator and writer in the field of Photography and New Media who has worked for institutions such as MoMA New York, La Fábrica Madrid and PhotoIreland Festival in Dublin. He is the academic director of the Photography Department of IED Madrid, and runs a postgraduate course for the IDEP school in Barcelona. He is a regular contributor to European Photography Magazine (Berlin) and Photoresearcher (Vienna)
Daniel Boetker-Smith, educator, writer, curator, publisher, and photographer based in Melbourne, Australia, dean of Studies at the Photography Studies College in Melbourne, lecturer (15 years) at the University of Chester; University of Gloucestershire, University of New South Wales, University of Melbourne, Kings College London, London College of Communication, National Art School, Deakin University, La Trobe University, University of Cambridge, and Coventry University, United Kingdom. Boetker-Smith is a regular contributor to the British Journal of Photography, GUP Magazine, European Photography, Voices of Photography, Vault, Photoeye, Paper Journal, Heavy, Source, and other Australian and international publications.
A. D. Coleman, who has published 8 books and more than 2000 essays on photography and related subjects. Formerly a columnist for the Village Voice, the New York Times, and the New York Observer, Coleman has contributed to such periodicals as ARTnews, Art On Paper, and Technology Review. His syndicated essays on mass media, new communication technologies, art, and photography have been featured in such periodicals as Juliet Art Magazine (Italy),European Photography (Germany), and Art Today (China). His work has been translated into 21 languages and published in 30 countries.
Vilém Flusser
Jean-Claude Lemagny, Boris Groys, Hubertus von Amelunxen

I have chased up mentions of European Photography magazine in Wikipedia and have added links there...please check "What links here". I'll add further book references to the magazine as I get time. Should you need more evidence of notability it is widely available and should you need help with that, please ask before deleting this entry on a significant, respected academic journal; I have no conflict of interest and no assocation whatsoever with the journal other than as a reader. Thank you. Jamesmcardle^(talk) 04:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition please see further changes European Photography#Academic resource that address Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)#Criteria.Jamesmcardle^(talk) 12:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is adequately referenced for inclusion.--Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now very well-referenced, a good save. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good nom, excellent rescue job. DBaK (talk) 07:39, 24 June 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 13:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main St - Hamner Ave - Milliken Ave[edit]

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

I tagged this with notability concerns when reviewing instead of deleting, but the tag was removed quickly. This was just accepted at AfC, but I'm not sure why - the sourcing's nowhere near good enough in order for it to pass WP:GNG. Taking to AfD in order to resolve any conflicts. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It really is rather depressing when a page is put up for deletion so fast without the nominator reading the talk page, where I noted the lack of referencing and WP:Gazetteer as the acceptance rationale. I make a practice of being steadfastly neutral when AFC acceptance of mine is sent AFD, and I see no reason to break with that practice. It will be kept or deleted at the community's will Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOROAD makes clear we're not a gazetteer for roads, which require GNG to be met. I don't see that being the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the community will decide. It's always amusing where two things collide like that. I think AfD is the best place to solve it. I shall remain neutral and watch with interest Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant see anything more than this road goes from A to B so doesnt really provide any encyclopedia value. If the related South Main Street Palms Historic District is actually of note that you would expect that to have an article of its own. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By lumping together three non-notable roads like that, the creating editor has virtually guaranteed that notability cannot be established — what source is ever likely to discuss these as a single concept? (Not to mention the a horrible article name this creates!) Fails GNG and NGEO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing to suggest that the road itself is notable. Any historic significance applies to, well, the historic district as a whole, and the source provided does not indicate that this particular street (or set of streets) is independently notable. The other sources appear to be routine coverage of roadway/bridge rehabilitation, and the existence of a mall along a street does not make the street notable. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:30, 24 June 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) 21:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhari Kumbharam Arya[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article. Fails WP:SIGCOV 4meter4 (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The following link (https://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/lsdeb/ls10/ses15/p2711_2.htm) shows that 'Kumbha Ram Arya' was a Member of Parliament and is a pass of WP:POLITICIAN: ....politicians ((are notable if they have been)) members of legislative bodies at those national levels. It might be worth double-checking the spelling of the name as they appear to be different in the source and on the page. Also article needs additional verification for bold statements like 'most popular leader of farmers'. nearlyevil 665 14:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: Article is not unsourced, it has a link to parliamentofindia which indicates he was an MP and MLA from Rajasthan hence passes WP:NPOL.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was a member of the Lok Sabha, therefore meets WP:NPOL RationalPuff (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per finding of others above. WP:NPOL can definitely be confusing for new folks since it sorts of overrides WP:GNG and one would start to wonder how this is possible! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a very good question. I think at some point we will realize this was a poor decision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are reliable and the article is notable too.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? There is only a single source, and it is a primary source. Additionally, the name of the subject is spelled differently in that source. Did you even look at the article or read the above comments before voting? 4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seethamma Bandalu Sirimallige Thottu[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it lacks coverage from reliable sources. The sources from Apple and Gaana appear to be self-added to the sites. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. It is a WP:2S which is not passing GNG or NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zillur Rahman John[edit]

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

I don't think the subject passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, with only 3 references that aren't specifically about the subject. The article also reads like a resume and advertisement. enjoyer -- talk 01:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. enjoyer -- talk 01:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. enjoyer -- talk 01:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. Looks like promotional article to me. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks promotional. Nexus000 (talk) 10:01, 22 June 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 JJ Redick. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Man and the Three[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted via CSD G11. About two weeks later, It was recreated by the original author. Although the new version of the article appears to be slightly less promotional, I'm still not seeing the notability. Virtually no sourcing outside of the 3 already in the article. Source 1 is just their website, the NYT source seems fine, but the WSJ source (which is behind a paywall for anyone who wants to read it) seems to talk more about another NBA player's podcast that is hosted by their company than this particular podcast. Fails WP:WEB. 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There have been two New Yorker stories about his podcasting--I don't remember how detailed the Hua Hsu one was, as I read it months ago, but the 2017 story about Redick's first podcast is accessible via Google search. Caro7200 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know about straight-up deletion here, it seems like this should definitely be worth a redirect to JJ Redick, at the very least. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think a redirect would probably be more useful.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JJ Redick, its host. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. Coverage is pretty much limited to trivial mentions of the podcast.—Bagumba (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm able to cite more sources if that's what is needed. I'm just curious as to why this Wiki page of another podcast is okay as it sounds the same (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armchair_Expert) Mattucla (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2021 (PST)
@Mattucla: Take a look at WP:GNG to see what is expected to establish notability. If you can identify sources that demonstrate that GNG is met, you can list them here or use it to directly expand the article.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with JJ Redick. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay give me a day to come up with the articles but I'll also add a subsection about this in JJ Redick's Wiki page Mattucla (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2021 (PST)
Redirect to JJ Redick. It deserves a mention in the article but hardly a significant part of his bio. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix: The Killer Years[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 00:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: weakly ;) Could not find much independent coverage. Kolma8 (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above (no not re-listed, above that). No significant coverage or anything to deem this as notable, and I could not find anything myself while researching. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All the sources I can find are tv listings, non-reliable (ie user generated) databases, and online shops for the associated book. A7V2 (talk) 03:24, 23 June 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 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Millet red leaf virus[edit]

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

This virus seems to have very little notability because it has never been classified as a species by the ICTV and searching for it on PubMed, PMC, and GenBank returns zero results. Velayinosu (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is an archived link to ICTV in the external links section, where it is listed as a species. Surely this must be a synonym of something? Plantdrew (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beet yellow net virus. Velayinosu (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with OP, this virus has no recognition outside of an extremely sparse entry at https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/35107 (a UK nonprofit specializing in agriculture). I think it's relatively evident that we don't need a unique wiki article for every single obscure virus, and this is an example of that. Re: whether it is a different name for a notable virus, I cannot find any evidence of that. It is possible, although all other viruses in Luteoviridae infect other plants, so as a virologist (who admittedly has very little experience with plant viruses) I find it unlikely. The viruses in this and similar genera tend to be pretty specialized to the plants they infect. Honestly, there's probably a unique species of virus for basically all grain host species. But that doesn't mean we need a different article for every single one. They'd all be stubs.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:19, 21 June 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. czar 06:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevan Drive[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources. Fails WP:V. NMW03 (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also may delete under G11 criteria. Creator of this article was blocked for spam. H/She is adding link to different product of same company.--NMW03 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My searching also came up mostly empty for reliable sources. --MuZemike 18:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - withdrawn by nominator, so happy to close even tho' I voted. (non-admin closure) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Heffernan (Irish businesswomen)[edit]

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

The actual notability is her brother's--she became material for news coverage in connection with him, for taking over the family business after his wide range of unsavory activities (I can't say criminal, for he was apparently never convicted) DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by the sources cited in the article, let alone by the considerable track record of sustained coverage unearthed by the Big G... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is well established. She was the CEO of one of the largest and most recognisably Irish retail businesses for 23 years, and that's before we talk about her awards for philanthropy. To say she is only talked about in relation to her errant brother feels disingenuous. Smirkybec (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the most notable business figures in Ireland over several decades, first behind the scenes, then up-front; I’d say easily passes GNG. But the Dunnes kept a low profile, so perhaps the article requires some tuning but prima facie a solid case. Ben Dunne’s messy moments were trigger for higher visibility but a bit of a sideshow. SeoR (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just saw that article only created yesterday, shocking that it was previously missing. With respect, I suggest the AfD is a bit premature then. (13:42, 20 June 2021)

Keep - As the article creator, I'm obviously biased. I think this AfD is premature, sure the article needs more work but rushing to AfD is not the answer. I strongly disagree that Margaret Heffernan is only notable through her brothers actions; this is both wrong and sexist. She was the CEO of one of the largest supermarket chains in Ireland for many years, and her actions on the discovery of her brothers shenanignas led in part to the setting of the McCracken Tribunal and the Moriarty Tribunal, very important events in recent Irish politics. Spleodrach (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC, including due to the sources in the article and Heffernan personifies the combative corporate culture of Dunnes (The Irish Times, 2015). Beccaynr (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not see the consistence of an argument that "- one of the most notable business figures in Ireland" and " Dunnes kept a low profile". DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, they are notable despite their best efforts at keeping a low profile. There is extensive coverage of the subject, but it is from journalists and others writing without encouragement. More references can be added to make the point clearer, but would you not agree that the article has already a good mix of references, and that the head of one of a country's 2-3 main retail chains, and a prominent female business leader from before that was common, is a valid topic? SeoR (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bunch of sources in the Irish Times alone. Also WP:HEY thanks to SeoR's expansion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw OK, I'm withdrawingthis. DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 21 June 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. With the sources indicated in this discussion, it is encouraged that the sourcing in the article should be improved if ever. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shein (company)[edit]

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

Advertisement of a non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 08:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A paywalled Financial Times article ("Shein leaves Boohoo and Zara on fast fashion's shelf") appears to have potential towards demonstrating notability if anyone with access can confirm? AllyD (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rai, Saritha; Chan, Vinicy; Cao, Dong; Fioretti, Julia; Hipwell, Deirde; Townsend, Matthew; Chen, Lulu Yilun; Horta E Costa, Sofia (2021-06-14). "How Trump's Trade War Built Shein, China's First Global Fashion Giant". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes: "On May 17, Shein — pronounced “she-in” — ended Amazon’s 152-day streak as the most downloaded shopping app in the U.S., a remarkable feat for any seven-year-old clothing brand, let alone one most Americans over 30 still haven’t heard of. The kids, though, are all over it. As with so many online phenomena, Gen Z and young millennial shoppers have propelled Shein’s rise, in thrall to the company’s never-ending, always-changing catalog of clothes at prices that stretch even the most meager allowance."
2. Fressynet, Ines (2011-06-04). "Welcome to the dark side: Why Shein might be the biggest rip-off since fast fashion was born". Euronews. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes, "Overall, Shein (previously She Inside) is a complete mystery. No phone number, no email and certainly no press contact was to be found online. Even the name of its founder remains a total enigma, as El Mundo reports." The article further notes: "Besides the seemingly low quality and virgin oil-based textiles used - everything is made with polyester, nylon and other synthetic fabrics - the main question is, who is making Shein clothing and how much are they paid? ... The fact that the Chinese brand also copies independent designers is also allegedly public knowledge, Jezebel reports."
3. Shen, Xinmei (2020-07-01). "Chinese fast fashion shopping app Shein is loved by Gen Z but banned in India". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes: "Shein (pronounced she-in) doesn’t target its home country, China, and it doesn’t sell well there. Instead, the fast fashion online retailer primarily targets overseas markets, helping it pull in billions of dollars in sales last year."
4. Lee, Dave (2021-06-14). "Chinese ecommerce site Shein hit with trademark disputes". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes: "Popular Chinese ecommerce platform Shein, whose big data-driven designs have propelled it to the top of app download charts, is facing complaints from apparel brands that claim it has infringed their intellectual property. ... In May of this year, according to data from AppAnnie, the company reached the top of the app download charts for shopping on both Apple and Google’s stores, while it was valued at $15bn in its most recent known funding round in August 2020, according to data from PitchBook. ... Shein’s popularity stems from its use of data analytics to quickly turn emerging fashion trends into extremely cheap products, sometimes in just a matter of days — a feat that has drawn concern over labour standards, though the company insists it keeps a close watch on its suppliers."
5. Cardinale, Juliette (2019-09-03). "Shein S'Installe Trois Jours À Paris" [Shein sets up three days in Paris]. Paulette (in French). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
6. Darnige, Charlotte (2019-08-27). "La marque Shein ouvre un pop-up store !" [The Shein brand opens a pop-up store!]. Cosmopolitan (in French). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
7. Rosa del Pino, Andrea M. (2019-10-08). "El misterio detrás del millonario fundador de SheIn, el gigante de la ropa 'low cost' en Internet" [The mystery behind the millionaire founder of SheIn, the giant of 'low cost' clothing on the Internet]. El Mundo (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
8. Brooks, Ryan (2021-05-22). "Online Store Shein Apologized For Selling A Phone Case Depicting A Handcuffed Black Person Outlined In Chalk". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
9. Dahir, Ikran (2020-07-09). "Online Retailer Shein Was Selling A "Metal Swastika Pendant" Necklace Until People Noticed". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
10. Dahir, Ikran (2020-07-06). "The Clothing Company Shein Has Apologized For Selling Muslim Prayer Mats As Decorative Rugs After A Post Went Viral". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
11. Dahir, Ikran (2020-07-10). "Online Retailer Shein Apologized Twice This Week. Now It's Being Called Out Again For Selling A Necklace That Says "Allah."". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shein to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not view the Wikipedia article to be be an advertisement. The Wikipedia article discusses how Shein "was sued by Levi Strauss & Co. for copying a trademarked jean stitching". The article further notes, "In June 2020, it was banned in India citing privacy concerns. In July 2020, a necklace with a swastika was pulled from sale (the brand clarified that it was a Buddhist swastika, not a Nazi swastika)."
This is negative coverage about Shein.
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Devonian Wombat (talk · contribs), who moved this article to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I concur with Cunard, this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH as evidenced by the negative coverage cited in the article, as well as the coverage cited above. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above Coldbolt (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is enough balance, as per Cunard, to show it's not an advertisement. Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Additional sources:

Che, Chang (2021-06-09). "A look inside Shein, the $45 billion retail enigma upending the global fashion industry". SupChina. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
"'I have to speak up': Designer claims Shein, WeWoreWhat stole her design in viral TikTok". The Daily Dot. 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-06-20.

Jumpytoo Talk 23:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company clearly passes WP:CORPDEPTH. It tends to keep a low profile, but it overtook Amazon as the most installed shopping app back in May 2021 in the US. Here are some additional significant coverage in reliable sources:

Liao, Rita (2021-05-18). "Shein overtakes Amazon as the most installed shopping app in US". TechCrunch. Retrieved 27 June 2021.
Faithfull, Mark (2021-02-10). "Shein: Is China's Mysterious $15 Billion Fast Fashion Retailer Ready For Stores?". Forbes. Retrieved 27 June 2021.
Faithfull, Mark (2021-06-04). "Fast Fashion Retailer Shein Denies Rumors Of IPO Amid Surging Market". Forbes. Retrieved 27 June 2021.
McCormick, Packy; Matthew, Brennan. "Shein: The TikTok of Ecommerce". www.notboring.co. Retrieved 27 June 2021.

Big Wang (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ApowerMirror[edit]

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

Promotion of an application created by a non notable company. References do not pass WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find sufficient coverage about ApowerMirror to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see this discussion on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 16:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the illuminating discussion on Bbb23's talk page. Probably could have been PRODed. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donye Ayodele[edit]

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

BLP for businessman does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage consists of interviews and puff-pieces. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's very little indeed out there and what there is, is promotional cruft. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Subject does not pass the WP:GNG. These interviews [18] [19] were published on the same day suggesting a PR push. Princess of Ara_(talk) 08:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator was evading a block (WP:CSK#4), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) --Blablubbs|talk 11:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Agrasen Mahavidyalaya[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator was evading a block (WP:CSK#4), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) --Blablubbs|talk 11:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S.B.S. Government College, Hili[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator was evading a block (WP:CSK#4), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) --Blablubbs|talk 11:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raiganj Surendranath Mahavidyalaya[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator was evading a block (WP:CSK#4), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) --Blablubbs|talk 11:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniyal Murmu Memorial College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator was evading a block (WP:CSK#4), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) --Blablubbs|talk 11:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kushmandi Government College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumarganj College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliyaganj College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamini Majumdar Memorial College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gangarampur B.Ed College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Meghnad Saha College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dewan Abdul Goni College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buniadpur Mahavidyalaya[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raiganj University[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a legitimate institution, and as noted in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES higher education institutions are almost always notable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's School, Raiganj[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islampur College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raiganj Coronation High School[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malda Women's College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malda C C Girls High School[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malda Railway High School[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lalit Mohan Shyam Mohini High School[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gour Mahavidyalaya[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samsi College[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akrumoni Coronation Institution[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sattari High School[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchal College[edit]

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

Not a notable college. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakuahat Degree College[edit]

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

Not a notable college. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Malda College[edit]

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

Not a notable college. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 20 June 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 MC Ceja#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Todo Ha Cambiado[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. KidAd • SPEAK 05:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 06:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MC Ceja#Discography - Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, no charting, certifications, or accolades. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dakshin Dinajpur[edit]

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

Not a notable School. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Markaz Law College[edit]

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

Not a notable college. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Trap133, can you provide your WP:BEFORE evaluation of the two sources that I have added, and also the other available coverage such as this (TNN 2018) and also this related item from 2016? AllyD (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balurghat High School[edit]

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

Not a notable School. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balurghat College[edit]

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

Not a notable college. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 06:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Vermilion County, Illinois elections[edit]

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

County-level elections are generally not notable (this county is only medium-sized with ~80,000 people), and this one does not seem to be an exception. Looks to fail the WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE criteria at WP:NEVENT. Has been tagged for notability since 2013. Hog Farm _Talk 05:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, routine event without evidence of a unique WP:LASTING impact. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no broad or lasting coverage sufficient to meet NEVENT. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 June 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 Augie March#Formation and early EPs (1996–1999). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Memes[edit]

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

Non-notable album. It does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM and the coverage of the album within the provided sources is trivial, and a search for non-trivial sources reveal nothing, although any such search is greatly complicated by the album name.

The band itself appears to be notable, given their coverage within said sources, but notability is not inherited. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Augie_March#Formation_and_early_EPs_(1996–1999). As per nom, notability is not inherited. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Augie March. The band found success later but this early EP was unnoticed by the press at the time and it is now only mentioned as a minor item from the band's ancient history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Right Hand, West Virginia[edit]

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

This one-liner gem with no inline citations is not looking like a notable place. This at least supports that there was a Big Right Hand in Fayette County in 1911, but it's just a trivial appearance in a table, and I wouldn't say that that demonstrates notability at all. There's a Big Right Hand Creek which is probably the same thing as Big Right Hand Fork, but the only things I can find to a human thing is that Big Right Hand was a rail stop between Deep Water, West Virginia and Robson, West Virginia in the early 1900s. This doesn't seem to be notable at all, and is barely verifiable at that. Hog Farm _Talk 05:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks sources supporting that it meets WP:GEOLAND. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babcock, West Virginia[edit]

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

This one was essentially impossible to search for. Topographic maps show three or four houses in a clearing in the woods north of the Meadow River and a rail line. However, Babcock State Park is in the same county as this, making any searching for this seemingly obscure location. It's not obviously related to the park, as this is located well to the northeast of the state park. Searching brings up a Babcock Coal & Coke Co. out of Pittsburgh that owned some land on a peak known as Buster's Knob in Fayette County, but as Buster's Knob is not particularly close to this supposed location, it also isn't obviously related. As it seems to be almost impossible to describe what this site is, I'm not sure that it's notable. Hog Farm _Talk 05:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete I'm not sure why the GNIS location is up against the tracks, because the topo label is quite clearly for the group of houses up the hillside. That said, the spot that is marked is a rail junction, and conversely the set of houses, which are still there, look like, well, four random houses. I'm inclined to agree that if we can't find a source that make some attempt at describing this, it ought to be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Kaushik[edit]

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

A minor actor who doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. A search finds a number of fan sites and celebrity blog mentions, none of which are reliable. She is mentioned a couple of time in The Times of India [20] and [21], but both are articles about her co-star Kanwar Dhillon in which she gets a passing mention only Laplorfill (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Curbon7 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 06:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 06:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 07:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of meeting WP:NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:A non notable actress. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious non-notable actress. Ravensfire (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON RationalPuff (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per all of above. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:41, 23 June 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 Dospey Heights. The nomination contends that GEOLAND is not met because no "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". The "keep" opinions therefore would have had to rebut that argument by referencing such information, but they have not done so. Content can be merged from the history as appropriate. Sandstein 17:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start Hill (Antarctica)[edit]

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

While this does meet WP:GEOLAND #4 as a named geographical feature, no information beyond statistics and coordinates are known to exist. The summit is already mentioned in its parent feature Dospey Heights, and so deletion rather than merger appears to be the better option. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it meets WP:GEOLAND #4 as a named geographical feature, I'm not seeing the rationale for deletion. W C M_email 07:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because there is not information beyond name and location, this does not in fact meet Geoland4. Honestly this could be a speedy redirect to Dospey Heights as part of that place. Reywas92^Talk 08:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND presents a low bar and Start Hill, as demonstrably a named geographic feature, passes it. Also there are academic papers that reference it as well as other sources - including books - WP:BEFORE! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that publication, I believe there are two issues with using it to justify this article. First, its Start Hill Formation extends beyond Start Hill, including "much of Rugged Island". Second, there is little discussion on the formation, with the authors "prefer[ing] to define a type area covering northern Ray Promontory" BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dospey Heights. I habitually upmerge minor Antarctic features to parent features, as they almost always fail GEOLAND on the basis of just being name entries in gazetteers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locked in a Garage Band[edit]

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

Film doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, with a search revealing no independent, reliable and non-trivial coverage.

The provided sources are all trivial with the exception of the "Views from the Edge" source. However, checking the source on the wayback machine [22] reveals it to be a blog, and thus not reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage from a hundred unreliable/questionable sources do not make a subject notable. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search for coverage and wasn't able to find anything other than a very light smattering of local news. Even then, the coverage was very light and more so in passing. It's not enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzle (musician)[edit]

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

Possible covert upe on a non notable musician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a WP:GNG fail also. A before search links me to user generated sources and self published sources. Celestina007 (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A search for sources reveals nothing, and I suspect that this is self-created or created by someone connected to the individual; the listed source of the provided photograph is "own work", and the submitter of the image is User:McDollars GH, who is also the author the page. BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized the last section of my response is what the initiator was referring to with WP:UPE; providing the link in case there are others who also don't know what it refers to. BilledMammal (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "has some singles out there which keeps blowing the mind of his fans" indeed. Fails WP:GNG passes WP:UPE. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've seen this hundreds of times from the Ghana and Nigeria promotional machines for beginners who just got signed. Promoters plaster the regional media with PR announcements, then try to use those as "reliable" media coverage to support a Wikipedia article that is just part of the same promo blitz. Watch for the ungrammatical "upcoming" in these woefully predictable efforts. Good luck to the kid as he gets started. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are not reliable, subject is not notable, and the article uses peacocking. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fully agree with Doomsdayer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "upcoming hip hop artist" who dismally fails WP: NMUSIC. -Xclusivzik (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article about non notable subject. Bungstnk (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources in the article. I couldn't find any (reliable) sources for him. Maybe some day he'll be notable, but definitely not now. ExRat (talk) 04:53, 26 June 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. Not enough structure to be worth draftifying. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Nepalese provincial elections[edit]

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

Nothing is certain to take place per schedule in Nepalese politics. And we don't have anything to say about this topic yet. Simply too soon. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NEVENT#Future events. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON applies. Nothing is known and no sources are available. Clog Wolf _Howl 12:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Nom. nirmal (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Xclusivzik (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanyu Robinah Mweruka[edit]

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

News presenter does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is WP:ROUTINE for a news anchor or relating to a gutter-worthy story about fake sex tape blackmailing (WP:BLP1E). MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wide coverage in Ugandan media, which meets the general notability guideline in my opinion, as shown by the references already in the article. Most of it relates to the sex tape scandal, but a lot of it also to her role as a prominent news anchor. Side-note: I feel like there is a bit of a gap in the notability guidelines with respect to news anchors. They're not actors, but the job and public profile is closely analogous to WP:NACTOR no. 1 ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."). Furius (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequately referenced. Fsmatovu (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Furius, Ugandan media covers her.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:56, 27 June 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. Highly convincing Allmusic source. Geschichte (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dimelo Flow[edit]

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

Not notable FMSky (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he does have a lengthy staff written AllMusic bio here which claims his involvement in chart topping hits. Haven't done a full source search yet so only a weak keep for now, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, leaning more towards keeping than deleting, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 05:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Dostál[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:GNG no independent sources .both [23] [24] citations are from from the university site . Ratnahastin^talk 07:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete independent sources are not the problem here, see WP:NPROF and his GS which is independent enough. However, the issue is that he likely fails WP:NPROF with an h-index of 16 and 700 citations. Unless geography is a really low citation field, which it does not seem to be, then he would fail WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 21:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re saying that independent sources are not the problem, you are actually saying he is meeting GNG. (?) SportsOlympic (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportsOlympic No, I am saying that since WP:NPROF applies, we do not require independent sources for the article. However, the person has to pass WP:NPROF first, I believe he is somewhat borderline. --hroest 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, per Hannes Röst, Geography, being one of the fundamental fields, have low citations in general, in comparison to technology related fields. Chirota (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would agree it is low, but not that low. Looking at some of the people in the field it seems that 700 is a low number of citations. --hroest 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets wikipedia:NACADEMIC. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with hroest that citations are a bit short for WP:NPROF -- it's a low citation field, but we still need _something_. I believe that the subject is in a "book" field, and so might meet WP:NAUTHOR. Language issues might make finding the reviews that are generally needed for WP:NAUTHOR a bit tricky. I didn't see much helpful in the Czech wikipedia article on the subject. The existing stub is minimal enough that a soft delete could be a reasonable outcome here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against recreation if reviews or similar can be found. There's nothing showing notability at this time; meanwhile, not much is lost by removing a 1 sentence stub. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"There's nothing showing notability at this time" --> that is not a valid reason for deletion if the person does meet notability. "not much is lost by removing a 1 sentence stub" --> it's a bit more than that, If the article is deleted this way by stating he was not notable, it also states the article should not be created again. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm suggesting a soft delete, as per an expired prod or AfD with minimal participation. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPROF.4meter4 (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 15:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:NACADEMIC #5. Professor of Social Geography at the Charles University according to his article on Czech Wikipedia, which is much more comprehensive. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. Such as most European countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Necrothesp, I believe Dostál’s distinguished position at Charles University meets notability requirements. Thriley (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion. However, as there is not consensus to keep, either, this article will be subject to renomination after a suitable period of time if it is not further improved with sources indicating the non-routine nature of the company's work. BD2412 T 05:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gülermak[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". The creator, User:Jpbowen, expanded this with more references, but sadly, the added references still seem to be problematic - they are from very niche websites and worse, read like press-releases and their rewrites (ref [25] is obviously written by the company itself ("What we do", etc.). I am afraid I still don't see what makes this company notable - it exists, it does business, and it has generated WP:ROUTINE coverage in form of press-releases and their reprints/rewrites. PS. A minor red flag: no article on Turkish Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is a well-established company founded in 1958 (63 years ago) that undertakes major construction projects internationally. There are multiple independent references to Gülermak in news articles (3,200 according to Google News), including with "Gülermak" in the title. The company is based in Turkey, where there is increasing press censorship and even Wikipedia has been blocked. Expecting the same level of press coverage compared to a western company is problematic and could even be construed as a form of censorship. WP:ROUTINE seems to apply to events rather than companies. Overall in the circumstances, I believe there are sufficient WP:ORGIND and WP:MULTSOURCES, including some in publications with their own Wikipedia entries, to warrant inclusion. A modicum of WP:COMMONSENSE would be good for a company that has been in existence for 63 years undertaking major construction projects around the world, including quite a few already on Wikipedia. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS aside, have you found any good references? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Let me reply in this case. The company has been mentioned several times on academic papers due to their works on excavation and tunnelling, and the company also became subject on several news due to their constructions and accidents (for example, this news is about Marşandiz train collision, and this says about employee salaries that didn't paid on a worksite operated by the company), but to be honest, I couldn't find a detailed coverage about the company (like, when this company founded, what did they do, etc.), other than their website (which is WP:PRIMARY indeed). After evaluating quality of search results - instead of quantity, I say probably keep, as the company is notable enough to get constant mentions on news and various academic papers.

As a footnote, there's enough amount of articles on Turkish and English Wikipedia which didn't translated to another language, and therefore I would consider it as a "yellow warning flag" instead of a red flag. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmetlii: Thank you. The issue is whether the sources pas WP:SIGCOV. You mention academic papers, but my review of those shows nothing beyond mentions in passing. Thank you for linking the two newspaper articles. The first one is very short and appears to be a rehash of a press release "...according to Gülermak,... the project on Gülermak's official website" and anyway it doesn't seem to be clearly about the company, but about some accident that involved something constructed by the company. The second concerns a controversy that involves the company, but also another company Çelikler İnşaat and the Ministry. If those are the best sources we have, I am afraid that's not enough for WP:NORG to be met, but I'd be happy to review additional sources found. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have included references to articles specifically on Gülermak and its projects from multiple sources in the article. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A large and respectable construction company responsible for many major contracts such as the Golden Horn Metro Bridge. Applicable policies include: WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST and WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication this company has done anything except engage in routine business. Few passing mentions in Turkish media should not be enough for them to have a page on Wikipedia. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Gülermak is covered in many articles in media internationally. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Gülermak has been involved in constructing more than 175 km of underground tunnels and 80 underground stations, which I believe is not routine. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jpbowen, Isn't it? Seems like stuff that constructions companies do. Tunnels, roads, buildings, bridges, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For clarification, I meant the numbers are not routine above. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jpbowen, I am afraid I still don't follow. What numbers? And what is your metric for judging whether they are routine or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gülermak's major works are typically large pieces of infrastructure which, by their nature, are unique designs which are run as a distinct project. This is the opposite of "routine". In any case, whether they are routine or not is irrelevant because WP:MILL is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a valid reason to delete anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reasoning of Andrew convinces me. Just the linked construction projects illustrate the international notability of this company (cf. Pune Metro, Expressway S2 (Poland), Route 2020 (Dubai Metro)). Best, --ThT (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We require references that discuss the company in detail and which also provides opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Being associated with projects doesn't automatically denote notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There are peer-reviewed publications on the company's activities, especially in tunnelling. There are also news reports on aspects such as salaries. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While the company has been involved in major construction projects, most of the sources only mention the company, and are not in detail as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added some further references, academic and Turkish news. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There are now 32 references in this article, a little overkill. Can you post links here to the best WP:THREE references because from what I can see, you've simply added yet more references that rely on announcements, I can't see anything that meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here are two news items on the company in Turkish newspapers and a peer-reviewed journal paper on the company's activities: 1. "Sinyalizasyona iki kez erteleme". BirGün (in Turkish). 15 December 2018. 2. "Sabiha Gökçen Havalimanı metro şantiyesinde işçilerin maaşı 2 aydır ödenmiyor!". İleri Haber (in Turkish). 28 January 2021. 3. Home, Lok (August 2016). "Hard rock TBM tunneling in challenging ground: Developments and lessons learned from the field". Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 57. Elsevier: 27–32. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.008. I don't believe that these rely on announcements. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neither of the news article provides in-depth information *on the company*, the merely mention the company in passing. Neither even has a brief description of profile of the company. The first article reports problems with train signalling and says nothing about the company other that mentions in the name in relation to a Partnership and a project. Fails CORPDEPTH. The second article discusses another project and complaints that the workers had not been salaries for a period of time. It mentions the company but there's not even a general description and the article does not provide in-depth information on the company and also fails CORPDEPTH. Finally, the paper is a technically detailed paper discussing the challenges faced by creating tunnels through various substances and in particular discusses the Kargi Kizilirmak Hydroelectric Project in central Turkey where a tunnel was driven through a mountain range. There is no discussion of the topic company whatsoever, also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. But I would ask the question, should we be deleting the 124th international contractor in the world, according to Engineering News-Record (ENR) in 2020 (see "The Top 250" (PDF). Engineering News-Record. No. 4. August 17, 2020. pp. 33–52.) at this stage of the article's life (started on 27 May 2021, just one month ago)? I suspect there is more suitable material in Turkish and not online that is difficult to access for a company like this that is based in Turkey. WP:PRESERVE would seem more appropriate at this stage rather than deletion before the article has had a chance to develop with editors who have more Turkish expertise, rather than deleting it out of hand now. Following WP:IMPERFECT, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles." I would say, give this article a chance to develop with contributions from multiple editors before considering deletion. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Hey, Jpbowen if the article isn't ready for mainspace as you seem to imply above, would you consider moving it to Drafts and work on it there? You can then submit it for review before it gets moved to mainspace. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        HighKing, WP:DRAFTification is always a reasonable alternative to deletion, and I am fine with such an outcome. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:FAILN and WP:PRESERVE I suggest to let WikiProject Companies help. Therefore I added {{portal|Companies}} and {{WikiProject Companies}}. Best, --ThT (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Under WP:BEFORE:

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.

The article was created on 27 May 2021‎ and proposed for deletion on 4 June 2021‎, after only 8 days, so I do not believe this procedure was followed. Adding {{notability}} would have been more appropriate at this stage. Thus, I think the correct WP:AFD procedure under WP:BEFORE should be followed before a deletion process is considered again. I added {{portal|Turkey}} and {{WikiProject Turkey}} to attract more Turkish editors who may have better access to further references in the meantime. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a major company that has been in business for over 60 years, the article is well-sourced. I also agree with the above comment that not enough time was given to allow it to be improved. The article has been improved significantly since nomination, let's allow more time for editors to work on it without fear of it being deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Papadopoulos[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria as set out under WP:JOURNALIST and WP:PROF. Almost all the references to him in WP:RS pertain to him having lunch with Jeremy Corbyn, which should be a red flag (WP:1E). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail to establish notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The mentioned sources are not reliable. Article doesn't appear notable enough to be kept.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 03:02, 22 June 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) 23:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Modeling[edit]

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

Article about a concept that appears to lack notability. The sourcing is all to pieces by the creator of the concept, or authored by Michael Cieply, who seems very keen to promote it, or that do not otherwise contribute to showing notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the Deadline.com article in 2017 was perhaps a follow-up piece to the NY Times piece done in 2010. That 2017 follow-up piece was, in no doubt, written-because or inspired-by the release of the author's foundational book on concept modeling called "Concerning the Nature and structure of Concept." In other words, this new field of study now had a significant, well regarded book (receiving a 9 out of 10 rating in Publisher Weekly's Booklife Prize as a semi-finalist) thus representing a major step in the slow but steady progress towards concept modeling's broader establishment.

I might note that all other concept-oriented disciplines (concept maps, mind maps, conceptual models --which are all different but related) have also taken years, if not decades, to develop their broader recognition.

The NY Time piece added to The BookLife Prize, semi-finalist recognition of the author's book are significant steps. Lastly the seven years between 2010 and 2017 is not a lot of time to establish overwhelming recognition around such an abstract (even philosophical) oriented topic. The time lapse also suggests that the founder is not so focused on full court promotion during the years in between. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJamesScott (talk • contribs) 07:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Promotion, verging on WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. A generic title for something that turns out to be much more specific is an early warning sign. Given the material that follows, even if a notability case could be made, WP:TNT would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a thing that exists in a way that is clearly distinguishable from conceptual modeling, for which we already have a perfectly fine, well-cited article. BD2412 T 05:36, 2 July 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Osofsky[edit]

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

Not much reputed reference available that covers him significantly other than few media announcements. Fails WP:BLP and WP:SIGCOV. Dixiku (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logs: 2021-05 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Everyone involved in this discussion seems to agree that this topic is on the edge, and could fall either way. I would advise checking back after some reasonable period of time to see whether coverage becomes more substantial. BD2412 T 05:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Sutherland[edit]

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

Not sure on this singer - the article is a sufficiently mixed bag of unsourced, badly sourced, and just-about-sufficiently sourced that I'd rather leave this to music business editors to evaluate (I find "writeups" like the two Radio Times sources hard to assess because frankly they give me rabies). My feeling is that there's a lot of runner-up / almost-famous stuff here that does not quite add up to WP:NSINGER. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator, as this singer has come close to notability a few times, but just didn't quite make it. He received a little coverage for low placements in talent shows and a couple of mentions by celebrities. He signed some deals that received no coverage outside his own social media and went nowhere regardless. There's just not quite enough for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm on the fence. I see the following sources that don't appear to be listed in the article. They don't appear significant, but there is Yahoo News coverage of his potential involvement in an Amazon reboot of I Know What You Did Last Summer. Just wanted to point to the sources I found in case they help anybody decide here: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] (these were all found with WP:RSSE.) A S U K I T E 17:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's close, but I reckon the sources identified by Asukite are sufficient for a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asukite's sources are just enough for GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Disclaimer: I'm the one who reverted the redirect that was added in 2019) I think the article's subject meets GNG but leave the decision to someone else. The early versions of the article had major issues (promotion, bad sources, etc) and the current version is better but still bears those scars. A rewrite would help so I added that tag. There's also a upcoming Netflix project that is not listed in the article. Source: [31] Draft article: [32] Backstory: The only reason I know about the guy is because I googled him after someone said I look like him. The article we are discussing appeared in the first page of Google results but redirected to The X Factor. He seemed notable enough for me to revert that redirect. Also reverted because it should have gone through AfD (after failing CSD) like it is now. Ggpur (talk) 23:21, 30 June 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. czar 01:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Ross (political advisor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, the only sources available are either primary sources, press releases or passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are neither significant or independent, as stated above. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Rough work. KidAd • SPEAK 03:14, 22 June 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. Some of the delete comments only cited a policy while giving no further analysis, but there is substantial disagreement as to whether the sourcing is significantly in-depth and on the topic of the company. My role as an AFD closer isn't to determine which side is "right", but to establish whether there is merit to each side and gauge the level of support for each side. There is some merit to the delete side. Whether coverage of a company's products counts as coverage of the company, or whether standard news stories about finances count as significant coverage beyond being news, is debatable. The keep side also has merit to their argument since the coverage is at the very least related to the company and non-trivial. I therefore see no consensus for deletion here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueVine[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 23:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the sources in the article it appears to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. I’m in agreement with Scope_creep. Celestina007 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to WP:NCORP, the vast majority of these sources are not sufficiently independent or reliable, and are analogous to marketing materials published by secondary sources. If this is all there is to go off of, then I'm not seeing a pass. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article creator here. The article meets WP:NCORP. Per a direct reading of that guideline, there is "verifiable evidence that the organization has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization." The entire article is based on independent, reliable sources. Forbes, Venturebeat, TechCrunch, and various business journals are reliable sources that covered the company, including international coverage in Globes. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton Per WP:ORGCRITE (and a direct application of WP:SIRS), business journals and blogs are not sufficiently independent or reliable as primary sources, especially if they are the only sources that exist. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpdwkouaa: I never include blogs in any of my articles unless it’s for something very non-controversial, but there are none here. If you don’t think business journals should be used as sources, you should start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. They are used in thousands of articles. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is routine coverage that WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. There is no WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of it. Reference 6 is the first reference being close to secondary source and it fails WP:ORGIND as a interview with the founder. Ref, 7, 8 and 9 is monies. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, Ref 10 is a passing mention, Ref 11 is routine coverage of them expanding. It is primary and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Ref 12 and 13 fail WP:ORGIND. Ref 15 and 16 are Non-RS as Forbes contributors. Ref 17 is a fail as well. It is all routine coverage. scope_creep^Talk 18:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: I must object to that interpretation of my comment. I have no issue with any of the sources being used in articles. The guidelines I'm referencing simply dictate that they cannot be relied upon alone to verify notability. Above this comment, scope_creep has provided a more in-depth analysis to this end. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpdwkouaa: Nuance is often hard on online pages, but you said the sources were blogs and they’re not. I apologize if I misinterpreted you otherwise. Please feel free to revisit your vote now that I found additional sources that clearly meet WP:NCORP. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) whereby *each source* contains deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) also contains "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. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comnent More coverage added. Please consider WP:BEFORE when nominating and voting, to be respectful of other editors’ time. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. El-Bawab, Nadine (2021-04-30). "Bluevine Business Checking review: Earn 1% APY on your balance". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The review notes: "The Bluevine Business Checking Account is a great option for small businesses because of its limited fees, and it accrues interest on your balance up to $100,000. This account is the only one on Select’s list of best business checking accounts that yields interest on your balance."
  The article has an advertiser disclosure: "Select works hard to get you the most reliable information to help you take control of your money. These efforts are supported by an affiliate program, and we may receive a commission from advertising partners. This commission does not influence the opinions, recommendations or placement of any products on our site. Our editorial staff remains independent; opinions expressed here have not been reviewed, approved or endorsed by any third party. ... These relationships do not impact editorial decisions or limit Select's coverage, which is held to the highest journalistic standards."
2. Payne, Kevin; Foreman, Daphne (2021-05-21). "BlueVine Business Checking Review". Forbes Advisor. Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The review notes, "Since BlueVine only offers a single business checking account, you may need accounts at multiple banks to cover all of your business needs. Having all of your bank accounts under one roof is more convenient and may even come with some relationship benefits for opening multiple accounts. That said, with all of its perks and lack of fees, BlueVine Business Checking might be worth the inconvenience." The review discusses Bluevine's other products.
  The article has an editorial note: "Forbes Advisor may earn a commission on sales made from partner links on this page, but that doesn't affect our editors' opinions or evaluations." According to https://www.forbes.com/advisor/about-us/, "The Forbes Advisor editorial team is independent and objective. Our reviews and 'best' rankings are created using strict, published methodologies and are driven solely by the editorial team in concert with industry professionals as needed. Content is informed by in-depth research, independent data gathering, analysis and expert insights." It further notes, "Journalistic integrity is the key to our success. To support our reporting work, our business team (a group separate from our editorial team) reviews our content after it’s written and identifies potential advertising opportunities. That team then secures compensation from some of the brands identified in our content."
3. Vissers, Jason (2021-06-08). "BlueVine Review". Merchant Maverick. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The review notes: "BlueVine, an online lending service, was founded in 2013 after the founder watched his father, a physical therapist, struggle with inconsistent cash flow due to slow payouts by insurance companies. So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that BlueVine offers services intended to help merchants overcome cash flow problems. ... BlueVine’s fees can get a little expensive, but despite the potential for high costs, BlueVine offers fantastic and transparent services that are easy to qualify for, convenient, and useful for merchants who struggle with cash flow problems."
4. Feldman, Amy (2016-01-20). "Startup BlueVine Nabs $40 Million As Once-Stodgy Invoice Financing Becomes The Latest Tech Craze". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article from a Forbes staff writer notes, "BlueVine offers a maximum credit line of $250,000 (up from a previous $150,000), with simple pricing. A big advantage of BlueVine over a traditional factor is that you can choose which invoices you want paid early, and once you have enough cash you can ignore the site."
5. Levy, Ari (2016-04-26). "Why Citigroup is backing online lending start-up BlueVine". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article includes quotes from the company's CEO but there is sufficient independently reported content to contribute to notability. The article notes: "BlueVine, founded by Lifshitz in 2013 and based in Palo Alto, got its start in the obscure corner of finance called factoring, where businesses sell their accounts receivable at a discount to a creditor so they can have cash on hand to run operations. The lender makes money off the spread between the discount and the actual value of the invoice, which typically gets paid in 30 to 60 days."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow BlueVine to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Keep. It does have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but the article needs to incorporate more of the relevant information from those sources. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: I’m open to suggestions for information to add that’s missing. I thought I touched all the bases. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've covered all the bases now. I've changed my comment to keep. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 16:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I plan to comment at some point later today, on these supposed independent coverage refs. scope_creep^Talk 10:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Sources above Cunard has not analysed the sources against the appropriate SNG for companies/organizations, which is WP:NCORP. Here's a review of the references against NCORP requirements which apply stricter adherence to criteria than vanilla GNG. Each reference must meet both WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND

CNBC reference is a review of a product but the topic of the article is the company. There is no in-depth information provided about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
Forbes reference is the same. Its a review of a product and has no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
MerchantMaverick reference is also a review of a product but includes some information on the company. Unfortunately its just a repetition of the information found at the "Why I Started BlueVine" page from the company website. Same description also pops up in other places such as the company's LinkedIn page. There is no other information provided on the company, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Forbes article is based on an quotations/interview with the CEO. Cunard has highlighted the only sentence in the article that isn't directly attributed but which can be found in Press Releases issued by the company. The absense of meaningful "Independent Content" means it fails WP:ORGIND
Second CNBC reference is the best of the lot but it has hardly any "Independent Content" with analysis/opinion/fact checking/investigation. Most of the potential "good bits" are attributed to sources related to the company and what's left are the odd sentence or two at most, fails WP:ORGIND

None of the references meet NCORP. I welcome other people's comment. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above sourcing analysis - I did a little more cleanup and also improved the sourcing even further. @HighKing:, can you clarify for us that you're saying that a company article shouldn't include product coverage? Understanding your rationale will help the closer decide how strongly to weigh your deletion argument. I addressed above how this meets WP:NCORP, by directly quoting from the guideline. If you'd like to have Inc, Forbes, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg Businessweek changed to unreliable on the reliable sources noticeboard, please start a discussion there and ping me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I'm simply looking for sources that meet NCORP. It has nothing to do with the content of the article. But if the topic of an article is about a company, then we need to see references that provide in-depth information on the *company*. A product review reference would be useful for an article on the product. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to come up with similar argument and agree totally with HighKing. These review sites are not really independent, in the only sense that matters. Looking at [33] for example, in the source section, they list Bluevine and Trustpilot reviews as the sites they are source. Looking at one of the CNBC reviews at: [34]. It states on the review, Select’s editorial team independently created this content. Fair enough, it goes on to say that Click here to read our full advertiser disclosure. It states we affiliated with affiliate relationships with American Express, U.S. Bank, Discover, Credit One. So they in partnership with payment gateway providers. They are the industry. So they're reviews are not really independent either. scope_creep^Talk 22:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the page at [35] it states: Editorial Note: Forbes Advisor may earn a commission on sales made from partner links on this page, but that doesn't affect our editors' opinions or evaluations. They are not independent either. On the Bluevine site is states : supported more than 300,000 small businesses' On the review site, it states In 2020 and 2021, BlueVine supported more than 300,000 small businesses. So I think probably good chunks of it have been copy and pasted from Bluevines site. It is no suprise. scope_creep^Talk 22:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup - none of the three sources you identified as a reason to vote delete are there anymore. They weren't necessary - other more reliable publications also covered the info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails WP:NCORP. Your first reference fails WP:ORGIND. It is based on an interview with the ceo. Ref 2, routine funding annoucements explicitly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The third references is based on comments from Eyal Lifshitz, which questions its independence. Ref 4 is routine funding. Ref 5 is a decentish ref but again the question of independence. Ref 6 and 7 are routine funding. Ref 8, 9, 10 are routine news fails WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Ref 11 of a press-release. scope_creep^Talk 07:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a company making an announcement in a press release, and a government entity (in this case, the Government of Utah) issuing an official statement confirming the terms of a significant deal they struck with the company. Nonetheless, I removed the Utah announcement and replaced it with independent third party coverage of the deal. The sources should be all bulletproof now. I can offer a few other points about your selective interpretation of general notability guidelines. Multiple funding announcements in higher amounts mean that someone with deep pockets spent way more time than you and me to study the company, and its business model, and felt they were notable enough to invest significant money in them. So funding announcements are absolutely a sign of notability. There's an article about this if you'd like to learn more. Unicorn (finance). And while I understand the point you are trying to make about interviews, that they face less journalistic scrutiny, it actually depends on the publication, what is being sourced, and how the sourced content is phrased. If I use a CEO interview with a Forbes staffer as a source and make it clear in the article that the CEO is the source, that should meet most editors' standards of Wikipedia integrity. Lastly, all CEOs don't get interviewed - only the ones that the journalists consider notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closer - please note the lazy drive by nomination that spiraled out of control, including the shared AfD histories of the delete voters. This is a problem. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, when you can no longer find a reference that meets NCORP, just attack the people who show you why they fail NCORP. Brilliant. Yes, I hope the Closer notices. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I resent that personal attack as a failure of WP:AGF. The article was reviewed at WP:NPP and after reviewing it, I nominated it. We will be commenting more on this when I get back from holiday. scope_creep^Talk 07:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? Are you ganging up on me? Should I post info about your former ban for targeting? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly meets WP:NCORP with multiple reliable, independent, significant sources. Scopecreep is just grasping at straws, showing a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia's Independent sources and neutrality policies. A publisher's disclosure of their editorial integrity policy and potential conflicts of interest is evidence that their reporting is NOT biased. That being said, even biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 01:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Significant coverage about what BlueVine does through reviews of its products is significant coverage about the company. That the sources include quotes from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire source non-independent. The sources have enough independent reporting and analysis to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can point me to where this is stated in NCORP, we'll have to disagree. Coverage about what the products do isn't the same thing as coverage of the company. It is also why NCORP covers both separately, you can have an article where the topic is the company and you can have an article where the topic is the product. On occasion an article will cover both but none of the examples you've provided does so. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Bungstnk (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a weeks old account immediately participating in AfD and citing policies that take others months if not years to master. Could this be the “we” that Scopecreep mentions above? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest the FormalDude, who has done exactly 39 Afd's, has little understanding of what constitutes NCORP and is a clear drive by nomination. Timtempleton, I'm glad that your at least trying to understand what the problem is here. scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If AfD count is the standard for determining how much weight to assign a vote, you’re welcome to check mine as well. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice deflection, but let's try to stay focused please. Your argument that the sources are somehow not independent is not at all right. Under WP:ORGCRIT, a company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I'll break it down for you @Scope creep:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Forbes 1	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	WP:FORBES and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable.	Article is about the founding of BlueVine and its business model.	✔ Yes
Forbes 2	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	WP:FORBES and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable.	Article is entirely about BlueVine and its investor funding.	✔ Yes
CNBC	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news (WP:RSP).	Article is entirely about BlueVine and the corporate interest surrounding such as company evaluation estimates.	✔ Yes
Business Insider	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	? There is no consensus on the reliability of WP:BI.	Article is entirely about BlueVine and the corporate interest surrounding such as company evaluation estimates.	? Unknown
Bloomberg Businessweek	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	Bloomberg Businessweek is considered generally reliable for news and business topics (WP:RSP).	Mentions BlueVine seven times and significantly describes the subject of the article.	✔ Yes
Wall Street Journal 1	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news (WP:RSP).	Source talks about the small business loans that BlueVine services.	✔ Yes
Wall Street Journal 2	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news (WP:RSP).	Source talks about how BlueVine offers small business loans during the pandemic.	✔ Yes
Deseret	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news topics not related to the LDS church (WP:RSP).	Multiple mentions and paragraphs about BlueVine, including their opening of offices in the Western U.S.	✔ Yes
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}}.

—FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 19:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go through them since you clearly don't known what constitutes independence nor depth means.

Forbes 1 The article states So, I ask Lifshitz, could you team up with one of them? “Yes,” he says. Is that in the works? “I can’t comment on that. We know a lot of the guys at those companies. I think there are opportunities to cooperate.” That is not independent nor in-depth. There is no analysis. There is reporting from what the ceo says directly so it fails WP:ORGIND, as it is not independent from the organisation.

Forbes 2 This is an annoucement of funding news that explicitly fails WP:CORPDEPTH specifically {{Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement}} of a capital transaction, such as raised capital,
CNBC Seems to be 404
Business Insider, effectively non-RS.
Bloomberg Businessweek This is what it states (BlueVine and Cross River Bank were also among the program’s top ten lenders by application volume.) and Another borrower in Little Rock, Ark., received almost $2 million from Kabbage Inc. and BlueVine Capital Inc. for businesses that weren’t in good standing with the secretary of state That is a passing mention and is NOT indepth.
Wall Street Journal 1 BlueVine Raises $60 Million Series E for Small-Business Lending That is a routine annoucement that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Wall Street Journal 2 I can't see this one, but I'm assuming it another entry that fails either WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND or WP:SIRS. It is not even about the company suggesting BlueVine will be used as an example similar above.
Deseret Eyal Lifshitz, CEO and co-founder of BlueVine, said the new Utah office will support growth of the company’s business banking services. That is not independent and is an interview with the CEO. It fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not providing any justification other than sighting WP:CORPDEPTH. I fail to see how any of these sources' coverage does not "extend well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." You are incorrectly labeling substantial business journalism as Churnalism, and are completely misrepresenting the coverage as well. For example, Bloomberg Businessweek is an in-depth article on BlueVine:

The fintech companies arranged just 15% of PPP loans overall. They include Kabbage and BlueVine Capital, as well as banks and nonbank lenders that work with such companies, including Cross River Bank, Celtic Bank, and Ready Capital.
Another borrower in Little Rock, Ark., received almost $2 million from Kabbage Inc. and BlueVine Capital Inc. for businesses that weren’t in good standing with the secretary of state.
Kabbage, which had never before processed an SBA loan, surpassed megabanks to become the second-biggest PPP lender by application volume, approving funds for almost 300,000 businesses. (BlueVine and Cross River Bank were also among the program’s top ten lenders by application volume.)
One whose application was processed by BlueVine received SBA approval so fast the person wondered if something had gone wrong.
A representative for BlueVine says that the servicer rejected as many as 9% of the applications it received because of suspected fraud and that fewer than 2% of the loans receiving funding have raised concerns.
BlueVine “conducted advanced fraud-prevention techniques” and tried to “safely support” as many business owners as it could. That “included taking on a potentially larger risk of fraud” than faced by lenders prioritizing only existing customers, a spokesperson says in response to questions.
A spokesperson for Ready Capital says it “implemented due diligence measures and complied with SBA directives to expeditiously provide relief to small businesses.” Kabbage and BlueVine also say they took steps to scrutinize applications.

Furthermore, the CNBC article is not 404, it has been archived numerous times, most recently on 27 June, 2021. It also offers in-depth coverage and certainly meets WP:ORGIND.

Neither of the Forbes and WSJ sources, nor of any the others for that matter, are merely passing mentions or trivial subjects. They all go well into describing and discussing in-depth topics about BlueVine. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 09:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand NCORP nor seem to care in enforcing it. I don't think you know in-depth means since both the articles you write are fairly lightweight that don't involve any heavy-weight analysis, nor the fact that you have barely taken part in Afd. In-depth doesn't means a 1400 word article, in means 10, 20, 30+ pages of detailed analysis. Nothing that has been offered here is in-depth, they are merely small articles around 1400 words that picks all their information from either the company news portal or the CEO or their spokesman. The CNBC article which I couldn't find states: The latest example: Citigroup just invested in online lender BlueVine. Three months after closing a $40 million financing round led by Menlo Ventures, BlueVine CEO Eyal Lifshitz tells CNBC.com his company is bringing in additional capital from Citi Ventures, the strategic investing arm of the New York banking giant. Terms aren’t being disclosed. This is a routine annoucement that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it comes straight from the company. The company hasn't been about long enough for detailed analysis. All the information that is available funding and its operations which are effectively brand new. It is entirely non-notable. And the comments above says it all. They are true passing mentions in a compound news articles that doesn't have enough information on the company to create a full article. It is clear your going for no consensus result. In six months I will renominating if the references are in the same rank condition. scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. I'm fine to wait for further consensus. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 17:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CNBC coverage comes up fine on my computer. It's confusing when you say you can't find it and then quote from it. If the closer also reads it, they'll see it uses Citigroup's financial backing of BlueVine as a springboard for an in-depth analysis of the company's history and business model. Exactly the sort of coverage we expect to demonstrate notability. The WSJ piece you also say you can't access is an analysis of the PPP fraud incident that involved BlueVine, and it included an interview with a BlueVine executive. Here's a snippet from the article: Hundreds of seemingly eligible borrowers of Bluevine Capital Inc., an online lender that facilitated more than 155,000 loans, had their personal bank accounts frozen after getting their PPP loans deposited there, said Bluevine executive Gil Rosenthal. 155,000 PPP loans is notable. You assert that Business Insider isn't a reliable source, but that's not quite the truth. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says there's no consensus - the closer can see the discussion there. Even with that, the Business Insider piece is a long detailed description of the company, framed around the hiring of its new COO. There are no promotional or otherwise out of place claims that would cause anyone to doubt the reliability of the reporting, unless it was to try to support an increasingly unlikely delete vote. Common sense has to be considered, along with the context of the deletion nomination. In conclusion, the time and effort put into the sourcing analysis above shows that the sources are in-depth and reliable, clearly indicating that the company is notable and meets any reasonable reading and interpretation of WP:NCORP. This should be an easy keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, see the bit of that quote you've included which says "said Bluevine executive Gil Rosenthal". Can you explain to me who that meets WP:ORGIND? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, you have stated that said Bluevine executive Gil Rosenthal. So that fails WP:ORGIND as it a not independent of the organisation. It is an interview. The Business Insider reference has an image of the CEO on the opening para. It is no more independent than the one above and fails WP:SIRS, which was explicitly written to take cognizance of the fact that most startups provide interview style info, to reporters in the manner described above. The information is coming from the company, not the news reporter going out and finding the story. The whole cruz of it, is the question of independece. They are not independent. It seems to be how these trade reporting sites work. scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've twisted yourselves into a forensics pretzel with your arguments, first claiming that a company's notability consideration should exclude product coverage, then trying to argue that sources are unreliable, despite community consensus, and then arguing that interviews are not good sources of info or evidence of notability, as if having an interview in the Wall Street Journal and CNBC is an everyday occurrence for executives. There aren't any better, more efficient ways for the news media to get background info on a private company than interviewing them. Taken to a ridiculous extreme, should Biden fire his press secretary and end his press briefings, which are essentially interviews and press releases wrapped up in a nice tidy package? Any reasonable person would conclude that the executives are on the radar of big media for interviews for the very reason that what they have to say is notable and of interest to readers. Per a direct quote from WP:ORGIND, A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article. The coverage is by unrelated people, and the reporting is non-trivial and non-routine, and these publications' editorial standards do not appear to allow self-promotion or product placement, thus neatly satisfying the guideline. It still rankles me that one of the early delete votes above was based on claims that some sources were blogs, and when it was pointed out that there are no blogs, the person took offense, and dug in instead of changing or striking the vote. That was an early sign that this forum is not ideal for changing minds once people have voted (welcome to 2021). Lastly, the photo is of the COO, not the CEO, as it shows in both the source article's title and the photo caption, suggesting a somewhat hasty and cursory review of the sourcing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, now if you can make those same rebuttals while pointing to the relevant sections in WP:NCORP, you might have a point. Both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND are pretty clear on the requirements. Part-quoting ORGIND is disingenuous especially when you leave out and ignore the requirement for "Independendence of the content". You also can't mix-and-match references to build a picture. Each and every reference used to establish notability must meet CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND. Everytime you've pointed to a reference, it has been pointed out where that reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. You can rail and shout to the skies about the strictness of NCORP guidelines but that doesn't change them. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews as the source of information is the antithesis of independence in the domain of organisation reporting, in the context of notabilty here. All software companies, companies, fintech companies that are startups go to extraordinary length to ensure their intellectual property is protected and kept secret. The only stuff they publically report is the financials, everything you see in the these trade papers is coming from somebody in the company, unless there is some kind of scandal or they have made a huge breakthrough in something or they have been going for decades or something else like that; so for the most part, most of these sources are not independent. So even if it coming from the COO, its not independent, it fails ORGIND. Hiring news is routine news. scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've tortured the poor closers enough. I can't get you to change your minds because you keep moving the goalposts, ignoring word for word readings of the guidelines in favor of your interpretations, and making up things to be proven right. For example, there's no hiring news here. Time to find another time sink. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No,we don't. There is no moving the goalposts. It is the reason that NCORP was created in the first place. Its the same thing we have been talking about since last summer, your inability to use sources that satisfy NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 18:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the international coverage is sufficient to allay any WP:NOTNEWS concerns. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explosion near the Susuzlug village[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, the incident is very minor, not notable for a standalone article. Noonewiki (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The event is very important and has been on the world agenda for several months. UNESCO, OSCE, Council of Europe, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and others also responded to the explosion.--Rəcəb Həsənbəyov (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, well-sourced (56 sources!), long article about an event that has received good coverage. Super Ψ Dro 18:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Doesn't meet WP:EVENTCRIT. Many sources is not always about notability. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident is so minor that even the UNESCO, OSCE, Council of Europe, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders etc. has responded. --NMW03 (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to the border crisis article. Current article has been inflated with irrelevant content. if every mine and mine explosion (estimated at a million ^{[citation needed]}) will have an independent article then we have a lot of irrelevant content yet to add to Wikipedia. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This article is Azerbaijani propaganda and a hoax. Azerbaijan's state media claims that the mines were newly placed by Armenian reconnaissance groups despite the explosion occurring 11 km from the line of contact. Every single source in the International section cited to international figures and representatives is actually cited by an Azeri source. And almost all of the international reactions are simply expressing condolences for the deceased, without even making a single mention of Armenia. These sources are being falsely attributed to supporting the Azerbaijan propaganda narrative. Given that much of the article is built on "the Azerbaijani side blamed Armenia", something not even mentioned by the international sources, the explosion itself is just news, and the article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. --Steverci (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is so disturbing for you to label two journalists getting killed as a "hoax". Some organizations and foreign political figures did accuse Armenia. It isn't that hard to read the article. 185.81.81.12 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable enough to have its own article as its detailed, and was touched upon by numerous international organizations like UNESCO, OSCE, Reporters Without Borders etc.--Nicat49 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article follows the standards of Wikipedia so there is no issue. AustroHungarian1867 (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the incident had been so small and insignificant, so many states and international organizations would not have reacted. The article is well prepared and has 53 references. So there is no issue for discussion.--Qızılbaş (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kevo327. Should be merged with the border crisis article. We don’t create separate articles for every mine explosion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability cannot be questioned. The event received wide international coverage and reaction from many international organizations. Grandmaster 15:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duh. Do we have a separate article for every explosion in Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict or in any conflict? If yes, then let's keep this one, if not (it's not) then the lead of this overinflated piece can be compressed and easily fit into the aftermath of NKR war, or AA border as a sentence or a 2-3 sentence paragraph as a maximum. I cannot understand the tendency (that comes from az.wikipedia.org) of making WP a news channel - there are magazines and news websites for that, what's the encyclopedic significance of this? --Armatura (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Easy to write this as someone who was (seemingly) unaffected by the explosion. Regardless, WP:GNG is what is considered as criteria for notability of standalone articles on Wikipedia-- not your criteria. Hocus00 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Temporarily coming out of retirement to oppose this motion for deletion. We are not talking about soldiers suffering casualties here, these are journalists, and we are not talking about the territory of former NKAO, this event occurred on undisputedly Azerbaijani territory, during a period of relative peace, making it one of the most notable events in the region since the 2020 NK war ceasefire. We have 54 sources, among them American, Ukrainian, Russian, Turkish, Iranian, and international sources. You have the Human Rights Watch, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and the International Federation of Journalists reporting on this. You have embassies/ambassadors of France, Italy, Israel, Russia, Iran, and Georgia in Azerbaijan acknowledging the event and offering their condolences. Ultimately, a well-sourced article about a notable topic. - Creffel (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well-written and has numerous WP:RS's that are reliable with significant coverage. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Hocus00 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 13 of the 15 sources in the International section are Azeri sources. The explosion has gotten practically no significant coverage outsider of Azerbaijan. --Steverci (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? The article has 50+ sources cited. Which do you believe are unreliable? Because a secondary source comes from a certain country does not make it unreliable. Regardless, even a cursory Google search brings back the following sources: Al Jazeera; Barrons; Reuters; Reporters without Borders; Radio Free Europe Hocus00 (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to barge in, but Azerbaijan ranks 177th out of 196 countries in terms of press freedom. I agree with your fundamental argument and position, Hocus00, but citing Azerbaijani sources—usually connected to their quasi-totalitarian government—is risible at best. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable event whose article possesses many, notable, and variegated (i.e. non-Azerbaijani) sources. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A journalist death in disputed territory after a war over that terrority is very notable, which caused a minor diplomatic crisis. This is right in the lead, please don't just ignore what the article has to say for it's own self. Many of the votes here reek of people who haven't read the article at all. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this Azerbaijani propaganda article. It is not neutral because of overweight of Azerbaijani sources. --91.20.3.97 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC) this ip's only contribution to en wikipedia is this edit. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep As the event easily has notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:53, 27 June 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. BD2412 T 05:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khala Miah[edit]

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

Non notable singer, no significant coverage. Didn't find anything in Bengali either. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Chirota (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC reference refers to him as a "legend", which seems to imply notability. Benevolent human (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't knew someone can became notable just because of BBC's podcast title, without any significant coverage. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A host may have called him a legend in an act of basic politeness, but that does not help with notability for WP's purposes. No reliable media coverage can be found under the various spellings of his name given here, including that from his native tongue (see the infobox). He is only present in promotional sites that mirror this WP article, social media chatter, and occasional announcements of being present at an event somewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:04, 29 June 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.