Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 24	March 26 >

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. The "keep" !votes did not manage to convince that SIGCOV is met. Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TechEngage[edit]

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

A WP:REFBOMBed article about a non-notable tech news website. Most of the references are primary or non-independent (company website, Twitter, blogs and unreliable sites). The only source that comes close to providing significant independent coverage is a dubious newspaper clipping of an article in Honolulu Star-Bulletin which appears to have been republished in Austin-American Statesman and Santa Maria Times. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I writing in the right place for deletion discussion? Can you read my comments? Thanks Jinnahsequaid (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respected editors, I am currently watching and managing this page. Added some more notable references from Newspapers like The News & Observer. TechEngage team helped the unemployed techies during the dot-com bubble and after 2 years on Wikipedia, it was nominated for deletion. I think it should be kept. The page is improved. Deleted useless references. Thanks Jinnahsequaid (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 2003 articles all seem to be the product of a single press release and can be regarded as churnalism. There's a lot of self-published material padding out the article. My 15 minute search reveals no independent reliable source SIGCOV. Would be willing to reconsider my !vote if genuine independent RS could be shown to exist.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Goldztajn, Please check this 2005 news on The News & Observer (Independent resources) covered by Staff reporter. This 17th March 2003 story, this 7th April 2003 story and this 2nd February 2003 story. All of this coverage from different newspapers refers to different conferences and events held by TechEngage. No doubt' the content matches as the only purpose of TechEngage at that time was to train unemployed IT staff. Actually, TechEngage holds weekly/monthly sessions to train unemployed IT workers during the dot-com bubble. Later the economy recovered and it again started in 2009 and 2010 during the credit crunch. It trained over 2500 undergraduates in most of its events. Many official university presses also covered it. Almost over 30 Big IT companies like Microsoft, SAS, and more partnered with it. I think you should reconsider its vote. --Jinnahsequaid (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment three stories from 18 years ago, all of which repeat the same information but from different locations, and one story from 2005. The SAS link doesn't work. The NCSU link is from 18 years ago and is repeating a press release. There's no body of sources showing ongoing, independent, in depth, multiyear coverage. A Google search reveals large numbers of organisations offering IT training courses for the unemployed in the USA, this organisation appears no different than the others. At present, all this seems to be is a website publishing tech-related information; again I can see no reason why this is different than thousands of others. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the SAS link. Here is the link using web archive. It's a 2010 link. However, there are 60+ Newspaper sources as well available on Newspapers.com however they need a subscription. Here are some notable tech sites ranked TechEngage as the top Tech News-site of the industry. Feedster, Detailed.com, Feedspot. All are notable tech magazines and have millions of readers. Further, this page is over 2 years old. It must be given at least a few months for improvements without deletion. It's 2004 and 2005 stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnahsequaid (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sources in the article, here, and elsewhere should be inspected further carefully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Goldsztajn. Appears to be a run of the mill tech website.-KH-1 (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "News & Observer" and "Honolulu Star" articles are multiple examples of significant coverage from independent sources for the site to pass GNG. Unless you have an indication they are not reliable then they are acceptable sources. A quick glance suggests the Bizjournals and Kinza articles are examples that support GNG. Everything else is irrelevant cruft for a deletion discussion. As an aside to the initiator, calling an article "refbombed" is poor etiquette and borderline bad faith when used in the start of an AFD. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably point out that The Honolulu Star, Austin American Statesmen and The News and Observer articles are all written by the same author with almost identical content.-KH-1 (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My two cents on this. This story by Megan Jones and this story by Jonathan B. Cox both are from different writers. In publication companies, mostly a topic is assigned to a staff writer who covers the story and provides the follow-ups. I agree with @Macktheknifeau. It should be kept. Best Regards Jinnahsequaid (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG clearly states: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." -KH-1 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles are two years apart which is far enough distanced for me to consider them separate sources even if it were the same author, which they aren't as per Jinnah. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The News & Observer is listed as a former partner organisation to TechEngage. Since it's not independent of the subject, it should be discounted when considering SIGCOV. See WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Further comment As per KH-1, The News & Observer is listed as a partner organization to TechEngage. I mean how can we doubt the integrity of a news agency when its publication principles are clearly defined. Partner to their job board (clearly stated as "Partner to News & Observer Classified Advertising Department and TriangleJobs"), a classified magazine named Triangle, doesn't mean that anyone can influence the Editorial policy and staff of any news agency. Every news agency in the world has partners including NYTimes, but the partnerships are clearly disclosed and worked under Adverts or on classifieds pages. They can't influence reporting. Reporting is independent of classified listing partnerships. On further research, I found that TechEngage published their classified on The News & Observer in 2010. (But the quoted stories that back SIGCOV are from 2003-2005. So, if they used their advertorial space in 2010, it doesn't discount SIGCOV. I believe The News & Observer covered TechEngage in the early 2000s therefore, TechEngage again captured their audience's attention by using advertising space in 2010. Example: http://media2.newsobserver.com/advertising/pdf/August10Week2.pdf Triangle is a Job board of News & Observer classified department that published in the same State, North Carolina where TechEngage started. It's common to use the same states' job boards to advertise jobs (after years of reporting). But it can never influence the Editorial works of a News agency. It completely undermines the integrity of News agencies which in my opinion is very biased to say. ABCD can partner NYTimes classifieds by paying a small fee but can never influence the editorial pages of it. Therefore, it's not only vague to say that but clearly declares it an act of bad faith. Jinnahsequaid (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I likewise cannot find any additional independent, reliable sources covering this website in depth. The newspaper articles already in the article do not really meet the bar of significant to me, and could well be the product of press releases (although I cannot say this with any conviction), and the other sources are from the organisation itself. As others have said, this appears to be an entirely run of the mill technology blog. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amulet (band). RL0919 (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning Sphere[edit]

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

The main band page is up for deletion Amulet_(band). It makes sense that this one should be too, which has no citations and I was not able to find any proper news about the album to show its notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Amulet (band) if the band's article survives. Album isn't independently notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amulet (band): Barely found anything about the album. I also voted to keep the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amulet (band). RL0919 (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Engrave (album)[edit]

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

The main band page is up for deletion Amulet_(band). It makes sense that this one should be too, which has no citations and I was not able to find any proper news about the album to show its notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Amulet (band) if the band's article survives. Album isn't independently notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amulet (band): Barely found anything about the album. I also voted to keep the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Gradese Calcio[edit]

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

An amateur/semi-pro club that has only played between the 5 lowest tiers in Italian football; has never played in the domestic cup as well. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Nehme1499: You said the club has never played in a domestic cup, do you mean the main Coppa Italia? Govvy (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: Yes, I mean the top-level domestic cup (Coppa Italia, FA Cup, Copa del Rey, etc.) They have only played in amateur cup competitions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per not passing notability criteria. Iflaq ^(talk) 06:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I feel given the age of the club there might be more to offer to build a better article, I am somewhat reluctant to delete, but it doesn't seem to satisfy GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:FOOTYN and does not appear to meet WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 22:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mosa Conference[edit]

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

No media coverage of a university student-organized conference that I can uncover, so WP:INDEPTH is severely lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NEVENT by a mile. 184.99.109.101 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic value. Good catch, Clarityfiend! gidonb (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Article does not pass GNG. Iflaq ^(talk) 19:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 08:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This conference doesn't have any media coverage by media outlets or academic sources.Wasraw (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7figures SMG[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability criteria for musicians. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN; no significant accolades, no evidence of charting, no evidence of significance within his field. Also fails WP:GNG; no coverage outside of his own press releases. The article is promotional too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NMUSICIAN; no charting, no evidence of significance, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this and this, but that's it aside from what's already in the article. Doesn't look to be enough coverage to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non notable musician with absolutely 0 presence in Nigeria, Zilch, none whatsoever & the sheer fact that the creator of this article move-warred with Spiderone(who was totally correct) see here, & here indicates an urgency consistent with undisclosed paid editing & a sheer look at the talk page of the article creator is indicative of this also. How they have evaded a WP:NOTHERE block for this long is baffling. Celestina007 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 - I noticed that after you spoke to them about one of their previous possible UPE creations, they responded with Thanks for this actually i dont know seyi olusore am writing independetly on him, i have a lot of people to write and edit on but i dont want to make mistakes . i promise to work more on my editing. I'm yet to see them follow through on that promise... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. The coverage there is is promotional and, as stated above, weak. --Kbabej (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Towney Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment I don't believe we need an article for each and every lock along the way. The Erie Canal article only has highlights for a few of them. A few in the list above are "Listed Structures" (or whatever the particular heritage listing uses in the UK), which might be notable. Individually designated buildings (in the NRHP in the USA for example) are usually deemed to be important enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Narky Blert:, I appreciate your Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK, but would like your advice in how to nominate these articles for deletion if it is not individually. I consulted WP:MULTIAFD which seemed to suggest policy was not to bundle this type of AfD together, however I have briefly researched each article and believe they are all non-notable, and so I believed an individual nomination of each was the best policy. I would appreciate your advice on how to go about this AfD. Thank you for your help. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mxtt.prior: Either nominate them one at a time, or nominate a batch of no more than 4 or 5 which have the identical easily-identified issue. No-one is going to wade through a list of 20 or 30 articles grouped together to determine if perhaps one might be notable or if perhaps one might not be. This and your other nominations are prime candidates for WP:NOCONSENSUS, because no-one will feel like putting the work in, and your efforts will therefore have been wasted. I don't post much at AFD; but when I do it takes me at least 10-15 minutes to research any individual nomination. Narky Blert (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Mainly because the set of articles describing the canal at least are consistent and able to be followed. Agree this would be a WP:TRAINWRECK if approached. In practice this would be a merge cleanup which would involve a lot of volunteer effort and AfD is a very bad place to do that. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh This is a situation in which a group of articles contains some which are notable enough for their own article and some which at least marginally are not. This particular article is borderline - I do see enough mentions in book entries that you could make a reasonable yet weak keep argument for this one, and another one I looked at randomly was probably a weak delete. We really don't have a good practice for "some of these articles should really be in a list" when nominated en masse. I do not want to see any of this information deleted, but the nominator is correct in that some of them really do not deserve stand-alone articles. I'd feel more comfortable if a list of locks were created via merger and then we deleted the non-notable ones. SportingFlyer T·C 22:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, merge or redirect~~. Given the existence of a list article that these appear on and that some individual locks are notable, all of these titles are plausible search terms so every lock that does not have an article should be a redirect to the list ({{R to list entry}}) or some other article with information about them. Thryduulf (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close all the lock nominations per WP:TRAINWRECK. Having now seen that these have all been individually nominated there is no way that anyone is going to go through and spend the time going through evaluating all these on a deadline. If you must nominate them for deletion rather than starting a discussion about merging first then nominate a maximum of about 5 per day, either 5 individually or small groups totalling about 5 locks. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi @Thryduulf: I apologise for going about this in the wrong way and creating a trainwreck - that was never my intention. Thank you for your advice, I believed this was the best approach but I can now see I was very wrong, and have learnt a lot. Mxtt.prior (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep: I searched Google Book and I saw a number sources mentioning Towney Lock. It seems Towney Lock is notable.Wasraw (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal. Lomrjyo (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colthrop Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Widmead Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bull's Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ham Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed) Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greenham Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 04:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guyer's Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grade II listed, meets NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A clear consensus for keep based on the presence of the subject's entry in the Dictionary of Virginia Biography.(non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 13:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Millie Lawson Bethell Paxton[edit]

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

Prod was deleted with edit summary “decline, subject is very likely notable”. Very likely notable is not the same as they are notable. There is absolutely no evidence presented that she is notable and despite what other editors have said, what I care about is that the article presents a minimal amount of evidence that they are Wiki Worthy. An article can always be improved and more resources found but at least say this person is notable because.... and then leave it to others to expand. This article doesn’t even do that. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Simply reading ref 1 indicates this person's notability, though not much of this is yet reflected in the article. I've added obit quotes as a summary of her life. Plenty more material is available.Pam D 21:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some careless writing had led to careless removal of paragraph about her main work - an editor didn't guess "put" to be a typo for "but" so removed para as incomprehensible.Pam D 22:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment again, you should not have to go to a reference to assess notability. How lazy must someone be not to put in one or two sentences saying this person is known for x y or z? And my edit removing an incomprehensible sentence was not careless. What was careless was not proofreading before you posted something. I had to make numerous corrections for poor punctuation. It is not my place or anyone else’s job to try to figure out what you were trying to say. If you didn’t catch a mistake before you hit submit, then don’t leave until you read what you published and fix any mistakes you catch. Then perhaps people won’t feel the need to delete things that don’t make any sense. And you are always free to add information back in that you think was deleted and should not have been, as long as you write in clearly with no punctuation, grammar or spelling mistakes. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE might well start with looking at the references. PamD 07:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, but per WP:ANYBIO, she "has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication," i.e. Dictionary of Virginia Biography. And I have been going in circles on this website (e.g. she is included in a list of "Black Women Suffragists", Alexander Street/ProQuest), but it appears possible that additional sources exist. Beccaynr (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC) As an update, the article has been revised and the addition of news sources has begun, e.g. in 1954, she was still receiving coverage for her civic leadership; I've been using a Virginia newspaper database, and more sources are available. Beccaynr (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's got an entry in a state dictionary of biography. I use the equivalent one for North Carolina (NCPedia) all the time. That's as good a source as it gets and usually indicates more sources are to be found. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:ANYBIO as per Dictionary of Virginia Biography entry, makes it virtually definite other sources exist Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Dictionary of Virginia Biography does not fall into WP:ANYBIO's Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. The former's purpose is to preserve and provide access to the state's incomparable printed and manuscript holdings, i.e. entry is dependent on being mentioned in historical documents. Entry in the Dictionary of National Biography is selective and there is a process to ensure the subject is notable. An entry in the Dictionary of Virginia Biography only shows they existed, not that they are notable. --John B123 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the statement that a state dictionary of bio is not the same as a national one, but it's not as if the Virginia dictionary is indiscriminate in who it decides to write an article on. I doubt they are writing articles on every Virginian who is merely mentioned ("exists") in their historical archive. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Dictionary of Virginia gave her a biography, it not just brief mention. It reads: At her death a Virginia newspaper described her as "one of Roanoke's most widely known and beloved colored citizens," active "in all phases of civic and religious work.". So they saw her as quite important, a well known figure in her state. Dream Focus 00:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, there is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. VocalIndia (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Higg's Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benham Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none of these locks are independently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage and non notabile. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and there are three for this one already. Someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamstead Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - grade II listed, meets NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copse Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dreweatt's Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - grade II listed, meets NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kintbury Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brunsden Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - grade II listed, meets NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I support keeping the article up, but sending it back to Draft status. Seems to meet the Notability requirement - coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. But it definitely needs expansion.--Greysonsarch (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wire Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)][reply]
Procedural close per Narky Blert. Yeah, this is crazy. Especially with so many Grade II listed ones. Oakshade (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - grade II listed, meets NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gr II listed, meets WP:NBUILD CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 04:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dun Mill Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. I'm giving up at this point. Narky Blert (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - grade II listed, meets NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hungerford Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hungerford Marsh Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cobbler's Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed — too many inclusions) Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picketfield Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed due to formatting issues) Mangoe (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Froxfield Bottom Lock[edit]

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

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

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

Potter's Lock, Wiltshire

Little Bedwyn Lock

Oakhill Down Lock

Froxfield Middle Lock

Froxfield Bottom Lock

Picketfield Lock

Cobbler's Lock

Hungerford Marsh Lock

(list removed due to formatting issues) Mangoe (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted. Moonraker (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Froxfield Middle Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oakhill Down Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - grade II listed, meets NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bedwyn Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potter's Lock, Wiltshire[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Mill Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedwyn Church Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - grade II listed, meets NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cadley Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list removed) Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons listed above. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brimslade Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - grade II listed, meets NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Grade II, WP:NBUILDING CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heathy Close Lock[edit]

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

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

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

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect some of these might be notable (particularly those which are listed buildings) but agree there are limited reliable sources to expand the articles.— Rod ^talk 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I agree.--Greysonsarch (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Union Mills, California[edit]

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

The basic problem with this one is that I haven't been able to find anything definite about it. The spot (now overrun by urbanization) shows up as a "site" on the oldest topos I can find, which aren't that terribly old. Searching is plagued by false hits, and I haven't found any that I could identify as being this spot which describe it at all or even really hint as to what was here. Maybe Durham has something; Gudde does not. My best guess is that it was a place where gold-bearing rock was processed, but I cannot be sure. There's no indication I can see, however, that it was any sort of town. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as per nomination; location completely lacks any sort of notability.TH1980 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st Light Regiment of the Gendarmerie (Belgium)[edit]

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

Article was moved to draftspace as lacking sources but was quickly moved back without a great deal of improvement. No additional sourcing. Eagleash (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to introduce new sources? I think this source provides notable information about each unit of the Battle of Belgium. But still, I would like new information. Thank you.From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am now finding sources for both 2nd and 1st Regiments of the Gendarmerie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgundian Feudalism (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clear pass of WP:MILUNIT. Can't see any good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability. Noah ^💬 18:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes notability guidelines Rajuiu (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect can be created editorially as desired. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whole value[edit]

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

'Whole value' is no longer mentioned in Value (ethics) and Economic whole value is supported only by an external link to a non-reliable source. I have found no other articles that should be included, and no articles link to this page. Leschnei (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment The reference attached to justify economic whole value is actually for a software design pattern notion. Assuming that it holds up as such (there do seem to be likely reliable sources for that) and it's important enough, the article might be rewritten around that concept. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this disambiguation page since there isn't any valid place to link to currently. As for the term as used in the external link [1] in a software engineering context, it's doubtful whether that concept is notable. In any case, we need not decide that question now. Our current "article" doesn't have any content about it anyway. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Intrinsic value (ethics), which seems like it mentions something reasonably close. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mari (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SINGER. Not much there. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even remotely close to enough information to show passing our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. Blabbermouth and Encyclopaedia Metallum, the latter being an online database of all metal bands/artists, is all what is available and no other sources that discuss the subject. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SINGER plus WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find sufficient sources to support WP:NMUSIC, WP:ENT, or WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet GNG. A non-notable singer. --Kbabej (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. All contributors to the discussion favour keeping. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KeyMe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NCORP. In addition to some WP:RS in the article,^[1]^[2]^[3] there has been some more recent coverage.^[4]^[5] SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Barzilay, Omri. "How KeyMe Is Taking Over The $7.5B Locksmith Industry". Forbes Magazine.
^ "Startup KeyMe offers cheaper alternative to replacing car keys". New York Post. 21 December 2014.
^ Aamoth, Doug. "Locked Out? This App Stores Your Keys Online". Time Magazine.
^ Brian X. Chen (March 6, 2019). "This Tech Makes D.I.Y. Key Duplication Easy. Maybe Too Easy". New York Times.
^ Marc Weber Tobias (Jun 20, 2018). "The High-Tech Way To Get Copies Of Your Keys, But Is It Smarter?". Forbes.

@SailingInABathTub: Could you update the article with these and I will close this. Please don't put the Forbes references, they are contributors and are non-rs. The rest are decent. It is an interesting company and an interesting proposition, taken to its logical conclusion, means that every door on the planet can be hacked. Cool though. scope_creep^Talk 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've added the NYT reference. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination Withdrawn. There is coverage. scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOM Financial[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Only trivial coverage found. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Extemporaneous Speaking. In the absence of any sources, there's not much here to merge, but in any case the content remains available in the history. Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Extemporaneous Speaking[edit]

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

No indication of notability, much of the unsourced material has been deleted over the years and past merge proposals have gone nowhere. Most sources found are trivial and not in-depth.

The following article is also nominated for the above reasons:

United States Extemporaneous Speaking JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge both to National Speech and Debate Association if, as the articles suggest, they are categories of competition within that organization. Cnilep (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge to National Speech and Debate Association, as per above reasoning. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Extemporaneous speaking, as it is a non-notable type of said speech event. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kenwright[edit]

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

Company brochure article disguised as BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable Aasim (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a small time local level hotel and apartment operator. What is meant by "the city" in the opening sentance, is this a reference to London?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I feel bad because his hotels and apartments are hugely successful and his businesses are the go-to accommodation for large groups going to Liverpool. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Local Train. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Negi[edit]

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

There's nothing on this page that isn't already covered on The Local Train's (the band the musician fronts) article. I don't see a reason for this stub to exist independently of it. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable singer/song-writer. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Local Train as no sign of independent notability at this time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Dent[edit]

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

A search reveals no significant coverage. Article mostly sourced to IMDB. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The creator, Simon896 K appears to be a long term COI SPA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any significant or notable coverage. IMDB is not a reliable source.Miaminsurance (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search brings up mostly only passing mentions. Not enough significant or notable coverage for an article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 10:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A good thing that this article mentioned that Mr. Dent is 6'1"... Very important. Kolma8 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Reeder[edit]

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

this is essentially an unsourced, puffed-up self-penned biography of a non-notable bit actor with fewer lines than parts. Searching returns no actual sources beyond those that use seemingly the same text as this article and thus can be assumed to be derived from this. What's especially damning is that pages on other, smaller wikis where he might be more relevant have essentially no information or even do not exist (in the case of Pro Wrestling Wiki). 2A00:23C5:1E2F:A201:255C:CAF0:9978:67DC (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. As for my own view, the article is completely unreferenced except for the subject's IMDb page. His filmography is a long list of bit parts that don't add up to notability as an actor. I found nothing to indicate that he would be notable for his pro wrestling career, and nothing else to satisfy WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 18:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Envysan (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing sourced or sourceable to indicate that WP:GNG or any other notability criterion is met. No significant coverage of his career as either a wrestler or an actor. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER, and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see how the subject could pass WP:NACTOR. A BEFORE yielded nothing of note. --Kbabej (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Manchester. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policy@Manchester[edit]

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

Appears not to meet WP:GNG or any academia-specific notability guideline ... it's not degree-granting, etc. Possible redirect/merge target to University of Manchester. Go Phightins! 11:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Manchester as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Not sure we're going to get clear consensus here, there's certainly some sourcing there but whether it is significant enough is still in question. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Virginia United FC[edit]

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

The only secondary sources I could find mentioning the clubs were one or two paragraph long game recaps from the Baltimore Sun and the Newport News newspaper. I'm not sure this club passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that their games are regularly reported on suggests that the team is notable. While it is true that WP:ROUTINE specifically says individual match reports are routine coverage, that only applies to the notability of events, in this case the individual matches themselves, and not to the larger issue of notability of the teams involved. Smartyllama (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they are. The two blurbs were very brief and weren't in the local newspaper, and match reports are also excluded regarding player notability. I'm happy for this to be kept if other coverage is found, but something isn't notable because of two or three three-sentence match reports. SportingFlyer T·C 14:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this, this, this, this, and this and that was all in about ten minutes of looking. It seems to meet GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We must have used different search terms or something! The Soccerwire and Midfield Press articles clearly aren't significant coverage, and I can't access the Loudoun Times because of the geoblocker. The Scottish articles don't look bad, but I'm not convinced and will leave this open instead of withdrawing (kind of strange if a club passes GNG alone from a country it doesn't play in.) Appreciate you finding sources, though. SportingFlyer T·C 14:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - the based on the sources found, this nomination feels like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination rather than a legitimate nomination. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears notable based on sources and arguments presented above. Giant Snowman 17:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't my field, but it seems to me somewhat strange that a program at this level would meet WP requirements. I know, people sometimes say similarly of articles in fields I'm interested in. And I recognize it's more generally due to the distortion caused by our reliance upon sourcing for notability, when the available sourcing depends so much upon subject field. , DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the teams in that league have articles. While I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, absent a stronger argument against notability than "it's somewhat strange that it would be notable at this level", that should disprove that argument. Smartyllama (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like Northern Virginia United, a lot of the teams in the league are really poorly sourced. FC Davis. PDX FC. Even teams like Oxnard Guerreros FC with a number of sources only have two sources that aren't independent of the team and they're only to the local paper. I know our standards for football clubs are lower than organisations, but there's no guarantee teams in this league get any coverage: for instance, this article's on track to be kept because there was one article written in a local newspaper, a couple match reports from other cities, and two articles from Scotland talking about how people from Dundee set up the club, which still makes no sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 14:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as you'll have noticed, I did not !vote, just comment. I'm not !voting for a keep against the usual way of doing it. . I am reminding people that the custom is susceptible to challenge, and the standards in some fields have changed from time to time, generally by adjusting the sources that are considered acceptable as was done for WP:NCORP. I say this every year or so somewhere, so people recognize there just might be alternatives. I don't think it's completely a matter of proportional emphasis by field--I almost always !vote against individual academic departments. (My real ideal goal is to completely change the way we handle notability into defined standards appropriate to the subject, as long as there are enough sources to write a verifiable article, but I know that's not likely to happen. But it might. I've been here 15 years and plan another 15.

However, the argument that "other clubs at this level have them" is only an argument for putting them all on a list or combination article. End of my statement of position--I don't want to interfere with others DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete based on sourcing provided, only the Loudoun Times-Mirror approaches significant coverage, but it feels a little bit too much like routine local sports coverage. The other sources provided are either routine or don't address the subject in detail. Additionally, the team has not played in the U.S. Open Cup, which usually grants a presumption of notability with WP:FOOTYN. Additionally, the article suffers from an out of date roster, which is common for NPSL/USL2 sides and has resulted in a lot of permastubs. I'm leaning delete on this. Jay eyem (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources supplied here are either connected, passing mentions, or WP:ROUTINE coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as mentioned above, there are already some sources from the Scottish press which can be added, due to the Brian Welsh connection. In addition, they have literally only just announced a strategic link with Dundee United, which can be expected to lead to further coverage. Jellyman (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Australian Christian Churches. Anything worth merging is available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Alive Australia[edit]

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

Non-notable religious group, has had issues with the page for over a decade. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only sources I could find were unreliable or simple directory listings, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This looks like an unsatisfactory article about a notable organisation. The present content seems to make it appear to be a record label. However, when one digs deeper into their website, the claim to be founded by Australian Christian Churches the leading Pentecostal denomination there with 1100 congregations; providing a year-out programme for young people to engage in ministry and youth leadership training. This certainly does not sound like a NN organisation. At worst merge to the denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge per Peterkingiron. Deus et lex (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence GNG is met. The only independent source indicates it made #68 on the Australian iTunes chart, which I would say does not indicate inherent notability. Eldumpo (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's not an album, it's an organisation. And there is a clear merge or redirect available here which must be considered prior to deletion (per WP:ATD). Please reconsider your !vote. Deus et lex (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes sorry, the iTunes reference was relating to an album/song from them apparently. I’m still seeing no suggestion GNG is met. Could be a candidate for redirection but would that not encourage re-creation of a non-notable article? Eldumpo (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The possibility of a recreated article isn't enough to delete. ATD says if there's an alternative to deletion, it must be considered. Here there's a valid merge or redirect. Deus et lex (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helperbird[edit]

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

DePRODed without improvement and improperly moved to mainspace. More coverage of its founder, but otherwise nothing independent or substantial to satisfy WP:NWEB or GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing how WP:NWEB (for the software/plugins), WP:NORG (for the organisation that builds the software) or WP:GNG (in general) are met. In terms of NWEB, it is unclear how this plugin is any more notable than any other browser add-on. In terms of NORG, there is limited depth of coverage on the company itself (coverage like the Forbes entry do not focus on the company, and are of a "listicle" type that wouldn't seem to confer notability on every member of the list). In terms of GNG, a search of the newspapers of record in Ireland (like in the Irish Times and in the Irish Independent) we see only a handful (3) of entries. And in most of those the subject is not the primary topic. Personally I would also have COI and PROMO concerns. Guliolopez (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I also agree about the COI/PROMO concerns. I was considering speedying it under G11 but no one seems to actually ever think they're promotional enough for that. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, could this qualify for G11 as the article creator appears to be the founder of the company? Can't believe I missed that at first. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree that the topic, as currently written, does not meet web content notability. Per WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I would support either deletion or giving the authors another try by moving it to Draft space, in case it actually does meet notability and simply needs more qualifying sources and content.--Greysonsarch (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Ramsahai[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As usual, television personalities are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their existence can be verified through content self-published by their own employers. The notability test requires evidence of significance (e.g. notable professional awards), not just verification of existence. But there are no independent secondary sources here, and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that might not Google well, I can find just one article that's actually a viable source on the occasion of her initial hiring at Metro Morning 20 years ago — but one good article isn't enough all by itself, and otherwise I'm not getting coverage about her, but transcripts of weather reports by her, which isn't what we're looking for. (Also, the claim that she was Toronto's first female on-air meteorologist is bull droppings, considering that Susan Hay, who was the on-air meterologist at a local television station in my hometown when I was in high school, left that job in 1989 to take a new job as an on-air meteorologist at CIII-TV — and I can't even vouch that Susan Hay was the first either, because I didn't live in Toronto at the time, but she very obviously came before Natasha Ramsahai regardless. Similarly, before I even saw this at all, somebody else stripped a similarly false claim to historic firstness on a different criterion — "first meterologist ever hired by the CBC" — which completely ignored the existence of Percy Saltzman.) Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was able to find 2007 Toronto Star coverage with some biographical information, and 2020 Boston Globe coverage with some commentary on her work generally, but this is not sufficient for WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST or WP:NPROF notability. Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She exists, she has a job. But there isn't anything beyond that. Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST. --Kbabej (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Newsham[edit]

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

Per Soccerway and Playmaker Stats, subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL as has never played in a match between two clubs playing in a WP:FPL nor has she received any senior caps for Scotland.

Only one independent source cited, which is a brief transfer announcement. In a WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions in match reports, which do not confer notability. WP:GNG is not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no senior caps, fails WP:NFOOTBALL, further no WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No senior caps, 2nd tier matches therefore fails NFOOTBALL. GNG not established JW 1961 Talk 20:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, fails NFootball and GNG as noted above. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON as could yet make appearances at higher level. Dunarc (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Judge Judy episodes[edit]

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

A list of largely non-notable episodes. We wouldn't accept a list of all frontpage headlines of some tabloid (a list of some notable ones is something else), so why would a list of all 5000+ titles of Judge Judy episodes be an acceptable list? It is verifiable, just like these tabloid headlines, but we need more than verifiability alone to have a good article or list subject. That this would otherwise bloat the main article (which was given as a reason to remove the prod) is not an argument, there wouldn't be a good reason to include this in the main article either (again, compare to articles on newspapers, we wouldn't have "headlines from 1990 to 2000" as a separate list or in the main article).

If there are notable episodes, then a list of those, with sourcing showing individual notability, can of course be created. But this is a meaningless dump of titles. Fram (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely not. Daily syndicated series episode lists should not be a thing here, especially when the only thing that can likely source it is the show's listings loglines. Nate • (chatter) 14:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unlike a sitcom or a fictional series, there will be no developments of note from one show to the next; unlike a talk show, there aren't even notable guests to report. BD2412 T 16:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For most shows, we can have a list of episodes because it is sufficiently short and verifiable to be encyclopedic. This is not true for shows like Judge Judy that air new episodes on a daily basis. The article is already woefully incomplete as is; the overview omits seasons 1–5, but lists 125 episodes aired so far during the current season. Season 23 alone aired 260 episodes over the course of its run; for comparison, SpongeBob SquarePants has aired 265 episodes over 13 seasons, at time of writing. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Even soap operas don't have such lists, and they have continuity. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All completely non notable episodes and seasons. Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of all knowledge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The deletion rationale seems to be mostly based on the false premise that all of the episodes in an episode list have to be individually notable for the list to be allowed here, which is obviously not the case. I'm not entirely sure of how notability of an episode list as a whole is determined, so I won't do a "Keep" or "Delete" vote here myself, but whether deletion is appropriate or not in this case, the presented reasoning wouldn't be the reason why. 75.88.83.193 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I had thought I was logged in. 75.88.83.193 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This being said, I do think the article should at least be moved into draftspace for now even if it was "Kept." It doesn't make sense to call it a list of episodes of the show in general when all it really lists is one season. 75.88.83.193 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue overall is that this entire list is of episode titles nobody cares about and which aren't going to describe the case simply (or else we'd be on like "Property Theft Case MDCCLXXXV" if they were that simply-described). Taping and theming means cases are never presented in chronological order, and outside the kind of folks that over-care about cartoons, nobody is logging every episode of a court show. This is too much information and if it belongs anywhere, it should be on Wikia. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is some sourcing provided in the article, but some disagreement as to whether the coverage is "significant" as is described in WP:GNG. With reasonable arguments on either side, and no obvious policy reason to do otherwise, the default is to close as no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Palmer[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Accomplished, but simply not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He's got a fair amount of mentions in things, but these are either simple quotes pulled to represent GM execs' perspective by the media or very brief mentions surrounding the cars he helped design. I think this person's career would be much better mentioned on the articles of the respective cars he helped build. There's not much to give him an article in his own right. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is another major car designer just like Marc Lichte who was prodded in a similar drive-by way and then snow kept at AfD as an easy pass of WP:ARCHITECT. The subject designed many cars for Chevrolet and so appears in the Corvette Hall of Fame, a related documentary, numerous books such as Chevrolet: A History and any amount of motoring press such as Car and Driver. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ARTIST are known for their work. Classic cars are put in museums for people to look at, people buy pictures of them to decorate their homes. Were his designs the ones getting praise in the reviews? Also did he design a car, or just make token changes to an existing model? Dream Focus 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [2] "Palmer was largely responsible for the design of the four rotor-Aerovette", "his design of the Fourth Generation Corvette", "began working on the design and advanced aerodynamics that became the 1984 Corvette." [3] "Jerry Palmer was the chief stylist for the third-generation Camaro." Corvette from the Inside discusses Palmer's early drawings of a generation of Corvettes. He's also in the GM/Chevrolet hall of fame, which I just today learned is a thing that exists. [4] "GM designer Jerry Palmer created a stunning exterior with a steeply raked windshield, split-folding gullwing doors, and digital instruments using early LCD technology." I could keep pulling more sources but he already meets WP:ARCHITECT all day long. Dream Focus, I hope that covers your concerns as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable and important major car designer. WP:Not paper. Sources do exist, and should be considered vis WP:GNG. WP:HEY7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ScottishFinnishRadish has found clear evidence of notability. Dream Focus 23:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete. Not seeing WP:SIGCOV, few mentions in passing and few niche rewards. But I am happy to reconsider my vote if someone can point me to a source that discusses him for several paragraphs? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Palmer retired in 2002 as the executive director of design for General Motors (GM) North American Operations. In this position, he oversaw the interior and exterior design of all of GM’s production vehicles." "Jerry Palmer". College for Creative Studies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], He had a reasonably successful career. That does not make him encyclopedic. Nor does super niche recognition like Corvette Hall of Fame. (Simple rule of thumb: an award that grants notability should be notable itself). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His creations got reviewed, he is notable for his work as an artist/designer. Dream Focus 03:37, 29 March 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Garbage in America[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "New sourcing establishes notability", however, not a single source has any in-depth coverage of this report. There is one in-depth article, but it's a reprint from the organization which creates the report. At least one of the sources added doesn't even mention this report, and the others are simple mentions. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. Of current six sources, 3 of them are directy from the report's publisher Biocycle, one is on a brazilian site with the first few paragraphs from an article[5] from Biocycle. The Slate article only mentions the report briefly, same with the Wastedive article which mentions it is a discontinue report that Biocycle used to produce. If an article for Biocycle was created(and shown to be notable), a mention of this report would make sense, but there isn't anywhere near enough to warrant a standalone article for this. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 06:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pulis Iskwad[edit]

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

Had been DEPRODed by Creator w/o explanation. Not a single claim of notability, no results per WP:BEFORE apart IMDB for the film and her director, sounds like a Hoax to "Police Squad" CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability and nothing found about the film in a search. Having an IMDb page is not enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the movie aside from a review in a book. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything to suggest it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.
Delete - No notability and completely fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It would be hard to prove its notability, especially for a film released in 1987 by a company that seems to no longer exist. HiwilmsTalk 13:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Baah (musician)[edit]

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

An overt autobiographical article on a non notable musician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a GNG fail also. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly written by himself with a promotional tone, as part of a marketing effort by self and/or management. Note the self-aggrandizing peacock words about how influential he is, which can also be found in the two "sources" presently in the article, themselves press releases written by self and/or management. Otherwise he is only found in his own social media. Good luck to him in his media blitz, but Wikipedia exists for other purposes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note - Wikipedia has articles on two other people with the same name: Kwame Baah (a politician) and Kwame Baah (footballer). Both of those articles are polluted with hatnotes referring back to this musician, and those hatnotes should be removed if/when his article is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a "promoter and a Digital Marketing Expert" with 3 albums that are apparently self-released. No notability. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both promotional and self aggrandizing. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON, but likely just non notable. --Kbabej (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Sayegh[edit]

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

non-notable banking executive - also the whole text of the is a copyvio Pipsally (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Deputy CEO of a small, new bank founded only in 2017. Nothing newsworthy other than press releases. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and poorly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I initially confused him during a WP:BEFORE with a minor politician (Andre Sayegh), but after searching with -mayor removed, there's just a person with a job. Nothing rising to the level of meeting GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zaan Khan[edit]

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

The article was previously AFD'ed and deleted for not satisfying the notability criteria for an actor. The subject still doesn't seem notable. He has mostly portrayed minor and small roles in films and television series. A Google search of him doesn't reveal sources that establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR Ravensfire (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. GSS ^💬 07:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haancock[edit]

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

Video streaming company does not pass WP:NCORP- coverage of the company is WP:PASSING mentions in articles about specific films. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, without prejudice to restoration to draft if someone wants to make a better effort at this. BD2412 T 06:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Douglas Bruce. Suitable content can be merged from history if desired. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado House career of Douglas Bruce[edit]

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

This has to be one of the strangest articles I've ever come across. I've never encountered an article this bloated in concept and scope, essentially a massive WP:CSECTION/WP:CONTENTFORK hybrid. This material is anything but encyclopedic. KidAd • SPEAK 08:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and redirect to Douglas Bruce. I did get a good laugh out of the sheer audacity of this lengthy article on a single term of service by a state legislator. BD2412 T 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge into article of Douglas Bruce. This is a giant content fork, I can hardly imagine a situation where a state rep would be deserving of an article devoted entirely to their legislative career, as if the parent article couldn't fit it. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Agree with the other comments. This absolutely does not belong as it’s own article. The question is what to do with the information contained in it. Much of it probably fails the noteworthy test, but if a consensus develops around keeping some of it, any material from the article deemed useful should be merged into the Douglas Bruce individual page. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and redirect to Douglas Bruce.--Greysonsarch (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility that this discussion will turn out otherwise at this point. BD2412 T 06:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died on the toilet[edit]

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

This was prodded by User:Liz for "Non-encyclopedic and the constant target of vandalism" and deprodded by the creator, User:Theprussianm with "PROD inappropriate - Constant Vandalism is not grounds for deletion, if anythign it is grounds for protection." Deprod however ignored the first concern: "Non-encyclopedic". I concur. This seems to fail WP:NLIST as it is sourced to individual accounts and not to any comprehensive sources discussing this... errr... phenomena; there is no evidence this topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This seems like unencyclopedic WP:TRIVIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Non-encyclopedic" is the classic argument to avoid of WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. The reference to WP:TRIVIA is erroneous as that's about article sections. What the nomination meant was WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is another argument to avoid. All we really have here is WP:NLIST which fails per WP:NEXIST as sources are easy to find – see Bed Pan Deaths or Died on the John. The worst case would be merger to Toilet-related injuries and deaths#Historical deaths and so there's an obvious alternative to deletion which we would prefer per the policy WP:PRESERVE. In other words, the nomination is crap. :) Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NLIST. In addition to the sources provided by Andrew Davidson, this grouping has been discussed extensively.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "8 Famous People Who Died in the Bathroom". HowStuffWorks. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
^ Heather Johnson (October 15, 2019). "Top 5 Famous People That Have Died on the Toilet". chillopedia.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
^ Sarah. "10 celebrities who died on the toilet seat". thewonderlist.net. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
^ Todd Harding (August 21, 2012). "You Won't Believe How Many People Are Injured By Toilets Every Year! Have You Ever Suffered A Toilet Injury?". New Country 99.1. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
^ Jerome London (December 9, 2020). "17 People Who Died On The Toilet". thoughtcatalog.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
^ Carly Silver (January 3, 2020). "Famous People Who Died On The Toilet". ranker.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
^ Ward Hazell (February 22, 2019). "10 People Who Died On The Toilet (That Aren't Elvis)". listverse.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

- SailingInABathTub, And which of those lists are reliable? HowStuffWorks has been discussed at RSN and is considered generally unreliable (granted, 2:1 vote) at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_323#How_Stuff_Works, but similarly it wasn't considered good quality here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#HowStuffWorks. Sane for Listverse: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_295#Listverse_as_a_reliable_source. I am pretty sure ranker.com is based on user submissions/voting. Nobody discussed chillopedia or thewonderlist at RSN yet but they don't look much better (is just much more niche but just as clickbaitish). All of those links might be very well based on Wikipedia, given the poor quality of such sites. Do you have a single reliable newspaper or better that contains such a list? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go, a single newspaper article,^[1] plus a couple of books,^[2]^[3] and this article itself has some coverage.^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - SailingInABathTub, It is intriguing that an article may fail to be notable, but then it can be written about by reliable sources and gain notability. A very interesting case, although inclusion in such lists is not great for SIGCOV. Anyway, the first source is on topic, but " a free alternative weekly newspaper in San Francisco" is a very low bar, and from what I see the coverage in the books is passing as well, but feel free to provide page ranges and count the number of paragraphs/pages discussing this phenomena if you have better access than me (snippets on Google). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jessie Schiewe (May 10, 2017). "Many celebrities have died on the toilet or in the bathroom". SFWeekly. Retrieved March 26, 2021.
^ Justin Heimberg; David Gomberg (2009). Would You Rather... ?'s Read It and Wipe: Condensed Comedy for the Can. Seven Footer Press. p. 11. ISBN 9781934734100.
^ Geoff Tibballs (2019). Brain Dump: Become a Genius on the Loo. Ebury Publishing. ISBN 9781473562349.
^ Bathroom Readers' Institute (2019). Uncle John's Truth, Trivia, and the Pursuit of Factiness Bathroom Reader. Portable Press. ISBN 9781684129881.
^ Isha Bassi (March 27, 2018). "24 Of The Strangest Wikipedia Pages That'll Send You Deep Into A Wiki-Hole". Buzzfeed. Retrieved March 26, 2021.
^ Nick Douglas (July 10, 2020). "The Greatest 'Unusual Articles' From Wikipedia". lifehacker.com. Retrieved March 26, 2021.
^ Mike Vago (April 21, 2014). "Use the facilities at your own risk: Wikipedia's list of toilet-related deaths". avclub.com. Retrieved March 26, 2021.

Keep SailingInABathTub has found clear evidence of notability for this topic. Dream Focus 10:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, I think this is exactly the type of list for which LISTN is relevant and useful as it is not any standard or ostensibly reasonable method of indexing people...if not for the fact that sources have in fact covered this grouping specifically. Cf. another "oddball" list... postdlf (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There's nothing wrong with eccentric lists of this kind, even if they attract odd additions. Vaticidalprophet 18:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is no case to answer here, this article passes WP:NLIST by miles. This is a classic example of bias dislike in my honest opinion. Toilet Deaths and injuries are a notable subject and attract attention in the media and also in popular culture. I will acknowledge when I De-Prodded the article I should have clarified that this list was clearly notable. However, it is obvious to any reader that the subject of the list of a significant subject, just because the article falls under what would be considered as "unusual articles" (it even sits in that wikipedia list), it does not mean it is grounds for deletion in any way. Theprussian (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for reasons cited above. YGBSM! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, reasons above. --RacoonyRE ^{Message me}_{Contributions} 17:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Turner (academic general practitioner)[edit]

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

promotional article on non notable physician Not everyone working with immunization is notable The references are not really to her work, its to the subjects she publicizes--and the fact that these subjects are socially valuable doesn't make for personal notability : DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ keep, she fails both WP:NPROF and GNG, membership in government committees is not enough for notability. She clearly doesnt have enough academic research to pass NPROF, see her MA profile, 900 citations in a high citation field is really not a lot. --hroest 13:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC) -- While she fails NPROF, she seems to pass WP:GNG. --hroest 16:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I actually deprodded this article a while ago, although in context it was more of a procedural deprod (the creator had moved their sandbox into mainspace and wanted a history split). At the time, it looked notable to me, or at least enough so to make PROD inappropriate. A closer look is more ambiguous, though, and gives the impression of significant citebombing. Reasonable to take this to AfD. Vaticidalprophet 18:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would suggest that the National advisory roles she has had in New Zealand are significant and they are not over cited but do show the importance of each body. I won't put each citation in here, they are easy to follow in the article. She was part of the team that was awarded the [6] Shorland Medal. This reference shows that the SHIVERS team had national and international recognition. Her work with the Immunisation Advisory Centre at Auckland University is recognised in [7] this link to the World Health Organisation. Her research is considerable in Google Scholar.Realitylink 21:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- She appears to meet some of these criteria:
  - The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  - The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  - The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
  - 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.
  - The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.Realitylink (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Realitylink if any, she would only meet the last one. It is pretty clear that she did not have a measurable impact on her discipline as an academic, her Google Scholar citations are really low for her field (see the link that you provided). You say her "research is considerable" but simply publishing multiple articles in journals does not make you notable, it simply makes you an average academic. Being part of a team that gets awarded an award unfortunately is also not really enough for WP:NPROF, but I think it does add to her notability. Having a profile on a WHO site is not by itself a sign of notability. But maybe she is notable for communicating her field to the public. For GNG there would have to be independent coverage in the news, eg something about her instead of just an interview and I don't see that at the moment. --hroest 13:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hannes Röst Thanks for that. So if she meets the last criteria, I am thinking this would include her notability with IMAC, the Child Poverty Action Group and her work on equity of access to vaccines - and this is actually most of the article, with lots of references to show she was there and what she did. Am I correct in thinking that she has to only meet one of the criteria? If so, why doesn't the focus on the discussion look at what degree 'The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.' Personally, I see her academic work, research and membership of community organisations as all being on a paradigm with this, but, I am looking for ways we can explore possible retention of the page. She is clearly active and influential and this focus might work for notability.Realitylink (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Realitylink yes, if any of these criteria are fulfilled the article can be kept. Also you can look at WP:GNG which states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so this would be major newspapers writing *about* her career. Looking through the article, I could not really find this, I found this comment by her, stuff.co calling her a "top immunisation doctor" (that would count, a RS calling her important, and Stuff (website) seems to be widely read), this calling her an "immunization expert" etc. Now, taking all these together I think this should be enough for WP:GNG. --hroest 16:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hannes Röst Thanks for that perspective. I am still thinking the article needs to be more focused on her public health work and would like the opportunity to fix this. Not sure how the other contributing editors here feel about that? Her academic work would mostly be there to support her work with IMAC and her role as an advocate for public health. I will get back with a new lede for feedback.Realitylink (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Realitylink that would be the right way to go, the article should be about what she is most known/notable for according to WP:UNDUE it would even be a mistake to focus the article on her being a physician or a researcher since that is not what she is known for. --hroest 17:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hannes Röst Yes, I can see that and I think the re-shaping is getting it into that mode. I will continue editing - for example, points listed in the infobox can be made more relevant and some of the main body of the article can be simplified. At the moment I reckon it is ok and certainly nothing there is untrue; so let's aim to keep the article alive and being improved. I get good ideas from colleagues and other authors and I am sure it will be closely watched - which is fair enough.Thanks for your input.Realitylink (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps - with a change to the title and focus in mind - a new lede could look like this:

Nicola Mary Turner is a New Zealand public health advocate who is Director of the Immunisation Advisory Centre, University of Auckland the organisation that advises the New Zealand Medical profession and the New Zealand government. She has contributed to advisory committees for the New Zealand Ministry of Health and is a spokesperson for the NZ Child Poverty Action Group. Much of her research and outreach has focused on improving immunisation coverage and closing equity gaps for the national schedule vaccine delivery in New Zealand. Turner is an Associate Professor at the University of Auckland and an Honorary Associate Professor at the University of Otago, Wellington.Realitylink (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The focus and structure of the article could then be rearranged. I would suggest losing the section on education (it is the info box); changing some of what she is 'Known for" in the info box; probably losing most of the career section and just going to a section on IMAC; changing the layout of the research and outreach section to focus on equity of access (factors that affect that) and the work with Child Poverty Action - keeping an eye out for good references. The section on Covid could be moved to the section on IMAC and the section on the NZ measles be dropped (it can be added to the article on that). I would however recommend keeping the section on National advisory roles. What do you reckon folks? I could probably get this together in the next week and hopefully get a stay of execution for the page! Just thinking constructively here. Thanks for your patience. Realitylink (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have made substantial changes to the article with more of a focus on her public health profile and work. If this is accepted, I would move it to have the title changed to, perhaps: Nikki Turner (public health advocate).Realitylink (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seams, by the sources used and quick look around, a notable figure in NZ public health...It is not clear to me that "(academic general practitioner)" is the right label for the title as sources would seem to suggest via citations that a pass the WP:Prof test was borderline and that the public health stuff is what makes for notability. But I think could do with substantial trimming as the excessive content makes it seem, to me, over-promotional. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Msrasnw You might have a point about the title not being the best indicator of her notability. See the discussion above. Perhaps we come at this from the basis of 'NZ public health'? It's a good perspective you offer. I agree that it could be simplified.Realitylink (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep based on NPROF C1, but if GNG- or other NPROF-meeting criteria are dug up I will reconsider. I ran Scopus citation metrics on her 66 coauthors with 10 or more papers.

Total cites: average: 3539, median: 1572, Turner: 991.

Total papers: avg: 108, med: 62, T: 99.

h-index: avg: 24, med: 17, T: 17.

1st highest-cited paper: avg: 496, med: 241, T: 87. 2nd: avg: 260, med: 122, T: 43. 3rd: avg: 173, med: 88, T: 41. 4th: avg: 143, med: 61, T: 37. 5th: avg: 121, med: 51, T: 37.

She seems to be a standard academic in her field (edited to be less (unintentionally) condescending). EDIT: Change to keep due to GNG being met. JoelleJay (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay I agree she fails WP:NPROF but I think she passes WP:GNG, see the sources I found above including the most-read New Zealand internet portal calling her an stuff.co "top immunisation doctor". Based on this I changed my vote. --hroest 16:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fails WP:NPROF but meets WP:GNG as one of the most prominent commentators in the New Zealand media on child poverty and immunisation, e.g. 174 hits on Radio New Zealand, including 34 in the last 12 months. Similar results from Stuff and NZ Herald. Paora (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she meets WP:GNG; I concur that she does not pass WP:NPROF. There are enough reliable and independent sources to establish general notability. In addition, the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners has a detailed 2019 writeup of her with decent biographical background. This is credited to Penguin Books New Zealand, which is curious as I cannot see that they have ever published a book by her. Schwede 66 20:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Schwede66 my reading of that page was that it was a copy of a biographical entry in Thomson, Margie, and Simon Young. (2019), Womankind: New Zealand Women Making a Difference. , Penguin Books, Auckland. But I could not find the contents page or much about the book - other than praise for its photos. I think the page looks safe now .... Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Further to my previous comment, Dr Turner was on the 6pm news last night (New Zealand has two main TV channels and this item screened on TV3). Here's what they said: "New Zealand's most prominent vaccine expert says that the government needs to ramp up its communication about COVID-19 immunisation. Nikki Turner received a dose of the Pfizer vaccine today ..." That statement at the start would further give credence to general notability. If anybody wants to see the article, I've made a recording of it as it's almost impossible to find a specific item on their website (surprising, eh?); contact me via Wikimail and I'll put it up somewhere for private viewing. Schwede 66 18:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG as stated by multiple people above. WestCD (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per WP:HEY. Beccaynr (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dybbuk box[edit]

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

insufficiently notable fraud. For something as unlikely as thism eveb the LATimes & the Forward aren;t enough. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found this article due to finding a skeptical article about the legend by investigator Kenny Biddle in Skeptical Inquirer, and added that info here. I did wonder if the article should be deleted, but instead decided to attempt to improve it. Why delete it now? This story spawned a Hollywood film after all. That does seem to make it at least borderline notable. RobP (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just read the article for the film based on this legend, and it references this very page in the lead. I just added a small section there summarizing the skeptical content in THIS article as well. If this article gets deleted, I would like more of its contents to be moved to that article, but I fear that will not be approved -- as that article is primarily about the film. RobP (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep and rewrite. This trashy pop-culture story has unfortunately gotten a lot of traction in normally reliable sources (example). There is a case to be made that the bulk of the coverage is WP:SENSATIONAL and not serious journalism, but unless there’s consensus to deprecate the sources, it’s moot. The article needs a rewrite, it should summarize claims rather than indulge in meticulously detailed narratives from the claimant's perspective that read like adolescent creepypasta. WP:FRINGE applies here, so WP:PARITY warrants skeptical sources can be used to shift the article weight decisively towards reality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Keep as well. I agree with LuckyLouie. I have been coming across some articles online about them. I was about to add some info to the page when I saw the Afd. I noticed that the Dybbuk page needs a rewrite as well. Would it be an idea to combine the two and have the Dybbuk box as a heading within the article? Either way I think this information should be kept.Alhill42 (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add the [[Category:Paranormal hoaxes]] template at page bottom (intentionally de-wikified here). 5Q5|^✉ 14:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are wikipedia articles written in Hebrew about this as well, which are sourced. https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes.ovall (talk • contribs) 04:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uzbek carpet. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carpet dyes in Uzbekistan[edit]

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

Article appears to be a poor attempt to promote a minor aspect of a particular country's culture, one that has notability within the region but not in the country specifically. It is a poor attempt because the page is mistitled, barely intelligible, unsupported by appropriate references, and provides no useful information. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of carpet making in Uzbekistan is probably important, and seems to have sources; the title of the article could probably be improved, but that does not require deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per reason above. SunDawn (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename. The topic does seem notable as per DGG's comment, although I would propose renaming it to something along the lines of Textile production of Uzbekistan, since that seems to better cover the topic of the article than the current title does. --PubSyr 🌲^C. 🐦^T. 13:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uzbek carpet. -KH-1 (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is some consensus that the topic may be notable, but the decision of where the content belongs would benefit from further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uzbek carpet per KH-1 and DGG. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 12:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uzbek carpet and maybe move to Carpet making in Uzbekistan (rather than PubSyr's wording). Bondegezou (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the subject has its own article or be merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Uzbek carpet. That said, I hope the article is kept so I have an opportunity to reply to someone on a talk page with "What does that have to do with the price of Carpet dyes in Uzbekistan!?!" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite multiple relists, nobody could come up with even a single independent RS. Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Noida Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Does not satisfy ~~WP:schooloutcomes or~~ WP:nschool or wp:org. Vikram Vincent 13:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Here is my argument for similar institutions. DMySon 18:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the wiki linked argument, it sounds like WP:other stuff exists which ain't a keep argument. Rather it is a good argument to delete. Vikram Vincent 07:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 07:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment cleaned up page and yet it does not pass WP:HEY. Vikram Vincent 08:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Federally Administered Tribal Areas cricket team. The "keep" !votes argue that this person meets NCRIC. However, that is only a guideline designed to be a shortcut to identify persons that are likely notable according to GNG. Once notability is challenged, however, NCRIC is not enough and it has to be established whether or not the subject meets GNG. The argument that he's still young and likely to garner more coverage is turning things upside down, we do not keep articles if we think someone might one day become notable (see WP:CRYSTAL), we create articles if the subject can be shown to be notable now. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zulqarnain (cricketer, born 1998)[edit]

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

Nothing in my searches in Pakistani papers. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played in first-class and List A cricket matches, so passes WP:NCRIC. This user is now making a campaign of harassment/stalking following their lack of good-faith shown in a recent ANI thread. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Federally Administered Tribal Areas cricket team Has played 1 FC match and 2 List-A matches. While coverage may exist offline and in Pakistani source, I have been unable to find any, potentially also by his common name with other Pakistani cricketers. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player has one or a few matches, but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being cricketpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hide this WP:PA... ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow, you really are one of the most insincere and incompetent editors I've come across in my 11 years on this site John Pack Lambert. StickyWicket (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was that personal attack really necessary? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Federally Administered Tribal Areas cricket team as per suggested above. Setreis (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC in its current formulation and has appeared in two kinds of top-class domestic cricket. Also, at 22, it's reasonable to suppose that his top-class cricket career is not over; if nothing more has happened in, say, five years, then there might be a stronger case for deletion or redirection. Johnlp (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Federally Administered Tribal Areas cricketers as an accepted ATD. No significant coverage to be found, only wide-ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This trumps the trivial pass of WP:NCRIC, which is by consensus unreliable predictor of coverage for cricketers such as these who have played very few matches, in this case for a lesser regional association. With the restructuring of first-class cricket from 16 to 6 teams in 2019, in which he wasn't even selected for a 2nd XI, the supposition that he will make more FC appearances in future is not realistic without an unexpected reversal of these changes. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's a weak pass of WP:NCRIC, with three games at the appropriate level. But at 22, as noted above, he's at the start of his career, so it's fairly likely he will play more. DevaCat1 (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Predictions of future achievements and coverage are not useful here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You and I clearly disagree on that, as on pretty much everything else. It's risible to delete someone who passes WP:NCRIC, particularly when their claim is likely to rise over time; and the proposer of AfD has repeatedly noted in his deletion proposals that people were "dropped for poor performances", "had a short career" and so forth. It would be farcical to delete an article, only to have to recreate it later. Deletionists are little more than vandals with the guile to give specious reasoning for their behaviour, and harm the project immeasurably. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's you and policy (and guidelines) that disagree; NCRIC not even close to the top of that tree. And please be mindful of how you characterise others (WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely clear whom you believe I was characterising; I was speaking in the abstract about deletionists and deletionism. However, as you are clearly concerned, as recommended in WP:BATTLEGROUND I will henceforth be disregard[ing] that user entirely. You can consider this conversation over. DevaCat1 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I edge toward keep because there is a good possibility this player will appear in more matches. Perhaps if he hasn't appeared in any further matches in 3-4 years time this could be redirected. StickyWicket (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is inconsistent with policy, which dictates that we delete/redirect now and recreate if/when GNG is met. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 01:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion needed on whether the subject should actually have an article. Note that passing WP:NCRIC means the subject is presumed notable only.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitively fails WP:GNG - the three sources are all to his Cricinfo stats page or to game statistics. Not an ounce of SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 16:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Zarook[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket. Nothing significant in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC having played first-class cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moors Sports Club Has played 1 FC match, but finding sources was difficult, as has proved for other Sri Lankan cricketers. Sources may well exist offline or in Sri Lankan sources though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another exceptionally marginal pass of a SNG sourced only to a statistics database. A search for sources brought up nothing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meeting NCRIC was enough for the article's creation, now we have to actually justify the presumption of notability by meeting GNG -- which the subject does not. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes argue that this person meets NCRIC. However, that is only a guideline designed to be a shortcut to identify persons that are likely to pass GNG. Once notability is challenged, however, NCRIC is not enough and it has to be established whether or not the subject actually meets GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Ford (cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing notable in searches about him, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC having played first-class cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players Has played 1 FC match, but an internet search didn't provide much. Sources may well exist offline though, especially due to his match being in the 1950s, and coverage for the County Championship tending to be good. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here, but no qualms if the articles is kept as sources may well exist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. County Championship player. StickyWicket (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC, as he has played one first class match which is also a part of domestic cricket.
A.A Prinon
— Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Sports bios must meet WP:GNG (merely passing an SNG is irrelevant per a 2017 RfC), and he clearly does not. Furthermore he barely passes of an overly permissive sports SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Performance on a youth team does not contribute to notability, especially without any substantive sources about him in particular. Reywas92^Talk 05:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG so passing NCRIC is not sufficient. Fails WP:BASIC due to a complete lack of depth in coverage, with nothing beyond basic match statistics being available (is he dead? who knows?) ----Pontificalibus 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A 17 year old opening the bowling in a county championship match in the 1950s seems sure to have generated coverage, as at the time there would have been daily coverage in all national newspapers of championship matches. Looks like one where the article author and AfD proposer just haven't found the coverage yet, rather than it not existing. It's important in this regard that there is already cited coverage in the Yorkshire Post. DevaCat1 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there was coverage, but it doesn't satisfy GNG and isn't enough to write a biography (e.g. the fact that he made his debut, opened the bowling and was the fourth Cotham Grammar School boy to play for the county that season - Yorkshire Evening Post 9 Aug 1951).----Pontificalibus 06:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have said, NCRIC presumes a pass of GNG; AfD is where that presumption is proved, and clearly the actual coverage is not significant enough to meet notability. If someone finds offline sources in the future, then they can build his bio then. JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. per the near-unanimous policy based arguments. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Desai[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket career. Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC having played first-class cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers Has played 1 FC games, but finding coverage was difficult. Sources may well exist offline or in Indian sources though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JGHowes ^talk 00:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duklr[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable organisation, appears to actually just be spam. I can't find any particular notable coverage of it in new sources or third party references that aren't clearly written promotional pieces or press release type notes (see the references that were added to the article for examples of how there's no coverage.) Fails WP:ORG. Canterbury Tail talk 11:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2017-06 ✗ A7, 2017-05 ✗ G11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - can't find any real mentions of this, and the article itself is rather promotional in tone. Remagoxer (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. Per the policy based arguments. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essof Ashroff[edit]

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

Nothing in sources. Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC having played first-class cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers Has played 1 FC match, but a search brought about no results. Sources may well exist offline or in Indian sources from the timing of his career though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland United FC[edit]

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

Another case of WP:TOOSOON. Club is brand new after a merger between two clubs and doesn't meet the old WP:FOOTYN guidelines for clubs yet, doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 02:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 02:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 02:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely to be notable in the future, but WP:CRYSTAL applies, and there's no evidence of notability currently. Giant Snowman 10:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Also felt this should have been moved to draft space instead of sending to AfD! Govvy (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - as the article was created in Apr 2020, it's likely too old to draftify through normal process but it can be sent to draft via AfD. This team has a fair chance of future notability so that's my preferred outcome. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON applies CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't find much in the papers but I did find this: [8] (also [9], not sigcov). SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy if original user or someone else wants the article changed to draft but otherwise it's just a case that of too early. The club will be notable in the future I'm sure, just not now! NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 02:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON
Delete: per WP:CRISTAL Dr Salvus 19:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON Nexus000 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National CleanUp Day. Any content worth merging is available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Edward Willoughby[edit]

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

The subject appears to be notable only in the context of National CleanUp Day, to which I redirected it. I'll revise my the statement of "virtually all coverage is about National CleanUp Day with some incidental mentions of Willoughby", to "every single non-self-published source is about National CleanUp Day, with some incidental mentions of Willoughby". There is no sourcing basis here for a separate article; it should be redirected. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: his discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elmidae. Agreed that most of the coverage is about National CleanUp Day and he is the founder of the organization. In addition to National CleanUp Day, he is on the Board of Directors of World CleanUp Day - a separate organization. He's also been instrumental in promoting volunteer cleanup activities and concepts in the US and globally. I would suggest that he's notable and recognized in the important area of keeping plastic and litter out of the ocean. BTW, I've not worked on a discussion page for deletion or redirecting in the past and will work on formatting. Thanks for your understanding have and have a GREAT day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejewett (talk • contribs) 00:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional reference material including articles discussing World CleanUp Day and Clean Trails organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejewett (talk • contribs) 00:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One additional thought, World CleanUp Day is considered to be the largest single day volunteer event. If the country leader, "continent" representative, and Board Member for that organization isn't notable, what is? Can you name one bigger than World Cleanup Day 2019, 21 September 2019, with 21 million people across 180 countries.[3] Over 100000 tons of waste was collected.[5]^[1]^[2] Also, adding additional link for Earth Day video.

Comment Notability is demonstrated by in-depth coverage of the individual by multiple reliable independent sources. Do you have any that are about the subject of the article rather than organizations or events he’s associated with? Mccapra (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Mccapra. Thanks and will work on getting more. My first time adding a living person. Have a GREAT day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejewett (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stevejewett has a conflict of interest as that name matches the co-founder of National Cleanup Day who is a major contributor to that article as well as this one. They need to make a connected contributor declaration. MB 02:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with the Cleanup Day page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesscynical (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stevejewett added COI declaration on March 23, 2021 as requested by MB. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejewett (talk • contribs) 00:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In particular, this would benefit from additional discussion on the notability of the subject based on existing guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the article is well sourced, and person seems worthy of notice as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Have changed to actually thinking this should be deleted as of now. If better sourcing are found it can be re-created. BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National CleanUp Day. MarioGom (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "World Cleanup Day". Wikipedia. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ "National CleanUp Day". Wikipedia. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shantaram characters[edit]

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

Unsourced list that is quite literally of just names only and no detail about who they are and why they are notable. Page was last edited over 5 years ago, doubtful anyone's coming back to overhaul it anytime soon. Rusted AutoParts 01:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typically, separate character list articles are not really a needed WP:SPLIT from an article on a single piece of fiction. Especially ones that have zero sources and almost zero actual information. There is not really anything here worth Merging, either. Rorshacma (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rorshacma. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Gazal world (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Surprised this article was not challenged years ago Rogermx (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trainwreck (band). As a valid alternative to deletion given the consensus that this subject is not notable. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Rothacker[edit]

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

Passing mentions of the subject do not lead to WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trainwreck - Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Google search gave me sources: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], all of which qualify as passing mentions and does not demonstrate notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 05:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG, fails WP:MUSICBIO. I don't think a redirect is appropriate. Trainwreck was a "side project of a side project" of Jack Black fronted by an "almost famous actor" backed by "whatever guys could form a rhythm section in any given city in which a show was scheduled." [15][16] No one's coming to WP looking for the drummer. They're finding the drummer because he's linked from Trainwreck. (And probably finding Trainwreck the same way.) Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read. A redirect here won't do that. Yappy2bhere (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a drummer who does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trainwreck (band): Searching agress with the above conclusion. Redirect per ATD-R. The redirection target contains a substantial amount of information about the subject, so a redirect here is more than appropriate. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Krasa[edit]

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

A BEFORE shows no evidence of sourcing to indicate notability for her work as an actor, business woman or academic. She was co-director of a film that won best short documentary, but that that does not seem to be enough. StarM 00:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when I read the nom, I thought that they had won an Oscar for the documentary, instead I find out it's a low-level promotional award by a tv station. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Onel5969 and nom. Link20XX (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable citations and doesn't meet notabilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bungakuza[edit]

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

Only sources I could find were about the actors, not the copmany. Noah ^💬 00:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 00:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 00:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, this is quite old and somewhat significant. Founded in 1937 by 3 known Japanese public figures, has many notable members, and is on Japanese and French Wikipedias with good citations. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable passes Rajuiu (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added a book reference which describes this as "one of Japan's most illustrious shingeki troupes". Other books showing in a Google Books search describe it as one of 3 "leading Shingeki companies", as one of 2 "two major shingeki companies", etc. See in particular the summary on this page about their work. Overall, sufficient critical attention to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Barzilay, Omri. "How KeyMe Is Taking Over The $7.5B Locksmith Industry". Forbes Magazine.

[2] "Startup KeyMe offers cheaper alternative to replacing car keys". New York Post. 21 December 2014.

[3] Aamoth, Doug. "Locked Out? This App Stores Your Keys Online". Time Magazine.

[4] Brian X. Chen (March 6, 2019). "This Tech Makes D.I.Y. Key Duplication Easy. Maybe Too Easy". New York Times.

[5] Marc Weber Tobias (Jun 20, 2018). "The High-Tech Way To Get Copies Of Your Keys, But Is It Smarter?". Forbes.

[6] "8 Famous People Who Died in the Bathroom". HowStuffWorks. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[7] Heather Johnson (October 15, 2019). "Top 5 Famous People That Have Died on the Toilet". chillopedia.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[8] Sarah. "10 celebrities who died on the toilet seat". thewonderlist.net. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[9] Todd Harding (August 21, 2012). "You Won't Believe How Many People Are Injured By Toilets Every Year! Have You Ever Suffered A Toilet Injury?". New Country 99.1. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[10] Jerome London (December 9, 2020). "17 People Who Died On The Toilet". thoughtcatalog.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[11] Carly Silver (January 3, 2020). "Famous People Who Died On The Toilet". ranker.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[12] Ward Hazell (February 22, 2019). "10 People Who Died On The Toilet (That Aren't Elvis)". listverse.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021.

[13] Jessie Schiewe (May 10, 2017). "Many celebrities have died on the toilet or in the bathroom". SFWeekly. Retrieved March 26, 2021.

[14] Justin Heimberg; David Gomberg (2009). Would You Rather... ?'s Read It and Wipe: Condensed Comedy for the Can. Seven Footer Press. p. 11. ISBN 9781934734100.

[15] Geoff Tibballs (2019). Brain Dump: Become a Genius on the Loo. Ebury Publishing. ISBN 9781473562349.

[16] Bathroom Readers' Institute (2019). Uncle John's Truth, Trivia, and the Pursuit of Factiness Bathroom Reader. Portable Press. ISBN 9781684129881.

[17] Isha Bassi (March 27, 2018). "24 Of The Strangest Wikipedia Pages That'll Send You Deep Into A Wiki-Hole". Buzzfeed. Retrieved March 26, 2021.

[18] Nick Douglas (July 10, 2020). "The Greatest 'Unusual Articles' From Wikipedia". lifehacker.com. Retrieved March 26, 2021.

[19] Mike Vago (April 21, 2014). "Use the facilities at your own risk: Wikipedia's list of toilet-related deaths". avclub.com. Retrieved March 26, 2021.

[20] "World Cleanup Day". Wikipedia. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[21] "National CleanUp Day". Wikipedia. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]