Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 01	May 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Barksdale[edit]

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

A teacher and writer that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. He has written or contributed to a large number of textbooks and guide books, and while there is plenty of verification that these books exist, there is no actual coverage on him, as an individual, at all. Doing a WP:BEFORE search just turns up the listings of the various books he has contributed to, with no actual coverage that would allow him to pass WP:NBIO, or the more specific WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. As an amusing side note, as he is also a high school teacher, most of the edits to the article over the year appear to have been vandalism and in-jokes inserted by his various students. Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless there are independent reviews of his books added to the article he looks non-notable per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. --hroest 13:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More or less what hroest said: he may be a prolific author but these kinds of how-to books are not literary or scholarly works and do not tend to attract much attention in the form of published book reviews. Without that, we can't get WP:AUTHOR notability. And WP:PROF appears both out of reach and misapplied to someone who is mostly a high school teacher and tech book author. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 11:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Turketo[edit]

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

Possible autobio, non-notable volleyball player, a source search brought up no independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reference provided is a trivial mention. When I search Kane Turketo on Google News, it provides 3 more articles which are all also trivial mentions. Nexus000 (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person who created the article is a user called Kanerayt, an account which appeared in 2017 solely to create the Kane Turketo page. There is a good chance this is an autobiography. Nexus000 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, mentioned in a few news articles in passing. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ride the bus[edit]

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

An obscure drinking game. I do not see any reliable source coverage other than an article in a student newspaper which adds nothing to notability. The last AfD for this was a very long time ago and didn't present any arguments that I found convincing. Rusf10 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this game is notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 11:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Snyder[edit]

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

Minor soap opera character, does not meet WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced stub on a minor fictional character. Searching for sources turns up some hits in unreliable sources, such as fan wikis, but no actual coverage that would even come close to passing the WP:GNG. I wouldn't even recommend it being used as a redirect to List of As the World Turns characters, as that's not even the name he's listed as under there, and there is absolutely no sourced content to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Years of cleaning, and this kind of fancruft is still here. Shudder. Burn with vengeance (obvious fails of GNG, V, OR, you name it - it fails it). Sigh. PS. That said, the article was recently gutted by User:JohnmgKing, although I don't mean it in the wrong way - the removed content was just an unreferenced plot summary and therefore dif fail strictly interpreted WP:V --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC) PS. @JohnmgKing: wit a new sig, given the technical ECHO problems. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence Snyder is a character with broad cultural impact. The article has been longer in the past but never seems to have had sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. It does not appear any will be found at this time. TTN (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of As the World Turns characters#S. Not notable. – DarkGlow • 09:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devoke water 11:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 07:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Eisner[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No detailed media coverage. Club career spent in non-FPL league. Matches for national team are unofficial friendlies per [1] and [2]. BlameRuiner (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's not an insignificant early American football player, as seen in his participation in this match before 40,000 people at Yankee Stadium: [3], his enlisting in the Army for World War II was picked up as far away as Tennessee: [4], and the ASL was significantly covered in St Louis. I can't point to a dedicated article specifically on him, but coverage was different in those days, so there's a hint of WP:IAR here, but I don't think there's all that much of it. There's over 200 hits from his soccer career, mostly in New York papers, and mostly the normal match report coverage, but also some news of his enlisting and his organising a tour to play football in Israel. SportingFlyer T·C 10:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments There is only one official Israeli game in 1948 which is against USA Olympics team and that's a different date to the one on 11v11 according to rsssf.com So was his international cap official? There is some good parts of the article, but the sources all feel very weak. Something else would need to be added to convince me to support the article. It's all very borderline to me. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass GNG, and NFOOTY if he was actually capped internationally.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per SportingFlyer explainations and per all. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: As per sportingflyers' explanation. I am leaning towards WP:IAR. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striked edit; due to being blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. Govvy (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure why this keeps being relisted with the clear evidence provided above of at least one 1948 cap for the United States men's national soccer team, easily meeting NFootball. Has User:GiantSnowman seen that, as he's provided the sole delete vote. I'm finding hundreds of articles in newspapers.com reporting appearances for the New York Americans of the American Soccer League, which wasn't quite fully-professional. I'm also seeing mentions in published books such as this. Nfitz (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: thank you for pinging me - nobody else bothered to despite the situation potentially changing. Regarding his international cap, the US Soccer History website you link to clearly says that the match he played in was "International Friendly (Not Official)", so he has 0 international caps as far as we are concerned. He therefore fails NFOOTBALL. The questions therefore is GNG - and I have yet to be convinced that the coverage is significant. Lots of match reports doesn't count - where is the significant coverage about him as an individual? If you link me here (and ping me again) I'll be happy to reconsider my !vote. Giant Snowman 21:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an unofficial friendly. During that era of soccer, there was only a single official match (friendly or not) in the USA between 1935 and 1953, and at the time of that match against Isreal there hadn't been an official match of any kind in a decade. This period of American soccer is woefully underrepresented in Wikipedia. The New York Americans article itself is very poor, with but a single reference (that I just added), despite winning the national cup (the National Challenge Cup, now known as the U.S. Open Cup) twice in that period. Sol Eisner was reportedly a star on that team, and played for them for many years. While I can't find User:GiantSnowman an extensive reference about Eisner, there's no end of coverage of him over the years - I'm surprised I can't find more, given his unique situation, playing with only one eye for much of his career. I've added some short references to the article, including a book by Harold U. Ribalow, but I haven't found a definitive all-encompassing source. Though perhaps that's not a surprise, given that he played on a Jewish team, and there doesn't seem to be many east-coast Jewish newspapers that are available online from that period. Perhaps there are systemic bias issues here too, and better references could be found in newspapers only available on microfilm. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that me saying "there must be coverage in newspapers from that time that aren't online!" at previous AFDs was laughed away/ignored (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Martin (footballer) for one example where that argument failed) - but I'd be a hypocrite if I ignored that point being raised here, so I have struck my delete !vote. Giant Snowman 08:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a big difference between Sol Eisner and Thomas Martin. It was hard to actually find any sources at all for Thomas Martin for his single match, despite good archives of local papers from that period, let alone in-depth sources, with some questioning his very existence. In the case of Eisner, we literally have hundreds of references from his matches in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, including international matches, tours, and US Open Cup matches.Nfitz (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on this occasion, I do agree with the points raised by Nfitz and the article should be kept Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an aside, I found genealogical records relating to Eisner, but can't really use, as they are entirely primary sources, and we aren't here to do original research. He only emigrated from Germany (Posen!) in 1937, along with his siblings, leaving his mother in Germany; one can only imagine what became of her, and the rest of his relatives. He went on to serve in the US Army during the war, losing the sight in his eye a training accident, yet continued his soccer career, toured Israel (and there's a story there, given the allusions made in one article about his being left behind there), and eventually dying in Florida at the age of 90. This is only the second time, I've really felt that I should be writing a movie script, not a Wikipedia article. Nfitz (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus (but leaning more towards keeping). I will undelete the underlying history in case there is additional usable content there. BD2412 T 01:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Agg[edit]

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

User:Dougal18's rationale in the previous AfD a few months ago, where there was clear consensus to delete, remains valid. Agg still does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. This FA article still appears to be the only independent, reliable source addressing Agg directly and in detail, as it was before.

Newly added sources are just either non-WP:RS such as Lady Arse Tumblr, LinkedIn, Daily Cannon and those that are RS are just brief transfer announcements or database profile pages, which do not confer notability. A WP:BEFORE did not come up with any further non-routine coverage since the previous discussion a few months ago indicating that she is still not notable enough for an article in a general encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, still non-notable per consensus at last AFD. Giant Snowman 11:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agg still fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Dougal18 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails NFOOTBALL and GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage easily passes WP:GNG. She was in her local paper 11 years ago and was in the news again last week, when she discovered an Irish granny and was called up to train with the Ireland national team [5] (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). There are offline sources [6] (WP:DIVERSE) as well as things like [7], [8] which are WP:RSs which go into reasonable WP:DEPTH, in that they touch on her life and career outside football. There is a German wiki article and evidence of coverage in German sources from her stint as a "fully professional" in Frankfurt [9] (WP:GEOSCOPE). And then there's the wealth of coverage of transfers, new contracts etc. which are all in WP:RSs and well beyond WP:ROUTINE mentions: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] All in line with what you would expect to see for a notable footballer. I even remember Agg appearing on Newsnight a couple of years ago during the women's World Cup: [16] Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to WP:AGF about the She Kicks source. Aside from that, the only ones that might push this closer to GNG are BBC and Shoot. The question is whether that's enough along with the FA article linked in my nom and the sources already in the article. I would argue that transfer announcements and contract renewal announcements aren't generally SIGCOV unless the announcements themselves go into depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If this was a Norwegian fisherman or gas engineer who played three games for Bodo Glimt in 1987 you'd be trying to make the opposite argument to the one you are here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this different to a PE teacher that played 3 times for Bristol in 2017? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. She's the primary subject of articles published in reliable sources such as the BBC. pburka (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BbDS, passes WP:GNG. My own search was a bit weaker but I also didn't find several of the sources presented above. SportingFlyer T·C 10:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of the sources presented are quite routine, dealing mainly with transfer moves and the like, but there is also in total a bit more than "this player moved to this club then played in this match and then moved to this other club". No clear concensus yet one way or the other but to my mind there's sufficient in the sources so far to warrant further discussion to hopefully land one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. She's played in England and Germany's top leagues which are excluded from WP:NFOOTBALL. Who "manages" that guideline.... Hmlarson (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the totality of sources identified by BbDS above easily passes GNG. Seany91 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable sports figure. Star7924 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting comment from Fenix down is a !vote in a re-listing comment. Another WP:UNINVOLVED editor will need to close. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 17 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hoffmann. Hmlarson (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's absolutely not. You should very urgently review your understanding of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, of which you appear to be wholly ignorant. If you actually read what I wrote it is quite clearly an assessment of the sources and comments provided to explain the rationale behind the Relisting. It is quite plainly explaining the judgement I am employing which is explicitly required by that guideline. All it states is why i believe there is no consensus. If you would find it more helpful for me to close AfDs in which you have been involved without the courtesy of an explanation, please let me know. I would appreciate confirmation that you have re read the guideline I have directed you to. Fenix down (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the hectoring twaddle - you've been pulled up for this several times already. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the project would be better served, if the last month was spent improving the article, rather than trying so hard to delete an article for a women footballer, when for reasons of WP:BIAS they are already grossly unrepresented in Wikiepdia. I was surprised there was no mention of her appearances for Cardiff Met. Ladies F.C. in the 2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League, so I added a couple of easy-to-find references. I'm having no problem finding many more references over the last decade. Article should be improved, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there is a section of football Wikipedia who want to 'apply' the rules to some articles and 'interpret' them for others! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From memory the first version of the article, which was wrongly deleted, was better than this one. I'd expect that if/when this is closed as keep or no consensus the original is restored and merged as necessary. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Seany91 (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Remember that consensus is based on policy-based arguments, not quantity. czar 07:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Matovsky[edit]

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

non notable person who is the founder of a website that may or may not be popular. (/s) no meaningful coverage in any language, big ol GNG fail. TAXIDICAE💰 16:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in Russian language, but I don't care to research for a vote. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by Praxidicae. Furthermore a google search doesn’t portray, nor substantiate any claim of notability. We need multiple in-depth significant coverage in reliable source independent of the subject to establish notability and unfortunately this isn’t the case here. Celestina007 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This falls under WP:1E. The author appears to be article subject.[17] IceWelder [✉] 10:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability whatsoever and apparently a personal promotion. The sources currently on the page are poor/questionable. Search for his name in Russian also finds nothing. There is indeed a Russian language website about Taiwan, but who is author? He? I do not see him there: [18]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of proofs about him and his projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:578:A6A8:F59E:3846:F010:54DA (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What proofs? My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Taiwanese I appreciate what is he doing. Especially now. Proofs really a lot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:46b:b860:841a:6a3f:c417:136f (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All what I read above (who want to delete article) is only bias and jeers. He is doing great with his project and introduce Taiwan as the country to almost 300 million Russian-speaking. In article more than enough proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:57b:d2c6:2c7e:72c0:c229:bb (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC) / — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiealover (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article in three paragraphs and 11 References — “Not enough proof”. Is that joke? I don’t understand hatred to him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:57a:1417:582a:5716:6fd2:a23e (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A CheckUser should check these Keep posts for sockpuppetry, all written in an unsigned similar way and IPs (one of them switched to an account since). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I understood, he is Russian who lives in Taiwan almost 14 years. Creator of project to promote Taiwan among Russian-speaking, despite the fact that Moscow is very close with Beijing and consider Taiwan as a part of China. He already risks to be detained if will fly to China. In addition I found on his blog he made an app for Muslims, in spite on the fact that he is christian. I just want let you know, that is very difficult and requires examination of information, including Quran. I think, this kind of diverse guy with balls of steel should be on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayonnaiseocean (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CU's note: Interestingly, Mayonnaiseocean not technically a sock. Could be meat though, given this is their only edit. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The website is in Russian only. Maybe, it makes sense translating this article to wiki:ru. What I definitely dislike is the reference to a LinkedIn skills quiz. That's fine for a CV, but not for a WP article. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search brings out almost nothing.... Claim of notability is bogus. TheChronium (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Man doing his job. Not-notable and fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanitha Datla[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson. Fails WP:GNG. There is some news about her regional position with Confederation of Indian Industry but that's not sufficient to cross notability. The page seems to be written only to promote her and like a CV. Created by WP:SPA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"regional position" is in fact position in Telangana State, not in some Apopa County. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep cleanup. Some awards are verifiable. Sifnificant independent covera e exist: [19] Lembit Staan (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be significant.--Hippeus (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The position and awards are not significant. The above DC source is basically an interview, thus not an indepedent coverage. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks WP:SIGCOV. As mentioned by Ab207 the positions and awards are not notable or significant. defcon5 (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added good sources to meet WP:BIO, few more to be addedApplus2021 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently four sources. [20] - profile at WEF and not an independent source. [21] - trivial mention and hence not significant. I also think it is not independent and is taken from some press release. [22] - again a press release. Similar content available at [23] & [24]. Last [25] - while this one looks like it qualifies, it is not significant coverage of her. Her name is surely in the heading, but when we read, there isn't much about her except what she is saying. [26] This added by Lembit Staan is helpful according to me (despite Ab207 disregarding it completely because it is an interview); but we need multiple in-depth, independent and reliable sources. For now, it fails WP:GNG for me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added few more reliable sources, need to add some more Applus2021 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The new source added [27] is again a PTI release and should not be considered independent. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. -KH-1 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A chancer. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madis Eek[edit]

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

Fail of WP:GNG. No indication of any significant contributions to his field. nearlyevil 665 09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. has an article (although minimally sourced) on Estonian Wikipedia. There may be significant non-English sources. Mukedits (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has many indepth articles from non-primary sources written about him in the Estonian press: in a cursory look I found a lengthy article in Äripäev (a daily Estonian financial newspaper), mentions in the largest daily newspaper in Estonia Postimees (here), another major newspaper Eesti Päevaleht (here and here), article about one of his buildings in Eesti Ekspress here, a lengthy article (here) for Eesti Rahvusringhääling (Estonian Public Broadcasting). He also has an entry at the Estonian Association of Architects (here). That was all from about 3 minutes of searching. Should always do a WP:BEFORE. ExRat (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Thank you for the research. As you have presented many sources I have gone forward and made a source assessment table to determine the merits of your keep vote. Based on the analysis, I still stand by my delete vote. Also, I don't believe there is consensus that an entry in the Union of Estonian Architects is a precursor to notability.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.aripaev.ee/uudised/2010/09/12/madis-eek-klaverihelide-saatel-arhitektiks	This is an interview piece	Reliable newspaper	Significant coverage, as this is an interview	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Independent coverage	Nothing to suggest it isn't reliable	This is an article covering the planned construction of a bus terminal and commercial building, with just a passing mention of the subject, mentioned in a single paragraph	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/70277321/klaasmunaga-konkursil	Major newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	Article is behind a paywall. Article title's translated reads "In a glass egg competition" and the first visible paragraph suggests nothing about significant coverage of the subject. Looks like an article covering an architect competition, rather than the subject.	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Major newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	The article is entirely about residents' protest against the construction of a cultural village. The subject is mentioned once in the article, as one of the authors of the planned project. Therefore, a trivial mention of the subject.	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	The article is actually a review of one of the buildings co-designed by the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED. Only a passing mention of the subject, mentioned once in the article.	✘ No
https://www.err.ee/924038/pealtnagija-arhitektid-avastasid-riigihangete-e-lahenduses-tobeda-vea	English version of Estonia's Public Broadcaster	Reliable	Not significant. The article is dedicated to a failure in procurement and the subject was the one contracted to do it. It also includes bits of interviews from the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

nearlyevil 665 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is also a very indepth, three page article about Eek specifically in the September 2010 Oma Maja edition of Äripäev (pages 16–19, here). Also, disagree with a few of your assessments. The Eesti Päevaleht article: WP:NOTINHERITED can't be used, as the subject is the co-architect. The subject didn't "inherit" notabilty from someone else's sole abilities; the subject is the co-creator of the building. The Eesti Rahvusringhääling article: the article is indepth. The fact that it quotes the subject in small "bits of interviews"...well, it would be sort of remiss as a journalistic piece if it didn't. Not sure how that is a strike against it. Agree that several sources are passing mentions, but they are mostly about his work or buildings. ExRat (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An architect is not notable by the mere merit of having co-created a building which passes notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. None of the sources covering those buildings cover the subject to a non-trivial degree. The three page article you mentioned is nearly entirely an interview piece, hence not an independent source, hence not a source for determining notability. nearlyevil665 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The Äripäev article is absolutely not "nearly entirely an interview piece" whatsoever. It is a lengthy, featured profile of the subject, directly. He is quoted in the article. It is not merely some "interview" piece. This is an interview piece. This is not. You also still seem to not understand WP:NOTINHERITED: "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." A co-creator, equally in partnership with another person, is not "inheriting" the notabilty of their associate when the weight of an article is given to both equally (or, minimally, as you suggest). I also never claimed that the subject was "notable by the mere merit of having co-created a building." It is the totality of his work. ExRat (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Miscommunication here. WP:NOTINHERITED was used in reference to the articles covering his buildings. You linked several articles that have significant coverage of his buildings (look at my source assessment table) and my point was he is not notable just because buildings he designed have received coverage. And the Äripäev article is absolutely an interview piece. The entire article is 688 words long, with 472 words (68% of entire article) of direct citations by the subject. The remaining 32% of content is either regurgitation of said citations or a lead-up of what is to be said by the subject. This is, for all interests and purposes, a pure interview piece and not an independent article. nearlyevil 665 05:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further participation and discussion based on the presented sources may help generate consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: For making further discussion easier I have expanded on my previous source assessment table to include both the references presented here as part of the keep vote as well as the original references present in the article:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.aripaev.ee/uudised/2010/09/12/madis-eek-klaverihelide-saatel-arhitektiks	This is an interview piece	Reliable newspaper	Significant coverage, as this is an interview	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Independent coverage	Nothing to suggest it isn't reliable	This is an article covering the planned construction of a bus terminal and commercial building, with just a passing mention of the subject, mentioned in a single paragraph	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/70277321/klaasmunaga-konkursil	Major newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	Article is behind a paywall. Article title's translated reads "In a glass egg competition" and the first visible paragraph suggests nothing about significant coverage of the subject. Looks like an article covering an architect competition, rather than the subject.	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Major newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	The article is entirely about residents' protest against the construction of a cultural village. The subject is mentioned once in the article, as one of the authors of the planned project. Therefore, a trivial mention of the subject.	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	The article is actually a review of one of the buildings co-designed by the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED. Only a passing mention of the subject, mentioned once in the article.	✘ No
https://www.err.ee/924038/pealtnagija-arhitektid-avastasid-riigihangete-e-lahenduses-tobeda-vea	English version of Estonia's Public Broadcaster	Reliable	Not significant. The article is dedicated to a failure in procurement and the subject was the one contracted to do it. It also includes bits of interviews from the subject.	✘ No
http://www.arhliit.ee/koosseis/liikmed/liige/313/	Independent union	Reliable	Membership of said Union is not a precursor to notability. In fact I'd even question the notability of said Union.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110720124835/http://www.eekmutso.ee/est/cv_madis_est.html	? This is just a cv page	? This is just a cv page	This is just a cv page with about three sentences about the subject	✘ No
https://static-pdf.aripaev.ee/XjH653_dwk-5kyJoXM5aFjomTzU.pdf	This is an interview piece	Interview piece	The entire article is 688 words long, with 472 words (68% of entire article) of direct citations by the subject. The remaining 32% of content is either regurgitation of said citations or a lead-up of what is to be said by the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

nearlyevil 665 07:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pune Institute of Business Management[edit]

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

No indication this business school is sufficiently notable to warrant a discrete article (could perhaps be given a mention at its degree-awarding partner, Savitribai Phule Pune University). No significant independent coverage apparent. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existing references are primary. It exists, but no claims in the article that meet WP:GNG nor did my search find references to support notability. Jeepday (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a notable institute, popular with students and I can find google book refs and many English News articles also on searching on this institute, clearly passes WP:GNG - Jethwarp (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [28] and [29] - links for newspaper and books Jethwarp (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure, there's a few articles out there about extremely trivial topics that mention the place in passing. There's nothing from what I can tell that addresses it directly and in-depth or isn't about other things that are only slightly related though. So, I'm not seeing the necessary sourcing needed to keep the article. Notability isn't just the number of Google News hits. I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep if someone can provide WP:THREE good sources though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel Kosich[edit]

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

Fails GNG. A non-notable college basketball coach whose Google search results only turn up coaching bio pages on schools' athletic websites. It also seems like it was created by the coach himself or someone very close to him. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This coach works at a less-notable university and isn't even a head coach - he's an assistant coach. Fails GNG and should be deleted. No reliable secondary sources. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gambling in the United States. Nothing substantive to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling in Nevada[edit]

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

Unclear if this standalone article serves any purpose when Gambling in the United States exists. nearlyevil 665 19:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 19:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gambling in the United States: per nom, no need for separate Article CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CommanderWaterford. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would have expected that this topic could warrant a long, high-quality article, but this article is only four sentences long and has zero sources cited. If this article isn't brought up to acceptable quality soon, I would recommend redirecting either to Gambling in the United States or List of casinos in Nevada, as the latter might be closer to what people might expect under this title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of casinos in Nevada I honestly expected a 'what were you thinking' speedy keep when I clicked the article, but like M90, was surprised to see it so empty. I'm sure this is an expansion candidate as the gaming industry is basically what's driven Nevada's growth since Hoover Dam was built, but for now, a list-of redirect might be best to help the reader to the right place. Nate • (chatter) 22:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gambling in the United States: And add {{R with possibility}} as this could be a high quality article as mentioned. Java Hurricane 06:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bold speedy redirect would have also done I suppose, but since we are here, let's go ahead with this. Java Hurricane 06:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect: This is a troubling one. Gambling in Nevada is obviously and certainly a notable stand-alone topic. This article is obviously and certainly not of any imaginable use to readers in its current state. There are reasonable arguments for both proposed redirect targets; the question is which one inclines people to actually convert it to an article. "List of casinos" is probably more reader-friendly, which trumps that, but a theoretical non-terrible article on this is the actual reader-friendly outcome. Vaticidalprophet 20:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn and no opposition. (non-admin closure) Sun8908 _Talk 14:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahren Stringer[edit]

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

Guitarist with The Amity Affliction. Little notability outside band. Was redirected to band as per WP:BANDMEMBER, but redirect repeatedly removed. John B123 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Page has now been reverted to redirect and protected --John B123 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Rosół[edit]

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

No indication subject meets WP:PROF. None of the sources appear to be WP:RS, and my own searching failed to come up with anything better. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails WP:NPROF and GNG. Reads like a CV. According to (dead) primary ref ([30]) in 2019 he was an an pl:Adiunkt, which is a very rough equivalent of an assistant professor. At best, WP:TOOSOON, even for the more inclusionist pl wiki (which requires habilitation for automatic notability - and he doesn't appear to have one yet). GScholar suggests pretty much zero impact: [31]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is very much TOOSOON for NACADEMIC, and no SIGCOV either.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON. Publications are not yet there for NPROF#1, editorial board is not sufficient for NPROF#8. --hroest 00:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of academic notability yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 11:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Kaczmarek[edit]

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

No indication subject meets WP:PROF. The single reference is a passing mention, and my own searching failed to find anything better. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found a bio online for a workshop she gave [32] and it states that she is a " part-time lecturer at the Institute of Polish Culture, University of Warsaw, and director of international relations at Forum for Dialogue, the largest and oldest Polish non-profit dedicated to fostering Polish-Jewish dialogue." She definitely does not pass WP:PROF criteria, and I can't find anything that has written about her re: her position at the Forum for Dialog (their website shows her current position as General Director). It would be great if an editor fluent in Polish could see if there any reliable sources in that language. The only Google hits I found were for a speed skater with the same name. Netherzone (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another case of WP:TOOSOON for WP:PROF (or NBIO in general). Gscholar shows next to zero impact: [33], at least internationally (it doesn't always index Polish journals well). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of academic notability, and with only one book listed, even if it had published reviews (not in evidence) it would probably not be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Jayarajah[edit]

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

Player fails WP:CRIN - has not played at a suitable level to meet the inclusion criteria and so is a non-notable cricketer that ultimately fails WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails CRIN and I'm only seeing match reports from non-notable matches, nothing like enough to pass GNG. No suitable redirect as he hasn't played for any major teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played for national team while minor matches but has played for the Marylebone CC here, so has played for a major team and has newspaper articles on him in Italian here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelhardiniero (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eelhardiniero: Please provide explicit links to sources that provide significant coverage; from a Google News search, I'm only seeing one trivial passing mention in Il Messaggero, and a press release type article for "Italian Cricket TV" (mentioning him as the CEO) on Daily Muslim. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:CRIN, let alone WP:GNG. Player hasn't played any international or domestic match at highest level. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 07:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An articile here on him for his birthday on italyonthisday.com here a few articles in the archive of La Gazzetta dello Sport (italy's main sport newspaper) here and some more from the Italian Olympic Committee on him can be found here Eelhardiniero (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eelhardiniero:, A cricketer first of all has to meet WP:NCRIC. Then comes WP:GNG or significant coverage. But the cricketer hasn't played any first-class/List A/T20 or T20I matches and thus he can't be notable or be significant in coverage. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 07:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.A Prinon: Please note, that if GNG is met (which it isn't in this case), then NCRIC becomes irrelevant. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eelhardiniero: Thanks, but IotD is probably not a WP:RS (and attests more to the notability of Jayarajah's father, Alfonso, than him), the Gazzetta is just routine reporting with nothing substantial (verifies his captaincy of Roma Capannelle, but nothing else), and the regional CONI committee is again limited to mostly trivial passing mentions, and not independent anyway so cannot be used for notability purposes. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Soccer Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:ROUTINE. All routine coverage, every city and town has youth soccer leagues. Rogermx (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG as a youth soccer league. SportingFlyer T·C 10:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - passing mentions and brief quotes from members of the organisation do not constitute WP:ORGDEPTH; subject therefore fails WP:NORG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bomb Factory (band). Typical WP:ATD for albums ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Day, Another Life[edit]

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

The recording fails WP:NALBUMS- there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, no reviews in published sources. The album did not chart on any country's national music charts, or receive any certifications, or major accolades. I cannot see any reason for a standalone article since there is no evidence of notability and there is not enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Ashley yoursmile! 16:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 16:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 16:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources regarding this album. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bomb Factory (band): Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as somebody substantially Heymanned the article and its sourcing in response. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francie Swift[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an actress, making no discernible notability claim whatsoever besides the fact that she exists. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just because the article contains a list of acting roles -- it requires concrete evidence that some of her roles were significant ones, such as reliable source coverage about her and her performances, and/or evidence that she received one or more major award nominations at some point in her career. But this literally just replicates an IMDb profile without contextualizing any significance to it, which is not how you make an actress notable enough for Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Article has been updated and deserves another look. I'd be interested in knowing the reassessment by the nominator as it is not completely unsourced now. --ARose Wolf 14:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Pat Green[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors and actresses are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test is not just listing roles, but demonstrating the significance of some portion of her roles via award nominations or evidence of reliable source coverage about her. But the only notability claim in evidence here is that roles were had, and there are absolutely no sources in the article whatsoever to support her notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find multiple non-trivial newspaper articles from her home town of Kansas City, MO (1, 2, 3) and the third ref notes there was 3 page story on her in the October 9th, 1989 issue of TheaterWeek magazine, so I believe she meets the GNG. I think she also might meet NACTOR for some of her theater roles and her recurring role on Any Day Now. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GoldenAgeFan1 and my research which shows she was a notable actress. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Veteran actress, versatile work in film and theatre, numerous roles in various TV shows: "The grouchy Carla, played by veteran character actor Mary-Pat Green, was one of the more memorable guest characters from this season. Her and the hippie-ish Deeks sniping back and forth was great. She only got a couple of scenes, but she sure stole them." - from ^[1]. Played Mrs. Grimmm in Fantastic Four^[2] Theater roles are sourced, too^[3]^[4]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1975. Missvain (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Healy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was deleted before, there is no indication that the subject is of note outside of the band. Karst (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article was redirected before; the editor who replaced the redirect with a stub[34] is an administrator. Most of the current article is about the band, but enough coverage can be found. The 2016 AFD was the correct decision at the time; there was not much participation at the 2020 AFD and no indication of an attempt to find sources, and the non-standard title and lack of sources in the article influenced the outcome. Peter James (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect all possible derivations to The 1975 and make it stick once and for all. This needs to stop, as certain editors cannot accept the fact that Healy does not qualify for his own Wikipedia article, and keep creating new ones under different derivations of his name. See the previous AfDs, and the associated histories of reverted redirects. He had no independent notability as "Matthew Healy" nor as "Matthew Healy of The 1975", and that has not changed just because someone created yet another article calling him "Matty Healy". He has done nothing notable outside of The 1975, and this article (like its predecessors) repeats the band's history with a few sentences about his personal life. The previous voter said "enough coverage can be found" but provided no examples; they probably meant totally unreliable chatter from social media and gossip rags about his famous girlfriend. His old high school bands have only ever been mentioned in softball interviews and are even less notable. Get over it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete and salt or redirect to The 1975 and add some high level of protection to the redirect, per all the previous AFDs. Agree with Doomsdayer520 above, this needs to stop. Still not independently notable from the band. Sro23 (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That would require WP:Superprotect, which was removed. No other level of protection would have made a difference here. Peter James (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - One would not expect an admin to recreate a salted page without discussion, or edit war over a gold lock, in which case it would have made a difference here. — Bilorv (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The administrator was aware of the previous decision to redirect and still created it. An administrator would look at the reason for the redirect and any discussion that led to it whether there's a "gold lock" or not, and decide whether discussion is necessary. Or more likely it will be created as a draft and a history merge will be required. The relevant policies and guidelines (including WP:GNG) are already met, and there will be a separate article soon, so no point in redirecting or deleting now. Peter James (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The majority of this article isn't a biography, it's an article about The 1975 masquerading as an article about Matt Healy. For example see Matty Healy#Career. The entire first paragraph doesn't even mention Healy at all. FDW777 (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: A person who is solely notable to the band should not have their own article. I'm okay with deleting it as well. aeschyIus (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srishti Institute of Art Design and Technology[edit]

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

None of the references in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are either routine announcements or they rely entirely on information provided by a connected person or the organization. No doubt the company exists, just the references don't show that it is notable. Fails WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep a casual looks at Google news~~, google scholar~~ shows several sources which both individually or combined shows notability via WP:NSCHOOLS. VV 03:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources evaluation table:

Source	Evaluation
Bengaluru's Srishti design school now part of Manipal Group, campus to be relocated	Press release; institution info
"What should Courts look like?" Vidhi, Srishti Institute of Design, bring out report on "Re-imagining Consumer Forums"	Independent and significant; The project carried out by the institution is of significant importance to the legal justice system in India
Students, parents fume as Bengaluru's Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology orders oral exams	Independent; significant
Bengaluru’s Srishti institute campus tense after Modi graffiti offends BJP MLA, supporters	Independent; significant
Students of the premier institute are too afraid to speak on record after MLA and his supporters pay a visit to their campus	Independent; significant
BJP MLA accuses Bengaluru college students of painting anti-Modi graffiti, threatens staff	Independent; significant
[https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/day-after-graffiti-fracas-students-asked-to-follow-dress-code-not-walk-in-big-groups-restrict-their-activities/articleshow/73281671.cms Day after graffiti fracas, students asked to follow dress co	Independent; Significant
Students turn Metro stations into art installations	Independent; Significant; Project that the students have put up which impacts public
Urban Legend: The art guru’s designs on tech ed	Independent; Significant; Interview of the institution founder that explains the growth of the institution
Games Metro riders play	Independent; Significant; About a project the students did in a public space

Will update this table with more sources. VV 13:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this VV, I'll take a closer look at those references. Just on the one from Bar & Bench, I am unable to access the full article (paywall). Can you confirm whether this article publishes the actual report or whether it is commenting on the report? In either case, notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source, which is an accepted RS for legal news, linked to the full report on their own website and also writes about the report. This is one of the few institutions which actually has good coverage in RS. VV 04:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think WP:BEFORE was correctly followed in this case. Dhawangupta (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This institute would only have to pass WP:NCORP, rather than the alternative WP:GNG, if it was a for-profit institute. That seems very unlikely since it is owned by a trust. Remember that most private schools and higher education establishments are not for-profit, such as, for example, all of the American Ivy League universities. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The assumption I made in nominating this organization was that it was a for-profit organization. I was unable to find anything to suggest it was non-profit - ownership by a trust does not automatically mean it is non-profit. If it is non-profit, I'll withdraw the nomination. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~HighKing It is a for-profit institution and either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS is relevant here. VV 12:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - This source, published by Ars Electronica, says that this is non-profit. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - HighKing, Looking for offline data, the institution is not-for-profit. Even the newly acquiring institution(MAHE) falls under this category. Best! VV 03:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found some decent sources on doing a WP:Before which makes it pass NORG. Just showing an important one from Indian express [35]here. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 11:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That reference is based entirely on an announcement by the Vice Chancellor of MAHE Manipal, a connected organization. The journalist does not add any independent analysis/opinion/etc therefore the reference contains no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - HighKing You are correct. That is based on a press release. However, there is several references via a google news and scholar search that if combined gives SIGCOV. VV 12:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs to be listed on Art, design, technology, and schools del sort. VV 13:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination Please consider this nomination withdrawn. Based on confirmation that this is a non-profit organization. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nomination, one weak keep, no other comments in 21 days (despite two relistings). (non-admin closure) jp×g 07:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Fornara[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as several reputable sources have covered him as being executive producers for series airing on high-profile networks. Not the most substantial thing in the world, but far better than nothing. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2021 London mayoral election#Other parties and candidates. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Omilana[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNGs. Most sources listed in the article at present are either a) not independent (the subject's YouTube, Twitter or Instagram account) or b) not from reliable sources (e.g. OtakuKart). While there is some routine coverage (of the sort you'd expect from anyone running for Mayor of London), most of these are not intellectually independent, covering either the announcement of the subject's intention to stand—and even then, the subject is only mentioned on a list of candidates with at most one or two sentences, not WP:SIGCOV—or centre around the results of one outlier poll (in which the subject polled at 5%). Per Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability, 65% of YouTubers in this subscriber range have their pages deleted, so I don't believe the subject meets WP:ENT's "significant "cult" following" criteria. A notability tag was previously added to the page, but was removed by an editor. I'd support a redirect being setup to 2021 London mayoral election#Other candidates, which already contains coverage of the poll, a full list of candidates, a brief description of the subject and their political positions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep A very popular YouTuber among the present generation and a truly inspirational individual. He deserves to keep his panel as he has massed over 3 million subscribers and over 300 million views on YouTube. No need to delete it to be honest.

[[User:NZDF1985|NZDF1985] (talk) 8:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep While this is correct, Nikolas has played a major role in British YouTube. He is most notable for his "Ringside" pranks, and avoiding security.

It would be unfortunate to remove his wikipedia,as his fans would generally add more to his wikipedia,as he does more videos. Sources are reliable. TheBlitzTankster (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability as a YouTuber cannot be established by sourcing his YouTuber status to YouTube. It requires media coverage about his significance as a YouTuber. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is based far too heavily on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own self-published Twitter, Instagram and YouTube profiles and/or directory entries — but the just six sources that are actually independent of him at all are not building a strong case that he would get over WP:GNG: three of those six are still not reliable source media outlets at all, two just include his name in listicles and thus aren't substantive coverage of him, and the one that is actually both reliable and about him in any non-trivial way is still just the routine campaign coverage that every mayoral candidate in every city always gets. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: A google search brought up coverage in a few reliable sources like [36] [37] [38] [39] This should be enough to just pass GNG. ColinBear (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dexerto isn't a reliable source at all, and just because a person can show a couple of hits of campaign coverage in the context of being an as yet unelected candidate for political office does not get them over GNG in lieu of having to pass the defined inclusion criteria for politicians. As I said above, every mayoral candidate in every city can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so just showing a couple of hits of campaign coverage is not enough to exempt a non-winning candidate from NPOL per se. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unquestionably meets GNG per indy100, BBC and BuzzFeed News coverage. SK2242 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed isn't a notability-making source at all, and the only BBC citations here are glancing namechecks of his existence in listicles that namecheck every candidate in the election he's running in, and thus fail to make Niko Omilana more special than any of his opponents. GNG is not just "how many web pages can be found that happen to have his name in them". Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed News is reliable per RSP and can be used to establish notability. SK2242 (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my earlier comment per Bondegezou, but Draftify should be the outcome of this AfD as there is a good chance Omilana will have coverage outside of his mayoral candidacy. SK2242 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I am on the fence about this, and I cannot ignore his vast coverage, but as per Bearcat, every mayoral candidate has automatically gotten coverage form significant sources like the BBC, and the article also cites several self-published sources and sources which are otherwise largely unreliable (i.e. OtakuKart). I would also like to add - since some commenters have noted this - that his subscriber count does not necessarily make him notable enough for his own article. The vast majority of coverage are as a result of his mayoral campaign only (like BuzzFeed and Indy100), so a redirect to 2021 London mayoral election#Other candidates as per Domeditrix would make sense. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. I notice that polling day is next week, so maybe the results will decide for us whether the article should remain or not. doktorb _words^deeds 19:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RS coverage is of his mayoral candidacy. As per WP:NPOL, people who are only candidates and whose RS coverage is for their candidacy are better dealt with under the election article and are not independently notable. Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much like the recent case of Max Fosh: a bunch of routine election candidate coverage which WP:NPOL tells us isn't helpful determining notability as a politician. I don't think there's evidence he meets WP:NYOUTUBE's recommendation to meet both WP:ENT and the WP:GNG, or either in isolation. Ralbegen (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Omilana isn't really the same as Fosh, after performing nearly an order of magnitude better than him in the election. It still doesn't make him a notable politician, but it is quite good for an independent and suggests he has the large fan base or a significant "cult" following from WP:ENT. User:GKFX^talk 18:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any coverage of him that counts as "significant" for the purposes of the various notability guidelines. Mayoral candidates in London will always get basic run-of-the-mill coverage, even those unaffiliated with the major political parties - that does not make all of them notable. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not the first time he has received national coverage for political stunts, he has received significant coverage for this and in the past. I also think its important as part of a wave of youtubers using elections as content. Could be historically significant User talk:Jalexlb Jalexlb also did a cleanup btw. — Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalexlb: can you provide a reliable source showing significant coverage of Omilana unrelated to this candidacy? SK2242 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SK2242:: Comment The Sun and Daily Mirror provided coverage of Omilana’s pranks

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tommy-robinson-left-red-faced-13133450/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13131642/youtubers-chaos-fake-mcdonalds/

WP:RSP says The Sun is not reliable and there is no consensus on whether the Mirror is. Bondegezou (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sold on this being usable to establish notability. The subject of the article (for the Mirror, we can ignore The Sun) is clearly Tommy Robinson. That article may be used to establish the notability of Tommy Robinson, but not of Niko Omilana - otherwise we'd have thousands of articles of dogs covered in WP:DOGBITESMAN stories. Domeditrix (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has over 3 million subs and almost 300 million views. Marko8726 (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JamesVilla44 (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While running for mayor is certainly something interesting, unless he wins it isn't a great basis for notability (no significant coverage beyond namechecks is available). Excluding his candidacy, nothing else about him suggests notability. Remagoxer (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SK2242:: Comment It is more coverage by the BBC and guardian and the fact his high polling might deny Sadiq a majority in the first round. ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8]User talk:Jalexlb

WP:NPOL is clear that election campaign coverage should be covered in the relevant election article and is not, by itself, sufficient to establish notability for an individual. You are welcome to add content to 2021 London mayoral election. Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About half the results are in for the Mayoral election and Omilana is currently fifth on 2%. He will not have denied Sadiq a majority in the first round: Khan is more than 2% off that feat. Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 London mayoral election#Other parties and candidates, where he is listed. YouTube stats are not notability. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. In the results of the election, he's apparently come 4th, the best of all the 'minor' candidates. His notabiity was marginal before, but that result is likely to lead to some additional coverage over the coming days. Robofish (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5th, winning 2% of the vote. He failed to win even half the votes of any of the candidates from parties with London Assembly members. Domeditrix (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and losing his deposit. He warrants some coverage under 2021 London mayoral election, which he has. That isn't evidence he warrants his own article. Coming fifth does not demonstrate notability under WP:NPOL or, indeed, WP:COMMONSENSE. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2% is substantial for a less-serious candidate. He did better than Laurence Fox despite Fox having a significant public profile already. I would agree with waiting a bit. User:GKFX^talk 10:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable in any way - mention in 2021 London mayoral election is sufficient.--Smerus (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- minor Internet personality, but scrapes in in terms of WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 London mayoral election as he's well documented enough there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm going to also salt this. Missvain (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nithya Mammen Singer[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. resources provided are not reliable and independent of the subject. fails WP:GNG, WP:NSINGER Randfiskin (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randfiskin (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Randfiskin (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randfiskin (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that "Singer" is not her surname, so the article is titled incorrectly. Anyway, she has some documented movie appearances but not enough significant and reliable coverage to qualify for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See comments below. It turns out that I voted to delete the previous article for this singer, and (unsurprisingly) this version suffers from the exact same problems. Recreating such an article with a different title is a common tactic for someone who is unaware of a previous deletion or refuses to accept it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - "weak" because I'm not totally clear how the notability criteria work for singers who have primarily worked in movies - she clearly has been responsible for the soundtracks of multiple notable films. Her song Alaare Neeyenile has been covered in The Hindu [40], Times of India [41] and [42] . Long interview with her, dubbing her "the voice of Malayalam" here. The Malayalam version of her name is നിത്യ മേനോൻ , but a google search for that name mostly gives coverage of Nithya Menen the film actress. Furius (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nithya Mammen where User:MurielMary, User:VocalIndia, User:Usernamekiran, User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, and User:BJackJS voted delete 6 months ago.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.217.212 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)— 42.106.217.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment To help avoid an appearance of WP:CANVASS, also pinging the other participants in the prior AfD: doomsdayer520, Jehowahyereh. Beccaynr (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. This article has been deleted multiple times before, and the only reason 'singer' was added to the article title is to get around that. --Kbabej (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted article. jp×g 07:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That earlier deletion discussion doesn't seem to have involved any detailed discussion at all and it has been six months since it happened (also I don't think people who are "unaware of previous deletions" have tactics). User:Furius 08:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:BASIC - I am not aware of what the previous article(s) looked like, but I revised this one, and added sources, and there appears to be some significant coverage of her, as well as reviews of some of her work, and news about additional work since the previous deletion. Did the previous article include her actual place of birth and career as an architect? My work on this article has been slow because I am reliant on Google Translate, but it appears that non-English coverage also exists. Beccaynr (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt a non-notable musician who failed to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. GSS ^💬 02:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since they meet neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. And due to its history, salt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 and GSS: Doesn't she meet condition 10 of WP:MUSICBIO - "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film"? (I see that there is a proviso that just one example would "probably" lead to a redirect, but she's done multiple films) Furius (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep India's top news platforms like times of India and the Hindu covered significant coverage of herKrish jagarlamudi (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSI Cjay[edit]

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

Previously speedily deleted, non-notable music artist; earlier moved to draft space with a message to creator that sourcing is required. Returned to mainspace without adding references. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:BLP. Also contains a section on a music label which was also deleted earlier (under the name Road To Riches Records) as a standalone entry, as unsourced, promotional and lacking notabilty. Possible COI issues also; questions raised at the creator's talk page do not appear to have been answered. Eagleash (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eagleash (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable musician. A Google search provides zero coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. -Xclusivzik (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. In addition, the same article (with slight variations of the title) has been deleted four times for the same reasoning. (See logs for M.S.I Cjay and M$I CJay) I'm assuming they also have a COI because of this and the fact that the filename "PicsArt 11-29-10.20.31.jpg" somewhat implies the uploader took the photo themselves and edited it with PicsArt. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 20:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of East Pakistan first-class cricketers. ✗plicit 11:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhar-ul-Islam[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG and nothing significant in coverage. There are not enough reliable sources. Reliable sources in significant coverage have to show that GNG actually is met. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of East Pakistan first-class cricketers Does pass CRIN with 4 FC appearances, but as usual with domestic cricketers playing in Pakistan we struggle for sources. If they were to exist they'd be offline or in Pakistani language sources. His career wasn't standout though so redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do we have anymore info on this piece of text: "During the 1970s Mazhar was heavily involved with building the cricketing structure of the new country of Bangladesh"? StickyWicket (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of East Pakistan first-class cricketers per RugbyFan22.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Rugbyfan. JoelleJay (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the reference confers notability, and he passes notability criteria for cricket.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp: Meeting WP:NCRIC is not enough. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. There is nothing significant in coverage about the cricketer. There are many informative content in the article but none is supported by independent and reliable sources. There are only one source in the article which is even of a stats website. There might be any sources that the page creator may found, but he/she has to cite those. The article says that the player was selected to play for different clubs in different times. But which sources shows his selection or call to different teams. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have rewritten this article, removing all the original research, inaccurate/nonsensical statements, editorial puffery and unsupported claims. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracie D. Hall[edit]

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

This person does not meet WP:NOTABILITY standards. Her predecessor at the same organization likewise had her page deleted. ABT021 (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ABT021, do you have a link to the deletion discussion for Hall's predecessor? Furius (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furius I don’t have that link but her predecessor was named in the article with a discontinued Mary Ghikas link, indicating that she at one time had her own Wikipedia page. Neither she nor Tracie Hall are notable by Wikipedia standards. ABT021 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see that an article for Mary Ghikas was deleted. One has never been created. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What, exactly, is the rationale by which the executive director of the oldest and largest library association in the world non-notable? I do understand that notability is not inherited, but I would think that the executive director of an organization dedicated to collecting and documenting sources would, by the very definition, be someone for whom there were many documented sources. She has published multiple articles in American Libraries magazine, which is associated with the organization she heads, but also she has published articles there going back prior to her appointment as Executive Director.
UC Santa Barbara's library did an interview with her. So did Publisher's Weekly. Google Scholar has a losting of 6 published scholarly articles. I find this AfD puzzling as there is no rationale given and no indication that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's rationale is vague, but Hall satisfies WP:GNG. For example, she's the subject (and title!) of chapter 9 in Real Role Models: Successful African Americans Beyond Pop Culture (University of Texas Press; 2013). Her predecessor, Mary Ghikas, is probably notable, too, but nobody's started a page for her, yet. pburka (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The interviews and book chapter linked above, and PW article about her hiring, give enough in-depth coverage for WP:GNG for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. GNG is weak as there is only two RS, the Role Models piece and PW, the other one is a promo piece by her alma mater, and publishing in a magazine does not make one notable (otherwise all academics would be notable). But as the head of American Library Association I would say she is notable
Keep. Tracie Hall is the executive director of an organization that has 55,000 members.^[9] Skvader (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in my opinion as a library worker any head of the American Library Association is notable for that reason alone. It's not only a large organization but it has clout beyond its membership.--Dan Carkner (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tracie Hall is leads a massive organization made up of professional workers and is often in the news ^[10] Brimwats (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons described above. Hall is executive director of a prominent national association and has received substantial independent coverage in the press and professional literature. I was also able to incorporate several reliable secondary sources into the article, further demonstrating the subject's notability. Topshelver (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Folks above have done a great job of outlining multiple reasons (independent articles, leadership of a national org, etc.) that Hall's page should remain. Enthusiasticsquirrel (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Never, ever mess with the bookpeople. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wigton Davy[edit]

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

No indication of satisfying WP:GNG. References do not mention the subject. David.moreno72 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wigton Davy should remain at least as a stub for the time being, if it is added to with suitably referenced material in line with WP:BIO in an appropriate time frame, the speedy deletion request should be removed. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Delete the sources do not, indeed, mention the subject, leaving the article as pure OR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the sources cited unfortunately don't seem to mention Wigton Davey at all. Also, at User talk:Gilburrifahy the page creator on 23 April said "Thx dave ill delete it not ready I apologise", and the article has not changed much since then. Needs to go back to draft space for more work. Meticulo (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Junior MasterChef Australia (series 2). Missvain (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Yaxley[edit]

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

Won a reality show, nothing else beyond that for notability, at most this should be a redirect to the cooking show. User talk:Bilal.Choudary2 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for redirect. The cooking appearances to me are not notable. While I am a big believer in having good references in an article, just because something can be quoted on the web does not make it notable. If she has gone into the restaurant industry now and made a name for herself for it, then maybe she might deserve her own article.Reader781 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Junior MasterChef Australia (series 2). Merge could be condensed to something like, "...won by Greta Yaxley from Claremont, Western Australia, who has since held cooking demonstrations in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam and around Australia". Current list of appearances is excessive and not in keeping with WP:PROMO. Meticulo (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical and horizontal market[edit]

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

Dictionary definition sourced only to other dictionary definitions White 720 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable marketing concept, there are plenty of sources that can be found through Google Books. I have added two to the article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you User:SailingInABathTub for making these improvements! White 720 (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Defines a concept, not just a term. There's scope for expansion. --Michig (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the concept is used in multiple books on Google Books searches. A search on Google Scholar also turns up multiple results, all which is related to the term. SunDawn (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Vulgate[edit]

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

For more than 12 years, this article has been without a single source. I cannot find any mention of this expression "Greek Vulgate" on the internet outside of a wiki which very likely copied this Wikipedia page. Other sources given on the talk page of the article either contradict what the article says (libertyparkusafd.org, Ernest Cadman Colwell, E.C.Colwell) or are not precise enough (Migne).
Please keep in mind that "Vulgate" also simply means "commonly used" and can be used in various contexts; therefore, academics could have used the term "Vulgate" in relationship to Greek texts without making a reference to a standard, fixed referent. Veverve (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must note that the page has been completely changed by @Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: after this nomination. Veverve (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Keep in that I think the pre-nomination version wasn't worth keeping, but the current, improved-post-AfD-nom version seems to be a worthwhile and sourced stub. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the improvements made and sources added.Mccapra (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been extensively improved and reliable sources added to support the statements. --Ashley yoursmile! 15:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Efforts made by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard is great, this article is worth keeping. It is a stub, but well-sourced and well-referenced. SunDawn (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroots Films[edit]

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

A non notable film production company. Before isn't showing any RS. The refs in the article are dead or don't indicate notability. Their own website is 404 and they appear to use Facebook instead. Tagged advert since 2014. Desertarun (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Kolma8 (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwlad - The Welsh Independence Party[edit]

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

Article was previously redirected after a (more or less non-participated) AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwlad Gwlad)

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. Although the article has citations, it does not prove notability, only that the party exists. The community has recently agreed to delete Freedom Alliance (UK) on the basis that a party taking part in upcoming elections is not necessarily or automatically notable, and I believe that this principle should also be applied here. With Senedd elections taking place next week, the results should provide evidence of notability or political importance or other measures to decide whether this article should be re-created for a third time. I don't believe it should. doktorb _words^deeds 09:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This party has received coverage in sources such as BBC.com (an article specifically about this party, and already cited in the article) and WalesOnline (also specifically about this party but not cited in this article). There is a major election they are standing in which will take place on May 6, before this AfD is set to close. Just being a political party is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but passing the general notability guideline usually is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While i agree with Metropolitan90 that this party may be notable, at the moment it is not noteworthy. Should they have notable results in the elections tomorrow, then it wouldn't be too difficult to make a new article about them, and as such for now I am in favour of deletion. Typhlosionator (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This party has received coverage in many sources and won a complaint against the bbc for unfair coverage. They are fielding more candidates than the “greens” who regularly get coverage. They have sitting elected members (Sian Caiach) and are notable for being the only pro independence party for Wales explicitly having independence as its main goal. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 6 May 2021‎
- @Geraintdjones: you say they won a complaint against the bbc for unfair coverage—can you give a couple of sources for this? I can't see anything in the article on this subject. — Bilorv (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep They're standing for the Welsh Senedd elections, clearly big enough to give that a big push: BBC News Abcmaxx (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC news article about the party Abcmaxx (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's been enough in depth 3rd party coverage to cover WP:GNG at least. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have enough media coverage, and they ran in fourteen constituencies for the Senedd Elections. Castilruz (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I applaud many of Doktorbuk's party AfDs, but I think Gwlad have notched up enough in-depth RS coverage to pass WP:GNG/WP:NPOL. That said, the article needs work to reflect that. Bondegezou (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gori clan[edit]

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

No refs found for such a clan Jethwarp (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a WP:OR and also fails WP:GNG.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kachhotia[edit]

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

No refs found online for such a caste, few books indicate may be it is just a surname, article unrefrenced Jethwarp (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a junk for wiki. Fails WP:GNG.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan International Airlines Flight 605[edit]

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

Non-notable aviation incident, fails WP:GNG / WP:EVENT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine coverage of a non-notable incident. Without any evidence suggesting otherwise, WP:NOTNEWS applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the incident is regrettable, but per WP:NOTNEWS this should not be included. Hull loss is bad, but the cause of the incident would likely be common, and there are no fatalities. Of course, the mention of the incident could be placed on Pakistan International Airlines and the airport.SunDawn (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, routine runway excursions with minimal resulting mayhem belong on airport pages per WP:AIRCRASH. Carguychris (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Optical conductivity[edit]

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

Stub with no references that hasn't been touched in years. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is often discussed in sources [43][44][45], the German version also cites textbooks. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current page is remarkably opaque (pun intentional) but the linked source explains it better and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable topic and I've added some sources to the article. It contains some WP:OR and needs more sources for verification but these are not reasons for deletion. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are not valid reasons for deleting an article. If you're bothered by its low quality, improve it, that's how Wikipedia works. Optical conductivity is definitely a thing, plenty of sources can be easily found. Tercer (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unquestionably notable. I rewrote the text to be a bit clearer and put in some section breaks. PianoDan (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was alerted by the Wikipedia SDZeroBot as the main author (roughly 50% as of May 3) of the deletion candidate. In my view (physics professor switched to IT), the content was/is accurate and should be useful as a first chunk of information. Admittedly, the article could use more (or better) explanations and visualizations. A thorough discussion can be found in my thesis at pages 276-291, available, e.g. at http://dmft.org/Bluemer/Thesis/bluemer_color.pdf (meta information: http://dmft.org/Bluemer/thesis.en.shtml or Amazon). Feel free to use any of the original material (i.e. text + color figures) in chapters 4.1 and 4.2 that you find useful. --Nils Blümer (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Querencia (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X (Chungha song)[edit]

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

Although released as a single, the song does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. The only coverage on the song is from album reviews. Sources like this are more of routine coverage. The sole chart position on the Gaon Digital Chart at 100 isn't impressive and the recording has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted or was released independently as a single is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an alternative to the deletion, a redirect to the album article Querencia seems reasonable. Nonetheless, it might it be worth discussing if a standalone article for the song is at all appropriate. Ashley yoursmile! 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. No RS coverage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found some Korean sources that seem to go a bit more in-depth on the song, including a page entirely dedicated to the song by Melon, as well these three articles here, here, and here. However, I'm not sure if any of these make the song more notable or not - you're right that it didn't have much chart presence at all (did not even land on Billboard's World Digital Song Sales or K-pop 100 chart). Nonetheless, the coverage makes me unsure on whether or not the standalone page should be kept. But while I'm on the fence regarding this one, why exactly does "Demente" have its own page at all? It charted even lower, the article has even less sources than X's, and its only merit is a re-release taking out the artist's Korean verses in place of ones in Spanish.
Ultimately deciding on Redirect per Ashleyyoursmile's submission. Toyota Impreza (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Toyota Impreza, thanks for the response. Melon is an online music streaming platform and is a retailer. It is neither reliable nor independent. The other three sources are routine coverage on the song which just mention its release date, names of writers, and nothing more. And the second and third sources basically state the same thing so its one press release that has been circulated. As far as I know, "Demente" has some independent coverage, but didn't look at it in depth. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ashleyyoursmile My bad on those, especially the Melon link: the page reads more like something akin to WP:FAN than actual serious coverage. From what I have seen, the same "circulated" argument can be applied for Demente, except it's a near copy/paste across articles (though, shouldn't we move to its talk page to avoid clogging this section here?). I've accordingly changed my original post to agree with the redirect. Toyota Impreza (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed, wrong forum. Drafts can be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but see WP:NMFD; the standards for article deletion are much stricter than those for draft deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Seal and Flag of Nueva Vizcaya[edit]

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

No other articles or draftspace that has an information about a Seal and Flag of a city here in Wikipedia. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:32, 02 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some articles that do exist to inform about seals or flags of Philippine subdivisions, like the Seal of Bulacan, the Flag and Seal of Cagayan, the Flag of Bukidnon and the Flag of Southern Leyte in Wikipedia. User:Posyship62 (talk) 05:50, 02 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest procedural close as an AfD for for a page not in main article space. Drafts should be taken to WP:MFD. --Finngall ^talk 07:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This isn't the right venue for drafts. The article does no harm to the mainspace as long as it is drafted. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Finngall and HueMan1. Not a right venue for nominated draft deletion. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then lets move it to nomination draft deletion :). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:04, 02 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SeanJ 2007: Please familiarise yourself with deletion policies and guidelines before opening discussions like this one. This draft does no harm to anyone or anything in any way whatsoever. I suggest that you don't open further discussions until you've fully understood the policies. Have a nice day. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HueMan1: Sorry! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, albeit with the contingency that the article may be substantially trimmed, and possibly retitled, both editorial matters beyond the scope of this determination. BD2412 T 03:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ronan[edit]

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

Created by a blocked sock, article mostly a fork of the Tell Me Why article, sourced on passing mentions of the character in the context of the game. Insanely detailed for something that fails WP:GNG and is overwhelmingly WP:TOOMUCH. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entirety of the concept behind the article easily passes WP:GNG; I would advise the nominator to do a proper WP:BEFORE, or check and read the cited sources again to determine whether the sources primarily talk about the game with only "passing mentions" of the character as alleged. I found that often times, it is the other way around with the cited sources, especially when considering that the character's depiction is in reality only one aspect of the overall video game. The nominator's allegations of "insanely detailed" and WP:TOOMUCH is noted but not accepted; the coverage is in fact evidence of WP:SIGCOV from multiple sources designated as reliable and independent by the WP:VG wikiproject which specifically discuss the significance of the character from a real world perspective as culturally important or relevant within the context of the landmark portrayal of minority groups. This is also supported by the fact that the character was the subject of two accolades from a dedicated LGBT media publication awarded to the developers, along with nominations by other awards programs. Any qualms about excessive detail is an editorial or content quality issue; this can be resolved with discussion and editing, and is not a valid deletion rationale.

I note that the blocked sock in question only created the name as a redirect, but did not contribute anything to the prose. I wrote it in its entirety. If the main purpose of this AfD is motivated by a desire to eliminate any and all traces of the blocked sock's edits, I advise the nominator to promptly withdraw the deletion nomination as it is not in compliance with any known deletion guideline or policy on this website. Furthermore, this AfD is not properly transcluded to the list of video games deletion discussions. Haleth (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has a number of reliable references. –Cupper52^Discuss! 08:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given that the character appears only in the single episodic game and that the parent article isn't particularly fleshed out, it really doesn't make a ton of sense for the character to have an article at this time. While single media appearance characters certainly can have articles, the parent article usually has been fleshed out to the point that the character's weight makes a split necessary. That doesn't seem to be the case for this character. TTN (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article content does not determine notability, and on top of that, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing or writing in an article. I agree that the Tell Me Why article still needs work and will remain a work in progress for some time as the scope of content is wider then one video game character. However, there is no guideline or policy which supports your opinion that editors must prioritize work on a video game article like Tell Me Why before any further aspect about that topic can be covered in a separate article, or even says anything about the amount of media a character must appear in to qualify for an article. This article was not created due to size concerns about the Tell Me Why article, but based on existing sourcing I could find which discusses the character not only as a major component of Tell Me Why, but also as part of a broader media coverage and discussion about media portrayals of transgender people or LGBT themes in video games. In other words, it is a content split action, and a legitimate one since sources which support the existence of a standalone article has been identified and cited. The current version of Tell Me Why, which I've recently worked on as part of my efforts, is already looking better then the last version which has languished with an overly long plot summary and little else of encyclopedic value for more then 6 months since its release.

The nominator's allegation that this article is a content fork of Tell Me Why is incorrect. The video game is not exclusively about the depiction of a transgender experience through the subject character, and multiple sources which are either cited in this article or the Tell Me Why article, or even sources not yet brought to this discussion's attention certainly support that. There are plenty of reviews about the game not cited in the article since many of them don't actually exclusively talk about the character, which can/should be expanded into the prose and will easily double the size of the Tell Me Why article. I left several properly formatted sources in the reviews infobox, and anyone can pick it up and take it from there since I don't own the article or its contents. There are also several sources about the development of the game which have not been cited on Wikipedia yet, and they aren't exclusively about the development of the Tyler character. Several of the sources cited in the present article however, do discuss the character exclusively and in significant detail, and a few of them aren't even the usual media outlets that cover video games as their going concern. Haleth (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it is doubtful that any actual resolution will happen in this AfD, parent articles should not suffer from unneeded child articles. As of this time, it seems completely arbitrary rather than being a topic that requires it. You could split out a lot of characters from single entry games and technically meet the base requirements for GNG, but most will just make the parent article worse off or duplicate information. You need a really substantial game and character to make it work, but this doesn't seem like it. That's just my two cents at the moment, so I have no particular intention on turning this into some big argument. TTN (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll summarize my points as follows then: I am still working on the development and reception sections of the Tell Me Why article (but anyone can lend a hand or take the lead instead), though the state of that article should have no bearing on this article since the nature and focus of the cited sources between two topics aren't exactly the same; this nomination is the result of an incorrect interpretation and application of WP:GNG, as the focus of the rationale appears to be based on article content; the nominator has not provided any evidence that he has done a thorough analysis of the sources or properly explained why they are not suitable to demonstrate notability; and if we are looking from the perspective of parent-child articles as you have suggested, there's actually more then one "parent article or topic" according to the available extent of sources. What you consider as "arbitrary", another may consider it "bold", so we can agree to disagree. Haleth (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. TTN makes a fair point above, and some sources do seem to focus more on the LGBT issues in the game (ex. citing from the article: "As part of their featured article about how Tell Me Why handles the issue of transgender representation through Tyler Ronan"...). But this at best would suggest rewriting this into something like transgender topics in Tell Me Why, and in the end, there are enough sources to warrant stand-alone coverage: [46], [47], [48], [49]. I think he passes NFICTION/GNG requirements, and I also expect in the years to come he will be mentioned in academic works too (although whether he will get an in-depth treatment or not is anyone's guess right now). PS. All that said, the article about the game should be expanded with a summary of the issues discussed here, perhaps by having a section on characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GNG is certainly not the rationale to use here. This character is a landmark character in the video game industry (the first ever trans-gender protagonist ever in a video game). "Transgender topics in Tell Me Why" essentially is the same topic as "Tyler Ronan". With that said, there is a significant overlap between the parent article and this article. For instance, the "Fictional biography" should be trimmed to just several sentences since it is basically the same as the premise section of the parent article. I do agree with TTN that we should work to flesh out the main article first before we ever consider creating any child article, regardless of notability and GNG, but in this case I think the content in the parent article and the child article can be distinct enough. OceanHok (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As per Piotr Konieczny. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi (TV pilot)[edit]

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

Fails [WP:GNG]] Non-notable, a TV pilot yet to be filmed/aired - sourced on press announcements and created by a blocked sockpuppet. Previously deleted. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable Mukedits (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is notable but it needs to be expanded greatly
Delete - may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tabernacle Choir Christmas discography. WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Day in the Morning (Tabernacle Choir album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG zero independent coverage of the recording, event or broadcast. At most should be a sub-heading or passing mention in the choir article, IMHO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this already is mentioned in passing in the main article for the choir, where there is a list of all the Christmas concerts at Tabernacle Choir#Christmas concerts. The chart position could easily be added to Tabernacle Choir Christmas discography - there doesn't appear to be any other information to be added about the concert or the album. This article has been redirected a couple of times, and an IP has tried removing the AfD notice twice already, so if this is redirected or merged it appears that salting may be necessary to prevent recreation of the article, because someone clearly doesn't want it removed. Richard3120 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing about this concert to make it notable enough to merit an article. The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square has done annual Christmas concerts for about 20 years, until 2020 when disrupted by COVID. These events are not on their own notable enough to merit articles. The record of resisting creating a redirect suggest we should just remove this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tabernacle Choir Christmas discography: Barely found anything about the album. Search results return mostly articles about the concert rather than the album itself. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found only retailers selling the album. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, West Virginia[edit]

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

Appears on the 1906, 1924, and 1926 topos as a building at a road junction. Searching is very difficult, due to the commonness of the name Scott. Searching determined that Winfield N. Scott was appointed postmaster at Scott in 1898 and still held the post in 1901, but couldn't find much else. Does not appear to be in Leavengood's history of Wood County. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The mass-produced junk one-liners created by this user who made such classics as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey Box, Florida, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cream Can Junction, Idaho, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camel Hump, Wyoming should be bulk-deleted or redirected due to their lack of demonstrated notability or verifiability, with sourced recreation welcome. No one's time should continue to be wasted to clean up this mess and no one should continue to be misled by untrustworthy information. Many thanks though to Hog Farm and other admins for continuing on this sisyphean task. Reywas92^Talk 08:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have said Herculean rather than Sisyphean. But I probably shouldn't have put the idea of the Augean stables into your head. That was paid, anyway. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Haha I suspected that wasn't the right word as I wrote it, gotta lean back to mythology in high school Latin class! Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur on Leavengood. Gannet's 1904 A Gazetteer of West Virginia has Scott as a "post village in Wood County on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway. Altitude, 694 feet.". This village seems lost to history otherwise. Nothing in the Encyclopedia of West Virginia. The existence of Winfield Scott makes things hard, too. Uncle G (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 20:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clotilde Delbos[edit]

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

Notability not established. 11 references are either primary sources or links to youtube interviews of the subject talking about the company. No multiple secondary sources that are independent and have significant coverage about the subject, rather than her giving interviews about the company. Might be more is available in French, but doesn't seem like a pass as of English WP:BEFORE. nearlyevil 665 04:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 04:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 04:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the sentence which establishes her notability:

She is only the second female chief executive in the global automobile industry, after Mary Barra, a fact which has been noted by several French business magazines.^[11]^[12]

The two links are in French language and all it takes is Google Translate to reveal the meaning and establish her notability.Andbridge (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appears to be either the deputy CEO or interim CEO of Renault, a major auto company, as well as being their CFO. Further, she attained her interim CEO position in what appears to be a widely reported scandal of some sort that resulted in the ouster of several other executives. Scandals generate coverage, which makes them good for us if not so much for the people involved, obviously. In addition to the BBC article cited, Bloomberg has a profile on her, although I don't know how notable that is. The Wall Street Journal also has a short executivd profile with some basic information. Forbes has some deeper coverage on her rise at Renault, similar to what was reported in the BBC. That's just a few minutes of searching English language sources. She seems notable. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add that there's some sort of award from Autonews Europe as well Hyperion35 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, G5. -- ferret (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Clash[edit]

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

No indication of significance, primary sources only, fail of WP:GNG and WP:NVG. nearlyevil 665 03:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 03:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nearlyevil665, this is a creation by a sockpuppet and can therefore be WP:G5-ed. They haven't been blocked yet, but they confessed at the SPI casepage, so they will be soon. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is a self-confession enough for me to tag for G5? If yes, I'd also go ahead and tag this one.nearlyevil 665 04:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nearlyevil665, probably not, I'd just wait until the SPI is closed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 14:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: CSD G5, Sockpuppet Creation CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey, Mendocino County, California[edit]

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

Another isolated NWP siding/station; the topos show nothing of substance, and the only direct reference to it I could find was a passing mention of the siding in locating something else. Ramsey being a very common name, I can't guarantee I didn't miss something, but this shows no sign of being a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can source that it was Ramsey Station on the railway next to the the Eel River, but not much else. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find anything about this town, although my guess is that it's named after an individual, but I'm not quite sure. If it's named after an individual, it would most likely be this person.^[13] JayzBox (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of electric cars currently available. Figure it out on the talk page please. Missvain (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of production battery electric vehicles (table)[edit]

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

A content fork of List of production battery electric vehicles at a title that is not MOS compliant and that nobody should ever search for. Nobody seems particularly excited about having information in this format on that article, best to just delete this page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The talk page indicates that there's a proliferation of lists including:

Some consolidation may well be sensible but deletion is not appropriate per our policy WP:PRESERVE. It's better to keep the edit history visible to provide attribution and audit trail. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Invalid WP:CFORK. Tessaracter (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge List of electric cars currently available, List of production battery electric vehicles, and List of production battery electric vehicles (table), as they are just content forks of each other. Which format the data should be presented in is immaterial for the AfD. Personally I think the table is the most convenient. But of course you can't have "(table)" in the title. Tercer (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speed alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not look notable. EpicPupper (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly sourced, fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Championship of Online Poker[edit]

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

Obviously PokerStars is a redirect target.

Promotional and not notable. Pokerstars runs many online poker tournaments daily, and brands some of them in the spring months as the "Spring Championship of Online Poker". A few of the highest value tournaments (both in this series and others) on PokerStars are covered individually by poker magazines and databases, but there is no substantial independent coverage about the event. My attempts to remove the egregiously excessive per-year win details was reverted. I don't think there is any sourced content here to save; a single paragraph in the main PokerStars article is sufficient. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete A) per WP:TNT B) I'm not seeing independent sourcing enough to justify the article. Hobit (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I must say, what happened to this mess of a Wikipedia article? Blow it up. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Bioscience[edit]

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

I find information about the stock valuation, but no significant, in depth information to meet WP:ORG.

Here v. PROD as this was part of an educational initiative User:Uttsinghuajoint2014/Course Page, some of which have already been deleted and others remain. StarM 16:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing beyond stock coverage for news. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tokimeki Check-in![edit]

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

Has already been PRODded. Lack of notability, unsourced, and was unable to find any sources to incorporate. Waxworker (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this review from IGN, but that is the only bit of significant coverage I could find, which alone is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. I also tried searching under the Japanese text, and also found nothing much. There might be some Japanese print sources from the time it came out, but unless any are found, there is not enough coverage to support an article, and there do not appear any appropriate articles for a merge or redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is the IGN review not enough to meet the WP:GNG? A review of a Japanese game from a major Anglophone outlet is likely a strong sign that the work in question will have received significant coverage in Japan, even if it isn't easily accessible online. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the WP:GNG calls for multiple reliable sources in order to be met. Currently, only a single reliable source has been found, which does not meet that criteria. As I stated, while there is a distinct possibility that there may be Japanese print sources available, unless those are found, we can't keep articles based on the argument that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Rorshacma (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One review is not sufficient coverage for an article. IceWelder [✉] 08:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom face[edit]

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

Had been deproded by the creator. Case of what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NAD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the article. The refs I put in the article look fine to me - [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Desertarun (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found more refs that I haven't put in the article - [55] [56] [57] Desertarun (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertarun Sorry but "I created the article" is not a sufficient explanation why your article should be kept. And no matter how many references you find is does not contradicts that this is a subject not suitable for Wikipedia. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the refs indicate notability. The term is discussed by the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph and many others. Desertarun (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination fails to provide a reason to delete. The prod was obviously disruptive as one should expect opposition from the creator when the article is newly-created and the prod process is not to be used in such cases. WP:NAD is irrelevant because the focus of the topic is not a particular word. It's just the usual confusion as WP:NAD explains:
One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NEO, To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (italics in original). So are the sources in the article about the term "Zoom face", or are they simply using "Zoom face" to discuss something else?

1-Forbes - about cosmetic tips the reader can use if seeing themselves on video chats is making them self-concious. Uses the term as a hook to get the reader interested, but is not about it.

2-BBC podcast - people having a conversation about not liking video chat and the various problems dealing with it, not even just self-conciousness about appearance, then an interview. The conversations didn't use the term, it showed up once in the host's introduction, and once in the interview, in an eight and a half minute podcast.

3-Telegraph - article only available to subscribers. However, since the article's subheading is "How to do your make-up for video conference meetings, like The Duchess of Cambridge" and it's written by someone identified in the byline as the "Beauty Editor at Large", it seems likely that the article is about cosmetics advice, not the term.

4-Guardian - probably the closest to being about the term (it certainly uses it the most), but it looks like this article's really about how the beauty industry is capitalizing on women feeling increased self-conciousness about their appearances as a result of video chats.

5-Glamour - advice about what the reader can do if they are feeling self-concious as a result of video chats. Term only appears in the headline.

6-Get the Gloss - term only appears in the little blurb introducing the article.

7-Wired - term does not appear.

8-The Face - about the social phenomenon of self-conciousness from video chats. Aside from the headline, the term first appears in the sixth paragraph in a quote from a doctor interviewed for the article, which is significantly later than what you'd expect if the article was about the term.

I'd say that these articles use the term, but are not about the term (and so are the Sun and CNA linked above), so this falls under WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to your notes above the term is discussed explicitly and directly in 7 out of the 8 refs. We don't need the whole article to be a discussion about the term. Desertarun (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the WP:GNG, you see that it states "Significant coverage". A passing mention, as in many of those articles, does not count for significant coverage. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The words "Zoom face" are in the headline of each of the references, so the author thinks that much of what they are writing refers to Zoom face. Desertarun (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge to Teleconference or Videotelephony): Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Egsan Bacon. Term is mostly a neologism that has no significant coverage or use by most of society. Kosmosnaut87 22:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Seems notable, but going on common sense, this isn't really that notable. Also needs a total makeover, maybe a TnT is needed. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and Egsan Bacon Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Much of the article is just raw quotations with no supplementary information, and not encyclopedic. Avilich (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most sources appear to include the word "Zoom" for SEO purposes. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points brought up by Egsan Bacon. This doesn't seem like a phenomenon unique to Zoom, the term isn't covered extensively in the sources given, and the subject of self-awareness and body image in the digital era (which seems like the crux of this article) is better covered elsewhere. Waxworker (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirection as a search term. czar 16:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchtown Junior High School[edit]

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

A junior high school, does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Rusf10 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any significant coverage. Fails GNG. ColinBear (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article comprises a single sentence and two external links, offering nothing as to why this school is notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Zero significant coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every school that teaches 7th and 8th graders is notable. That is where we would need to set notability to justify an article on this school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Frenchtown, Montana. Per WP:ATD; target indicated by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.212.81 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Brewing Network[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Previous AfD attracted few people and ended in no consensus. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 24 April 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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2010-06 no consensus

Related discussions: 2010-06 Pagan hooligans ✗ delete

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete came over all thirsty parsing through the links, but it's not WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Battle of Picacho Pass. czar 16:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Holmes (Confederate soldier)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A sergeant who died in an escape attempt from a POW camp. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable soldier, fails WP:GNG. Also completely unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - turned up a few passing mentions in sources such as [58] and [59], but no significant coverage to be found. The statement in the article that he commanded part of the Confederate force at Picacho Pass conveniently fails to mention that said command appears to have encompassed 9 soldiers. Hog Farm _Talk 00:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, a redirect would be appropriate here. His small detachment seems to have been the main Confederate force at Picacho Pass. Hog Farm _Talk 14:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. A reasonable search finds nothing substantial meeting WP:RS which directly details the subject. BusterD (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. A good case has been made that redirect may be the better outcome (and redirects are cheap). Holmes is definitely verified per the AHS source available on Jstor, so he is perfectly good search term. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Picacho Pass where he is mentioned (as commander in infobox and in the prose). I looked for sources to confirm that he was imprisioned in Yuma - but the Yuma Territorial Prison opened in 1876 and there is no Yuma National Cemetery, so that part appears to be made-up, otherwise this should be a Merge. MB 06:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Not notable per GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. - wolf 07:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Going with Cunard on this one. Missvain (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a local affiliate of a large national organization.

There are many dozens of these throughout the US, and I do not see that any of them are specifically notable , or that they are of any interest to people outside the region they serve. It's therefore not our practice to include them, or we would be violating NOTDIRECTORY

There is not a single source except a local newspaper. (Kansas City Business Journal is a place to publish pR, and thus not a RS any more than the press releases that it publishes. This is, as one would expect, an article by a declared paid editor DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge with Blue Cross Blue Shield Association: There is also a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, which could be both merged into the parent article. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association isn't big enough to warrant a content fork either. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Mathews, Anna Wilde (2017-05-25). "Insurer Exit Leaves 25 Missouri Counties With No ACA Plans for 2018. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City says it lost more than $100 million through 2016 offering exchange insurance plans". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26.
  The article notes: "Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City plans to pull out of the Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchanges, a move that likely leaves a swath of northwestern Missouri with no available marketplace plans for next year."
2. Heaster, W. Randolph (1988-12-12). "Blue Cross hoping to rebound. Experts say '89 will be tough year" (pages 1 and 2). Kansas City Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-04-26. Retrieved 2021-04-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "As a central player in an industry racked by losses over the last two years, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City is struggling to emerge from its hard times. Here is another article in the same issue of the newspaper about this:
  Heaster, W. Randolph (1988-12-12). "Rate increases force some firms to drop coverage". Kansas City Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26 – via Newspapers.com.
3. Dauner, John T. (1976-10-21). "Carson Tells Blue Cross-Blue Shield to Shape Up". Kansas City Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26.
  The article notes: "Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City was warned yesterday by a state Senate select committee that it would be subjecting itself to severe legislative regulation if it does not correct the causes of a large volume of complaints the state is hearing from its policyholders."
4. Karash, Julius A. (1997-04-10). "Blue Cross year was varied HMO results were dismal, but insurance numbers were up". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26.
  The article notes: " Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City suffered disappointing financial results in its health maintenance organizations last year but enjoyed a turnaround in some insurance operations. ... The 1996 results were filed with the Missouri Department of Insurance recently in a tumultuous time for Blue Cross, the biggest health insurer in the Kansas City area. Blue Cross's effort to convert to for-profit, publicly traded status failed last year amid legislative wrangling in Jefferson City."
5. Palmer, Eric (1997-06-11). "Insurer at crossroads: The new Blue Cross president comes on board at a difficult time". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26.
  The article notes: "John P. Mascotte takes over the leadership of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City at a watershed time for the company, the city's largest health insurer. Blue Cross' name has surfaced in a federal investigation into political corruption in Kansas City. It has faced legal and regulatory problems, even agreeing last year to repay $2.7 million for allegedly overcharging thousands of policyholders. ... The company last year negotiated a $2.7 million settlement with Kansas and Missouri after it was accused of overcharging some policyholders. Regulators contended that from 1988 to 1994, Blue Cross negotiated discounts on procedures from hospitals but did not pass the savings on to policyholders when policyholders paid their co-payments."
6. Marso, Andy (2017-04-11). "Blue Cross of Kansas City is close to turning a profit on Obamacare". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26.
  The article notes: "A new report shows that for the first time last year Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City made more money on the Obamacare exchange than it paid in claims. The bond ratings agency Standard & Poor’s analyzed Blue Cross plans in 32 parts of the country and found that most are figuring out how to better set premiums to meet the cost of new enrollees as the Affordable Care Act exchanges begin their fourth year. Blue KC is a prime example."
7. Bavley, Alan (1996-03-10). "Blue Cross faces battle over plans for profitability". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26.
  The article notes: "Lobbyists for the Kansas City Blues have spent hundreds of dollars wining and dining state Sens. DePasco and Curls. The senators' bill would release Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City from any legal requirement to surrender its assets after converting to a for-profit company. Instead, the Kansas City Blues would have to provide about $35 million for public use over 20 years - about $1.75 million per year."
8. "Stovall questions Blues merger. Attorney general thinks Kansas City company organized as charity". The Salina Journal. Associated Press. 1997-02-14. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes, "Stovall said she was also concerned that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, as a Missouri public benefit corporation, 'may be precluded from participating in a merger with the Kansas company because of limitations under Missouri law.'"
9. Holmes, Allan (2006-10-01). "IT Investment Is the Cure for One Mid-Market Health Insurer". CIO. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26.
  The article notes: "With an estimated $1.6 billion in revenue this year, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City is a relatively small player in this multibillion-dollar market, competing against companies more than 10 times bigger in a 30-county area in Northwest Missouri and the two most populated counties in Kansas that make up Kansas City. Nevertheless, BCBSKC is the largest health insurer in the region, providing coverage for 900,000 people and garnering a 42 percent market share."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City participants: Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs), Paulmcdonald (talk · contribs), MaryGaulke (talk · contribs), Dmehus (talk · contribs), AllyD (talk · contribs), 4meter4 (talk · contribs), Doncram (talk · contribs), Mrschimpf (talk · contribs), Darth Mike (talk · contribs), Britishfinance (talk · contribs), and Wm335td (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep per Cunard. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. Further, due to state regulatory and legal powers of state governments in health care, there are enough differences from state to state to make merging them under one article not valuable to the reader. Unlike what the nominator is suggesting, national health care brands are not operating as a coordinated national company. Each state version of Blue Cross and Blue Shield is really its own company operating under its own unique structure which is tailored to the structures put in place by state legislation.4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cunard has presented multiple sources that are independent and verified. Though not all of the sources provided have claims of notability, based on the sources provided it should pass WP:GNG.SunDawn (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we've gone through this before with an AFD and I see no reason to overturn the original, plus there some new arguments above to keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I was pinged above: My opinion in the first AfD, and previously on the article's Talk page, was that this lacked specific notability and should be redirected. An inherent feature of insurance is that risk is spread across a large number of customers, and all companies have to do business subject to local regulations, with ups and downs which can be of local interest: I don't think the available coverage strongly indicates encyclopaedic notability. However, the October 2019 AfD consensus was to keep this article and I am not seeing this re-nomination making a strong case to set aside that previous conclusion. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.tvfanatic.com/2020/02/ncis-los-angeles-season-11-episode-14-review-commitment-issues/

[2] ttps://www.comingsoon.net/movies/reviews/468457-fantastic-four-review

[3] ttps://www.ocregister.com/2013/12/10/dennehys-great-performance-is-drowned-in-a-sea-of-words/

[4] ttps://www.dailynews.com/2019/02/14/theater-review-at-the-geffen-lights-out-nat-king-cole-takes-a-wrenching-look-inside-a-mind-in-turmoil/

[5] ttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/30/how-youtubers-turned-running-for-london-mayor-into-content

[6] ttps://www.indy100.com/news/niko-omilana-london-mayor-fox-b1835131

[7] ttps://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/youtube-niko-omilana-sadiq-khan-victory-london-mayor-elections-b930873.html

[8] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-56774102

[9] ttp://www.ala.org/news/american-library-association-fact-sheet

[10] ttp://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2020/06/ala-executive-director-tracie-d-hall-says-dismantling-racism-library-and

[11] [60]

[12] [61]

[13] Appeals, United States Board of Tax (1926). Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals. U.S. Government Printing Office.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]