Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 04	May 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okhtyrka Air Base[edit]

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

Cannot find reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:V, possible WP:HOAX? Rusf10 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would consider that a military base housing a regiment satisfies notability requirements. If it actually does/did exist, of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly did exist per the reference given below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The airfield does not show up on Google Maps because it was closed in 2004 but it did exist from 1969 to that point as a training base. [1] Kges1901 (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep original (lost) source is Tim Vasquez, at http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/russia/Akhtyrka.htm, note the confusing change of spelling. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:05, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homepie, Inc.[edit]

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

covert UPE article on a non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE search shows just press releases or mere announcements. Furthermore the regurgitating of sources observed in the article are indicative of PR sponsored posts. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is a startup in the real estate technology space where $350 million a week is being invested into this category, according to the Center for Real Estate Technology & Innovation This Week in Proptech, April 30, 2021. It is important to keep this page for people to learn about what these non-traditional real estate industry disruptors do. Moreover, another firm similar in size and similar scope of coverage is Homie, which has a page[2]. The sources included are independent media: REAL Trends (owned by Housingwire), The Signal (Santa Clarita Valley newspaper), Pacific Business Times (which was a provided source but since deleted, yet is a reputable business publication covering the Central Coast of California and requires a subscription for online access like the Wall Street Journal) and two Biometric publications used as source for identity technology this firm is using to protect consumers from fraud. The sources provided are independent news articles, not from press releases. This is not a PR sponsored post in anyway, shape or form but added to provide more information about the proptech industry and non-traditional firms that are offering consumers an alternative to using a real estate agent, just like Homie. I am the creator of this article. There has been no monetary payment of any kind for this article. Kevin Hawkins (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @KevHawkins first off, you are the creator of this article. Secondly please WP:SIGN after every entry you make and finally please feel free to provide RS that proves the organization is notable. Celestina007 (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, likely created by a user with a COI Dexxtrall (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not the job of Wikipedia to promote new companies, new technologies or anything else. This subject lacks significant coverage from reliable sources. It may merit an article in the future, but not now. Rogermx (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another privately held start-up, insufficient coverage from wp:reliable sources to merit an article at this time. Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:50, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regents (punk rock band)[edit]

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

fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG Graywalls (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the music group. The recordings have not charted on national music charts or received certifications or accolades. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ashleyyoursmile I have added a bunch of new sources. Please check again. Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found a lot of news on them and have add 10 new sources. There is coverage on them on grammy.com.Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lesliechin1, well and good but not sure about how significant that is. Let's look at the sources: 1 has a small piece of introduction, but it is an interview with the members so is not independent of the subject. 2 is again not significant coverage, a small piece about who the members are and where they were formed. 3 and 4 are reviews of their album, not of them. 6 is an interview with the founder of their label, Lovitt. So it's not independent (it is basically someone with close affiliation with the subject talking about the subject. 7 is again neither reliable nor independent. 8 and 9 look decent I think. 10 qualifies as a passing mention. Ashley yoursmile! 09:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of their albums of course count towards the notability of the band, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 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 merge to Cornell University. Merge anything worthy to Cornell University or History of Cornell University. Missvain (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At What Cost?, Cornell[edit]

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

This article is about a student organization that successfully opposed a unionization drive at Cornell in 2002. The drive was controversial, and therefore generated a fair amount of press coverage, but fundamentally this fails the ten year test and WP:NEVENT. The appropriate amount of encyclopedic detail is a brief mention in Cornell University's history section or graduate student union, but an entire page on the drive specifically at Cornell is unwarranted, let alone a page on a single organization involved in that drive. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge an appropriate amount of detail (i.e. a paragraph or so) into Cornell University as needed. This organisation isn't sufficiently notable for a discrete article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above, merge into Cornell University. Alex-h (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing the redirect to Cornell's page might be most appropriate, but for the material, History of Cornell University or the graduate student union page would be better targets, I'd think. Even a paragraph at the main page would probably raise WP:DUE concerns. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: adequate coverage, the sentence in the lead 'There had been no prior instance in American graduate student unionization history where a unionization proposal was defeated by a vote' is a sufficient claim of long-term signifiance to defeat the WP:10YEARTEST concern. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That line speaks to the importance of the unionization drive, not this organization. It'd still be a heavy lift to establish that a failed unionization drive needs its own article rather than coverage in graduate student union, but it'd be easier. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:05, 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 redirect to Sean Paul discography. ✗plicit 23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Dem Roll[edit]

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

Song did not chart in any of the Billboard charts listed at [3]. Song also didn't chart globally per Template:Single chart. See Hung Medien and Official Charts for example. In terms of sources, I found an article from The Fader that said the song would appear as a single on an album by Sean Paul. However, the track listing shows this song didn't appear at all on Sean Paul's album Imperial Blaze. While this song was on Reggae Gold 2007, there is no Wikipedia article on it. Therefore, I think this article on Watch Dem Roll should redirect to Sean Paul discography. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sean Paul discography- fails WP:NSONG. Although released as a single, the song does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the music group. A simple Google search turns up just the Fader article and this which is a passing mention. The recording has not appeared on the national charts of any country, nor has it been certified or received major accolades. The only fact that the song was released independently as a single is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:41, 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 merge to Tuckahoe (plantation). Missvain (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery at Tuckahoe plantation[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable as an independent subject. This article is like a term paper (or blog post/essay), cited by primary and self-published sources (like the Tuckahoe website) and small sections in works on slavery in the antebellum South in general or in Virginia in particular. Way too much WP:OR. "Slavery at Tuckahoe plantation" gets zero Google hits outside of Wikipedia mirrors and a 2019 vandal graffiti. Softlavender (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A number of thoughts:

- I realize that some of the information comes from primary sources - the History of Tuckahoe site - but that has information that is most relevant. I could remove a fair amount by removing the information about the residents.

I went ahead and removed the information about the Boyd family that was woven into the article here–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-I am not getting how this is WP:OR. Do you have an example of a sentence, paragraph, section that you think is OR?

-It is meant to give a glimpse of how live really was for enslaved people. And, in particular in Virginia.

-I don't get the term paper / blog point.

-It would be a bummer to see this go. Perhaps I could roll it into the Tuckahoe plantation article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of its notability comes from having formed Jefferson's opinions about slavery and the comment from Thomas Anburey. I created an article that I wanted to read: What was slavery really like on one of the "great plantations" in Virginia. And, the Randolph's were very influential in Colonial Virginia. I am certain that there is some way that this can be told - some how - somewhere.

I have been writing articles and biographies for Wikipedia for years about slavery, freedmen, and the Underground Railroad - and I have almost always thought: Why isn't life on a plantation a part of the written history?

Yes, I may be too close for objective thought on this - but I thought it might help to understand some of the background.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The links provided above on the article title aren't as helpful as: Slave Tuckahoe Virginia -wikipedia -Douglass–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing comes up as an independent topic (except reports on the 2019 incident of vandalism). All else is from Tuckahoe websites, etc. The topic is not notable as an independent subject. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - All else is from Tuckahoe websites, etc. - I am not sure what article you are looking at. Have you looked at the article since I removed the Boyd family info? I wouldn't call Jon Meacham, Gibson Worsham, newspapers, etc. as lacking in objectivity. There is one Tuckahoe source of the 24 sources for the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - In order to meet Wikipedia notability thresholds, a subject must have significant coverage in reliable publications that are independent of the subject. All existing coverage of slavery at Tuckahoe (short of the minor 2019 vandalism issue) is from Tuckahoe-related sites, or mentions (often brief) in works on slavery in the antebellum South in general or in Virginia in particular, or on other subjects. Slavery at Tuckahoe is no more independently notable as an indepedent subject than is slavery at any one of nearly 1,000 antebellum plantations that have articles on Wikipedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About your response:

1) There is one primary source of 24 sources. I am gobsmacked on this and the OR comment. I think we should let it alone and have others weigh-in.
2) I absolutely agree that it wouldn't make sense to have articles like this for many other plantations. There were, though, the following articles for Washington/Mount Vernon: List of enslaved people of Mount Vernon and George Washington and slavery. And, there are several reasons why this plantation was in the top of the list of "great plantations of the James River". It was also unique in that it was very self-contained. It wasn't just any old plantation.

I totally can see options to transform the article:

something like Randolph family of Virginia and slavery for the Randolph family of Virginia. That would bring in a number of Virginian estates and a much broader swath of plantation owners. It would add some interesting angles - the slave-owning Randolph who tried to pass a law to gradually close down slavery, the people who manumitted (or had intended to manumit) slaves in large numbers, slaves being passed between family members - which would also bring Jefferson family members into the discussion.
if it is determined that it shouldn't be a stand-alone article, it could be easily merged into into Tuckahoe (plantation)
or something about Slavery on Virginia plantations - with Tuckahoe being one of those. Yikes, that would make it very large and take a LOT of research, though. I'm shaking in my boots about that option.

As an FYI, I have temporarily commented out the Legacy section about the 2019 incident here. It's really more of an FYI and not terribly germane to the bulk of the article... and mostly it's confusing the discussion about the body of the article. Unless I am pinged specifically, I will bow out at this point and let others weigh-in.

If an admin sees this, could we include the African diaspora and the National Register of Historical Places groups - if there are separate lists for them - to this discussion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say anything about primary sources or OR in the comment you are responding to. I said "All existing coverage of slavery at Tuckahoe (short of the minor 2019 vandalism issue) is from Tuckahoe-related sites, or mentions (often brief) in works on slavery in the antebellum South in general or in Virginia in particular, or on other subjects." -- Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Tuckahoe (plantation) isn't that long, and I don't see why this integral part of its history needs to be on a separate article. Also integral descriptions of the plantation itself that should be on the main article rather than split ("Tuckahoe had a weaving room...", "A collection of outbuildings were located on Plantation Street of Tuckahoe.") I mean, sort of by definition every plantation had slaves, it's not a separate topic. Terrific work on it though, thanks Carole. Reywas92^Talk 05:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As an FYI, I posted a comment at Talk:Tuckahoe (plantation) about this option.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think Softlavender has made the case for lack of notability. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tuckahoe (plantation), there is no reason to have two articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tuckahoe (plantation).–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, I started Talk:Slavery at Tuckahoe plantation#Address issues to address the issues raised here in the event that the article is merged or becomes part of a larger topic (like Slavery at Virginia plantations or Slavery and the Virginia Randolphs). Any input is appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:48, 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) 00:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laminas API Tools[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no indications that this suite of tools is notable, no significant independent coverage appears to exist. The scant coverage I could find amounted to run-of-the-mill mentions only. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:33, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Framework[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. All sources are not independent (either code hosting services and author's Twitter) or are of exceptionally low quality (blog spam). Anton.bersh (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads more like a promotional puff piece than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 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 redirect to ABA Games. Sandstein 08:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BulletML[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, I see it has been recently redirected, but has since been reverted. Not independently notable, suggest a delete and redirect to avoid the article being restored. Incredibly unlikely to ever become notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect Or delete/redirect per nom. Lee must have missed that the redirect has been in place for a decade. :) I see no meaningful indepth reliable source coverage of BulletML, with almost no mentions in WP:VG/RS's custom search at all. Most hits are for comments/forum sections. A few passing mentions, such as in relation to Enter the Gungeon. The IP responsible for restoring seems to be telling people they are going to merge it anyways. The article does not need restored from redirect for past content to be merged. -- ferret (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak restore redirect it's not easy, but I was able to find some coverage. (e.g. 1 2) enough where I think there's a real possibility that sufficient sources can be found. And if someone wanted to make a properly attributed copy to sandbox and histmerge back later once the sourcing is satisfactory I think that would be fine. There's also WP:NOPAGE to consider so content may be best expanded as part of an existing article.
I don't see any reason to hide the existing history, in fact I oppose doing so for the reasons given. It won't prevent bad restorations, and the appropriate way to stop those is by partially-blocking users who insist on making them after being warned not to, or if need be, by protecting the page, though with one recreation over an entire decade+ that seems unlikely to be necessary. What it will prevent is people using the history to merge the information elsewhere or potentially build an article off of, so all-in-all hiding the history is a net negative.
Presumably 86.155.25.31 will be done with their merger after a week. If not, leave a friendly note explaining how to use page histories. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Lacks significant coverage from standard/specialized searches and redirects are cheap. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:48, 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. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hattiesburg plane crash[edit]

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

Tragic but general aviation accidents are rarely notable unless someone famous is on board. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just a comment for now...not a personal attack, but the Afd started by WilliamJE and the PROD done by Carguychris are easily a violation of WP:RAPID. The afd is more of how you preceive the policy, but for the record, the PROD was placed on less than 90 minutes after creation. I will actually assess notability after 24 hours, aka tomorrow, but for now, I believe this violates that policy and anyone who assesses the notability (Keep or delete !votes) also is violating it. Just wait 24 hours to see how it plays out. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above, WP:RAPID Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 21:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it could progress Mausebru (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is true of myriad non-notable events and is the reason why WP:NOTCRYSTAL exists. Yes, the event could eventually qualify for notability under WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Carguychris (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a routine light aircraft crash, tragic, but one of many thousands globally each year. No notable people involved, no lasting effects, fails WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ahunt. Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the FAA and NTSB are investigating. Still holding to this being WP:RAPID since we don't know if this could have a lasting impact. All it takes is to say the plane had a malfunction, and most likely, it would have a lasting impact. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - All aviation accidents are routinely investigated by the NTSB and a report completed. The fact that an investigation is being done does not confer any notability at all. See WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Guessing that this might result in some lasting regulatory or other lasting changes would be WP:CRYSTAL as well as highly unlikely. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not actually your standard light aircraft crash. Most of them do not crash into houses and kill people on the ground. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that is why we have WP:NOTNEWS to cover that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, forgive me, but can you explain how you can accurately use WP:NOTNEWS when WP:RAPID easily applies to this Afd, especially with the part of “…it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate…to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge.” In my mind, saying WP:NOTNEWS applies for something within the last day, means you believe that Wikipedia shouldn’t have any mention of it what so ever, since the event (not just the article) is ‘Not News’. So, could you explain your reasoning for why WP:NOTNEWS applies to this topic and not just this article? Elijahandskip (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easy: They are not mutually exclusive and both apply. This is strictly a non-notable newspaper-type news story that should be deleted as per policy, as I have argued above, but I also agree with you that the nomination for AfD should have ideally waited a week or so until the newscycle died down and than it would have been more clear to more editors that it needs to be deleted. But, since we are here now, we are not going to !vote "keep" this week and then bring it back for deletion next week, so this AfD needs to continue to conclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:NOTNEWS is policy; WP:RAPID is a guideline. Grandpallama (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @Necrothesp: Read this one[4] from this year where a child riding in his mother's car was killed after a plane crashed into it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And? I said it wasn't standard, not that it had never happened before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this crash is WP:ROTM and merely illustrates how non-notable air crashes garner gratuitous press coverage, particularly when there's fire, property damage and casualties on the ground—"if it bleeds, it leads." Carguychris (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carguychris, there is news coverage, so I don't know what you really mean. Mausebru (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd summarizes it well in the post below. Light aircraft crashes are magnets for sensational media reports even when there is nothing truly exceptional or noteworthy about them. Carguychris (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT. Incident lacks "enduring historical significance" and "significant lasting effect". Per #4, (bold in original, underline is mine): Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Many accidents like this happen every year in America. There is no evidence of WP:PERSISTENCE in the future. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Run-of-the-mill general aviation accident like countless others. Tragic but without anything notable in Wikipedia's sense. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough to keep and largely already forgotten already by people anyway. A tragic accident indeed but far too brief a news story to warrant keeping. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This has all the makings of a WP:MILL and WP:NOTNEWS story. Love of Corey (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable, a routine accident. Alex-h (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and lacking in enduring historical significance. Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS appears to apply. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:42, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Ramezani Pour[edit]

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

Non notable, can only find Social Media accounts SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 20:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:BIO + WP:GNG, there are some mentions in persian but mainly PR releases CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable personality failing WP:GNG. Possible cross wiki spamming - [5], [6]. Chirota (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - previously deleted as spam, and that hasn't changed. Deb (talk) 14:40, 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 speedy keep. Error on my part (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cahit Özkan[edit]

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

Non notable politician who doesn’t satisfy any of the two criteria listed in WP:NPOL Celestina007 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He’s a member of the Turkish parliament so passes WP:NPOL, though the article is so poorly written it doesn’t actually say so (the tr.wiki article does). Mccapra (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Turkish political figure and a member of the ruling party in Turkey and we can see a lot of searching about his name on google search and References

Aliaboomar (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Marrach[edit]

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

As a topic, this video game lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write a dedicated encyclopedia article without resorting to original research. Its only extant coverage consists of primary sources and unreliable sources. The topic had no substantive additional analytical coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as no related articles link here. czar 05:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I stumbled across this article a few months ago and almost nominated it for AFD myself but the reason I didn't is that the sources, while crummy, do seem to exist (see e.g., [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). These obviously aren't the sources we like to see when we write VG articles but for older games (and particularly MUDs), I think this is the best we're going to get a lot of the time. That said, I know the VG community takes the quality of sources quite seriously (and for good reason), so I see the rationale for deletion, understand why this nomination was made, and certainly won't begrudge folks for voting to delete. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know GameZone is reliable although I don't know about the other sources DocFreeman24 brought up, plus I found the game mentioned in this magazine, albeit in passing. If the source provided above are reliable, I could give this a weak keep if nothing else, but the current evidence I found is not promising. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above sources have no hallmarks of reliability. Even the Gamezone (first link) is not coverage—it's a directory listing. The GNG requires sustained coverage. czar 04:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apart from GameZone, none of the sources DocFreeman24 cites are reliable. Even the GameZone one is an auto-generated overview hosting only the one-paragraph description found on the game's homepage. IceWelder [✉] 09:09, 20 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) 02:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:46, 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. (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alissa Wykes[edit]

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

Non–notable player in a defunct women's football league. Fails GNG and NGRIDIRON. I proposed this for deletion before but it was removed. None of the 5 references added when DeProded are SIGCOV and I've only found one thing that could possibly be "significant" coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and the sources in the article. In addition, there's a widely referenced Sports Illustrated for Women article about her and she appears to have an entry in the Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History in America (Schribner; v.3; p.146), but I can't find the text for either of these on-line. Given that she was most famous circa 2001-2003, there are likely to be additional offline sources, too. pburka (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources show notability as a person, even if not within the confines of being a footballer. PamD 08:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC, there are multiple independent and reliable sources that when combined, provide significant coverage and commentary about her, independent of her sports career. Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 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 23:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riototar[edit]

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

Completely nonverifiable text about an "extremely rare" surname. Created in 2008 by a basically single-purpose account. I cannot tell whether t is ahoax of a home legend. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Looks like a hoax to me. Eopsid (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searching Riototar and Reotutar, for example, does come up with a lot of hits relating to Filipinos that bear the surname. With that being said, I can't find any info about the surname itself and the article appears to be either made up or a piece of WP:OR. There don't appear to be any notable people with this surname on Wikipedia so this can't even be converted into a dab page. This should be deleted for failing WP:V and likely failing WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 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 23:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hartle Ford, Missouri[edit]

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

Likely could have PRODded this one, but decided to take this to AFD so there's a better record of how problematic some of these mass-created stubs are. Sources are just GNIS and a highway map. Oldest topographic maps just show a river crossing with no development, the place name is in the italic font used for non-community features. Some newer topos don't even have the feature name. Searching brings up a few passing mentions of a literal ford. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNIS should perhaps also mention that these state highway maps are also poor sources to base an article on. Newspapers.com only gives two hits for a literal ford [12][13]. Would be nice if RFD could help go through his mass creations to cull the falsehoods. e.g. I just removed the false claim that Galena Junction [14][15] "is a community". Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highway maps from some states are at least a decent indicator of which communities are still inhabited, but unfortunately Missouri isn't one of those states. As far as I can tell, Missouri puts every populated place listed in the GNIS on its county highway maps (or close to it at least), so it doesn't lend any more credence to a place existing than the GNIS entry does. In this case, it looks like this was an actual ford that the GNIS mislabeled, and doesn't seem notable at any rate. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:08, 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. ✗plicit 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truck it in[edit]

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

nothing but press releases and seed announcements, nothing satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH at this time YODADICAE👽 17:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it raised $1.5 million. Now we know that from a variety of press release sources mostly using the same photo but this does not make for notability. Where are the independent and reliable sources discussing the company? Looks very much like paid for editing - but they do not seem to have got much value for their money. Fails WP:GNG by a very long way. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appalling, and that's just the behaviour of the creating editor! As for the article subject, utterly non-notable — are we now meant to be providing a running commentary on every startup that raises a bit of cash? Fails every flavour of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Press releases aren't considered notable, also Crunchbase isn't a reliable source (refer to WP:DEPREC) QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 08:31, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Americans in Virginia[edit]

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

Unclear if this topic warrants a standalone article, at least at this current state. nearlyevil 665 16:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 16:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe there is some significance to this topic and that it meets all the necessary criteria to be an article. PaulRyanIsWatchingYou (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per evidence as reliable. Telex80 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found multiple sources that could help expand the article. I found sources from the Washington Post (1), and another source from NBC, (2). I will update the article as soon as possible. Koridas 📣 04:53, 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. Missvain (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Group of 9[edit]

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

The article seems non-notable and only a hypothesis, without enough notability for inclusion. It's important to note that I couldn't find any sources other than the sources that already stated on the article. Ahmetlii (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why one would think that this group is "a hypothesis" when Jeanne Kirk Laux in the very first source says:^[1]
The focus of analysis is the so-called Group of Nine - Belgium, Denmark (NATO); Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania (Warsaw Pact); Austria, Finland, Sweden, Yugoslavia (not aligned) - which came together at the UN in 1965 to co-sponsor a resolution promoting East-West cooperation in Europe.

From this source and all other sources in the article at the time of nomination for deletion it is clear that the title of the group is Group of Nine not Group of 9, thus Group of Nine and Group of 9 should have been swapped.

A simple search on "Group of Nine" per WP:BEFORE reveals that there are plenty of sources to meet GNG and to make future expansions.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] Sam Sailor 11:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Laux, Jeanne Kirk (1972). "Small States and Inter-European Relations: An Analysis of the Group of Nine". Journal of Peace Research. 9 (2). SAGE Publications: 147–160. doi:10.1177/002234337200900204. ISSN 0022-3433.
^ Weiner, R. (1984). Romanian Foreign Policy and the United Nations. Praeger scientific. Praeger. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-03-071594-5. Retrieved 6 May 2021.
^ Makko, A. (2016). Ambassadors of Realpolitik: Sweden, the CSCE and the Cold War. Contemporary European History. Berghahn Books. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-78533-285-2. Retrieved 6 May 2021.
^ Staff Memorandum on United States Investment of Military Assistance Funds in Military Installations Located in France. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1967. p. 6-PA28. Retrieved 6 May 2021.
^ Voorhoeve, J.J.C. (1979). Peace, Profits and Principles :: A Study of Dutch Foreign Policy. Springer Netherlands. p. 133. ISBN 978-90-247-2203-7. Retrieved 6 May 2021.
^ "The idea of a pan-European security conference". CVCE.EU by UNI.LU. 21 December 2005. Retrieved 6 May 2021.
^ Palmer, M. (1971). The Prospects for a European Security Conference. Chatham House, P.E.P. European Series. Chatham House:PEP. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-85374-037-7. Retrieved 6 May 2021. The Group of Nine / Ten met several times to explore initiatives that could be taken to achieve a greater degree of European détente. ... held at the U.N. in October 1969, the experiment of the Group of Ten appeared to have come to an end, at least for the time being . ... over the course of 1966 were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Rumania, Sweden, and Yugoslavia.
^ Conference on European Security: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1972. p. 2. Retrieved 6 May 2021. Invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact countries disrupts efforts of Group of Ten for CES planning.
^ Due-Nielsen, C.; Petersen, N. (1995). Adaptation and Activism: The Foreign Policy of Denmark, 1967–1993. Dansk udenrigspolitisk institut. p. 136. ISBN 978-87-574-3022-6. Retrieved 6 May 2021.
^ Leatherman, J. (2003). From Cold War to Democratic Peace: Third Parties, Peaceful Change, and the OSCE. Syracuse Studies on Peace and Conflict Resolution. Syracuse University Press. p. 72 ff. ISBN 978-0-8156-3032-6. Retrieved 6 May 2021.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Sam Sailor (also supporting moving the article). /Julle (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the abundance of sources, there clearly is no case for deletion. Maybe for merger, as this is a stub, but I did not find an ideal target. Keep remains. Rename as well! gidonb (talk) 22:57, 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 G5 by Ponyo.. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 23:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Reza Homami Niya[edit]

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

crosswiki spam, it was nominated for deletion on Persian. Hasan (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hasan (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep iranian pop singers.--Bahesab (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC) sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahesab You will need to provide arguments why you think that the subject has sufficient notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music) - "being iranian pop singer", I am afraid, is by far not sufficient. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*::@CommanderWaterford I have added resources to the article and the article was previously deleted, but after fixing the tag, it was removed. I do not know why to delete the tag again.--Bahesab (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC) sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note I've speedied the article under G5.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 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 Invincible (comics). Missvain (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atom Eve[edit]

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

Failed prod. Article fails to assert importance of the character, and is sourced as of posting entirely to primary sources. Cursory search only turned up minimal independent coverage; currently even with a new series out, mention of the character is minimal and critical reception thin. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination reasons. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum, this is a valid searchable term so redirect to Invincible (comics). --Masem (t) 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invincible (comics): per masem, redirect CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invincible (comic_series)#Superheroes, where she is already included. The proposed target mentioned above is actually the article on the character of Invincible himself, rather than on the series. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invincible (comics), redirects are cheap, etc. Fails notability req. for stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Maine[edit]

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

There are no independent sources which cover the subject in detail and thus the subject fails WP:GNG. User:Namiba 14:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify There's a non trivial presence of the LDS Church in Maine, but the article does require more independent sources to meet GNG. The article is relatively new so an opportunity to find sources should be given. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing the revisions made to improve the article and include more independent sources, I'm changing my vote to Keep Qwaiiplayer (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When creating this page, my intent was to list information that is reliable as possible. I've included Pew Forum Survey data (reference 2) as well as well as Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) findings (reference 3) as well. These are all referenced in the header. If you know of others, let me know. I used LDS maps to locate wards/branches within stakes among other things. I could, for example, use Google maps, but that info is much less reliable. For example, Google places church locations where there is none and some church locations are not in Google. I used primary sources for information only the church knows (ie. membership & congregational data). churchofjesuschristtemples.org is not an official website, but specifies what stakes are in each Temple district. Again, I've stated content I've been able to find, and welcome others to add to it. I don't want to be the only contributer.

If you have additional content Be Bold. Also, feel free to contact me if you have suggestions. I'm open for suggestions.Dmm1169 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note a similar conversation about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Maine has already occured on Caorongjin's user page which resulted in the removal of the {{primary sources}} tag that user place on it. Those actions are shown on the "view history" tab of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Maine. The disadvantage of placing it in "Draft" space is that it significanlty limits individuals that can potentially contribute to the page. The input that came into creating this was developed through input placed on other similar pages "The Church of Jesus Crist of Latter-day Saints in ...(state/country)" and "Religion in ...(state/country)" The sources, format, and text are similar to what was provided in those other pages.Dmm1169 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus relies primarily upon secondary research. If there are multiple, independent, secondary sources (as required by the General Notability Guideline) please post them. Otherwise, primary sources are not enough to justify an article like this.--User:Namiba 17:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The item directly comming from primary sources (LDS Church website) in this page is the infobox. Are you wanting me to remove it? Without it, the page is not primarily from primary sources. The majority of sentences/paragraphs in page are not from primary sources. All paragraps in header and Temple Section were not retrieved/interperatated from an offical church website. The Stake & Mission section came from interperation of a primary source map done by physically counting congregations.Dmm1169 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced the infobox to another Wikipedia page with the same data. The only source left to an LDS webpage is "Classic Maps".Dmm1169 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Let me know if that's sufficient and if not, what needs to be done to resolve it. For example, does primary sourced content need to be removed and what sources are you considering primary sourced material and why? Origionally you stated there was "no independent sources" which really confused me because some of the sources are not even close to affiliation with the LDS Church. "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The intent of use of primary sources was for this purpose. I just want to get this resolved in accordance to Wikipedia Standards.Dmm1169 (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dmm1169, I think the issue here is that you are misunderstanding the definition of primary and secondary sources. A primary source is "an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study." A secondary source is one which utilizes primary sources to create a new perspective or argument. A primary source can be published by an organization (like the Church of LDS itself) or by another organization or individual. It is fine to use primary sources to document certain facts on Wikipedia, but notability is determined by the existence of secondary sources. The problem with this article is that no one has written extensively about the LDS in Maine and thus there are not a sufficient number of sources described in WP:GNG to justify its existence.--User:Namiba 12:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namiba, Good news!!! There are several published secondary sources concerning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Maine. There's probably others, but two I can think of right off is cummorah.com which its data is about a year older than what the church puts out essentially all the information in the infobox plus some and historical information as well. There's also the Deseret News Church Almanac which goes in much more detail including nearly two pages, small font single space typed history of the LDS Church in Maine as well as 2012 Membership, stake & congregational information, and list of stakes, date each stake was organized, the first stake president for each stake among other information. The Deseret News Church Almanac ran from 1974 to 2012. I've got a copy of the 2012 Almanac which has membership and stake data for 2011. There's probably other sources. Of course then there is a number of local news articles concerning certain topics of the LDS Church within Maine such as For Mormons on a mission, Maine’s a challenge, Church Announces New Leaders, 75,000 lbs. of food to be distributed..., ...Dmm1169 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since nomination for deletion, the following has been changed to page

adjusted an existing reference
added more referencing
Added a "History" Section
added a couple of additional links pertaining specifically to LDS Church in Maine in "External Links" section
Added section-stub template to "History" section to encourage others to edit and improve the page in accordance to Wikipedia Standards.

Dmm1169 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Just not a notable topic. There seems to be roughly 10,000 Mormons in Maine. No sourcing discusses this as a topic other than on the church's website which really doesn't have much information [16].--Rusf10 (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 I'm not sure if you looked at the page before or after the edits I mentioned above were made, and totally independent sources concerning population aspects of the LDS Church was present when the nomination for deletion tag was placed. Totally independant, secondary sources includes, but are not limited to, Pew Forum on Religion which stated 2% identify themselves as LDS Church, The Association of Religion Data Archives which lists it as the 6th largest denomination, as well as new sources and content that was added. These sources all relate the the LDS Church in Maine. Religion can easily be a contraversal topic yet there are thousands of Religion/denomination/irriligion in Country/Region/Territory/etc pages in Wikipedia.Dmm1169 (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved with additional reliable sources references that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psy. Missvain (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P Nation[edit]

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

Previously deleted for lack of notability. Recreated page still doesn't show enough notability to meet WP:NCORP. John B123 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since it is a company founded by a very famous and notable person, Psy, so instead of delete, just merge into his article. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psy - fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH. This probably constitutes as non-trivial, but majority of the sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are trivial coverage. --Ashley yoursmile! 16:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, doesn't show sufficient notability for passing WP:NCORP CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per the reasonings above and because notability is not inherited. The article was also deleted twice since the previous AFD because it was recreated, so would it be worth protecting it so it cannot be remade without a review for notability first? (I am not sure the correct term for what im describing here bur hopefully you understand what I mean?) Alex (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I feel like the source is indeed notable enough, but majority of the sources here are unreliable ones such as Allkpop or Soompi, or they're just primary sources, not so many in depth sources used here. We have a draft on P Nation stored that currently has more sources and is slightly more full so I think it's best if for now we just leave it as a draft and drop this version. - K-popguardian (talk) 16:41, 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) 23:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Martinez[edit]

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

I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. He's been in a few TV shows and movies but not a major role. The sources are either primary, or of the "local actor goes to Hollywood" type. ... discospinster _talk 14:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:TOOSOON, currently fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The subject has not played significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. I see lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most sources used in the article are questionable except perhaps VoyageLA source, but it is an interview with the subject and does not include any commentary from the interviewer which makes it neither secondary nor independent, and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 14:34, 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 Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creature (Pop Smoke song)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP: NSongs. Only presents one good source, Hot New Hip Hop. Times of India only mentions the video and cites the lyrics of the song. Entering charts doesn't mean a song is notable. The rest of the article is composed of album reviews and "self-interested parties" such as a manager and producers MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon: the song not only has a lack of independent sources, but there was no music video or other promotional material plus Canadian Hot 100 is the only top 50 position. --K. Peake 17:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW close due to being the same nonsensical nomination MarioSoulTruthFan has made to other song articles recently, which I have explained in his other Afds why they're nonsense. Speaking of which, he tried to do something similar with an article on a One Direction as notable as this one, and got his ass handed to him on a platter for a good reason. XD 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, that wasn't cool. I'll be WP:CIVIL. Weak Keep. I understand a lot of the sources used are currently about the album and not the song itself, and it's generally encouraged to have pieces mainly about the topic to establish independent notability. I also know that WP:NSONGS states charts don't guarantee notability. For me, I think it's more about whether the sources used (even if not about the song itself) could be used to create full, non-stub article and if there's anything, including charts and awards, to give it independent notability. I admit to trying to WP:BLUDGEON the point in these Afds into MarioSoul, and I absolutely apologize for it. I'll WP:DROPTHESTICK about all of this, because it's only been getting me mad plus I do have more important things to focus on than getting into a WP:BATTLE over articles I've never worked on. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Kyle Peake. I can't see much to show that the song is notable individually. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:30, 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 no consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itech[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:ORG now-defunct company rolled into another company rolled into another company. Has no notability in its own right. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. jp×g 09:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just removed a lot of promotional stuff, was anything notable in what I removed? I didn't really bother rewording as it was all blatant corporatese anyways, but maybe some of the info could have addressed the notability concerns. Sennecaster (What now?) 17:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sugandha[edit]

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

This queen is not notable apart from in the context of Utpala dynasty, where I have covered her in all details. There is no discussion of her exploits other than in dynastic histories of Kashmir, deriving from Rajatarangini. I had redirected the article but was twice-reverted. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers the subject in greater detail and therefore, should not be deleted. She is notable as she is one of the few female rulers of Kashmir. Didda and Kota Rani also have their separate articles. Peter Ormond (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greater detail like? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article explains "Ekangas and Tantrins", with whom she frequently had a clash. The article has a userbox which contains all her positions, which makes it easier for a reader to understand. The article also gives a brief description about her family, coinage and the towns she built during her reign. Peter Ormond (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The family details and the towns, temples etc. commissioned by Sugandha are mentioned in the article on Utapala Dynasty, as well. With much more context. The sole explanation about the Tantrins, that I spot over this article, is that they are a wild, ungovernable, and unpredictable clan. From which source, have you ascertained that information? You have edit-warred with me to restore un-sourced and then, mis-sourced content. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added that explanation. It was there before I had started editing that article. If you feel that there could be a better explanation, you could help by contributing to it. You can also enlist all the towns and temples built by her under a separate heading, which you feel are given with less context. But she is notable and deserves a separate article like other Queens of Kashmir. Peter Ormond (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ruler in her own right of a kingdom, and appears well sourced. PamD 08:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced well and she ruled directly, not just as a regent or consort. Suonii180 (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS clearly indicate notable in her own right. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 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 no consensus. Editors disagree whether the identified sources are indeed significant, reliable, or independent, or whether some of them are not intellectually independent as they are just parroting PR, meaning that WP:GNG is not met. The discussion has already been open more than a week and I don't think that the arguments are going to change significantly if the debate remains open longer. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Munaf Kapadia[edit]

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

WP:ARTSPAM, does fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG, looks further like COI Editing, had been created directly after article for his book (also at AfD) had been tagged for not being notable CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG, states straight facts about the person supported by citations from mainstream media. "looks further like COI" is baseless allegation and has nothing to do with the article itself. being created after a book that is in AfD shouldn't be the reason of nominating this one. The reasons aren't justified and are worded to make it sound like they are legit. Dial911 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Effectively WP:ADMASQ from a google marketing executive, who won a reality series. The Forbes X of Y is non-RS. Introduced to advertise the book. The coverage, what is there, seems to come almost from a single source and simply due to the fact that he was Google guy, now he runs a shop. All of it is seems to startup fare. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep there is continuous coverage about him from 2016/2017 till 2021, in mainstream papers of more than one country (India, Pakistan, UK and might be more). Forbes 30 under 30 is also a claim of significance. Dial911 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes used to put more than 1400 lists of X of Y every year. They are non-RS. scope_creep^Talk 17:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, A person is significantly talked about continuously in mainstream papers of several countries. How are they not notable? He founded something that is being widely talked about, he won a TV reality show, he is Forbes 30 under 30. all of this is supported by several (google news will gibe literally 100 sources) papers. Dial911 (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any reason to suspect COI here as the author has been around for almost four years and has created several articles India authors and their books. Rather than someone promoting a book/author I just see someone with an interest in Indian authors/books continuing to act consistently. Also as the only source written after the book is the source for the book I also fail to see this as marketing the book via the press. KylieTastic (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic, I came across the book and eventually saw this person's huge continuous coverage for what he is doing. So thought of creating his stub. editors are suspecting my timeline of creating this article with COI. Whereas, I did not even know about this guy until I read about him a few days ago. also, he has coverages in newspapers since early 2016, a time when I didn't even know I would join Wikipedia. Dial911 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. --Gazal world (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending a detailed review of the sources (which I might or might not do):
- - The article should speak for itself without the need for the reader or the reviewer to check the sources. The article does not, as written, persuade the reader or reviewer that there has been significant coverage.
  - The article does not comply with the second pillar of Wikipedia. Trimming might not leave much.
  - Adding references to a stub results in a well-referenced stub. Stubs are only notable if they show ipso facto notability, and this one does not.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The several sources only meet the GNG on a very superficial assessment, but they fail on independence. They are promotional, even puff pieces, all written with the cooperation of the subject. This is revealed by inclusion of information that can only have come from the subject, and promotional photography, and the lack of critical commentary. None of the sources are written from a distinct perspective, they are all too close. In the end, the article is purely promotional. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on detailed analysis of Cunard sources, I find 2 in the first 4 to pass as GNG-compliant sources. I want to grumble a bit that Cunard is not rigorous with source independence and throws a lot of sources that are hard work to analyse. However, Cunard's style doesn't weaken the subjects claim to Wikipedia-notability.

My source analysis working down Cunard's list:

1 "He decided to host a dining experience at home". Unsourced. This information came from him. Not independent. It is all quotes and comment that only the subject would know. Every paragraph. Behind his eyes perspective. Not even close to independent.

2 By Shazma Khan 18 Jul 2017. Lots of paragraphs are non-independent. Some may be independent comment. "Initiated back in 2014, the restaurant was a weekend pop-up store in which he invited people over for a paid meal, reported Tech Juice. Now, the venture has progressed into a full-blown central kitchen" reads as independent comment by Khan, referring to information taken from "Tech Juice" The following paragraphs read as independent comment from a distant perspective. I call this a GNG-pass.

3 Written by Pooja Pillai Updated: May 6, 2018. All facts and quotes from the subject, every paragraph. Fails as a GNG source.

4 Rashmi Pratap Updated on March 10, 2018. The seven introductory paragraphs are not about the subject and so ignore them. Munaf Kapadia then is heaviliy features and quoted, however, the article is about the food style. It is not primarily promoting Kapadia or his restarant (The Bohri Kitchen), and so I do not call it a GNG-fail.

That's two GNG-passing sources. Clearly, he self promotes, but self promotion does not detract from notability. Keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by SmokeyJoe & CommanderWaterford. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007 Consider new rationale by @SmokeyJoe? Dial911 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Forbes fails WP:RS. more than one remaining references is PR or regurgitated PR. This feels very WP:TOOSOON though he has managed some RS coverage, eg from the BBC. I see a decent hardworking chap, either WP:ROTM or WP:BLP1E at present. Perhaps his samosa business might be notable, but I don't see him as notable yet. There is nothing in the short text that says to me "THIS is why he is notable." So change my mind and tell me you have done so. If you succeed I will change my opinion here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent I think he is more than just a samosa seller. He is trying to keep a culture alive that was long forgotten in India. He started something that is getting wider recognition each year, with celebrities, media and common people reaching out. That was the motivation behind creating his stub. Having international mainstream media coverage was another reason to create his stub here. He has been written about from 2017 till present. Dial911 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An article about him on Wikipedia would give our readers information about it, just like other articles give information on all kinds of stuff. It's not like this Wikipedia entry would boost his sales or advertise / grow his business or get him huge media attention - because he is getting that already and in plenty of amounts. Dial911 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dial911 You are standing too close to this article to see the issue. He is interesting but that does not confer notability upon him. Show he passes relevant notability criteria in the article and it will be a pleasure to change my opinion. Arguing about it will not achieve that. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gogoi, Angarika (2020-06-30). "He Quit Google to Sell Samosas. Today, His Fans Include Movie Stars!". The Better India. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article provides biographical background about the subject: "He pursued a BBA degree in Marketing from Narsee Monjee College of Commerce and Economics in Mumbai from 2006-2009. Soon after, he finished an MBA degree from Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies. Fresh out of college in 2011, Munaf worked with Wrigley’s as a management trainee and became one of the few area Managers in the country."
2. Khan, Shazma (2017-07-18). "The man who quits Google to sell samosas". Business Recorder. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia, who decided to turn his mother’s recipe into a brand, is a 28-year-old Muslim residing in Mumbai, India. An MBA graduate, Munaf got a job offer from Google after working for a few years in India. ... Quitting his job at Google, Munaf started ‘The Bohri Kitchen’ in India with the idea of keeping his mother Nafisa busy. ... This is not a regular restaurant, it had gained so much popularity that the restaurant is one of the favorites among renowned Indian celebrities including Rani Mukerjee and Farah Khan."
3. Pillai, Pooja (2018-05-06). "Families in Food: Mother's Recipe. How a son is taking his mother's delectable Bohri dishes to Mumbai homes". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "Kapadia, 29, who was then working at Google, emailed his friends asking if anyone would pay for a traditional Bohri meal at his house in Colaba. The email got circulated and soon he had his first customer who brought her friends for a meal at his place."
4. Pratap, Rashmi (2018-03-10). "Come home to food". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "And it is planning about positioning that has helped Munaf. TBK is a brand well known through social media. It is on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and Munaf actively updates his contacts on TBK’s menu as well as future plans on various media. The increase in visibility and demand led him to open a kitchen in Worli from where he supplies Bohri food for delivery."
5. Lazarus, Susanna Myrtle (2015-10-08). "Plating up a meaty meal". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "The Kapadias are a typical Bohri family who love their food, and with Nafisa being a great cook, Munaf had been toying with the idea of showcasing her talent and his community’s food for a few years. One morning, while he asked her his ritual question, it struck him that what sounded so normal to him might sound exotic to anyone who doesn’t know about their food. ... This was 10 months ago, and in the short period since, their popularity has soared. Bringing their food and concept outside Mumbai for the first time, TBK has collaborated with Ashvita Bistro to bring the same experience to Chennai this weekend, with lunch and dinner menus."
6. Makhijani, Vishnu (2021-05-02). "Up close and Personal Munaf Kapadia: The Bohri Kitchen Story". The Shillong Times. Indo-Asian News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia, founder of the hugely successful The Bohri Kitchen that in five years, hosted close to 4,000 home diners on weekends and at its peak in 2019 was delivering 1,000 biryanis a day across Mumbai, writes in “How I Quit Google To Sell Samosas” (HarperCollins)."
7. Mathai, Anjuly (2021-05-02). "Munaf Kapadia: From selling ads at Google to selling samosas at The Bohri Kitchen". The Week. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "The guy who quit Google to sell samosas has now written a book titled… yep, you guessed it: How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas. Munaf Kapadia’s story of starting The Bohri Kitchen (TBK)—a unique home-dining experience designed around the culinary traditions of the Dawoodi Bohra community—is the stuff of social media lore. That is because Kapadia, 31, a former account strategist at Google, not only has an engaging story to tell, but he is also great at selling his story."
8. Borah, Jahnabee (2021-04-29). "Selling samosas in a pandemic: Munaf Kapadia, founder of The Bohri Kitchen, traces his entrepreneurial journey in a new book". Mint. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article provides biographical background about the subject: "Kapadia, who belongs to the Bohri Muslim community, and his mother began offering home-cooked meal experiences to guests in 2014."
9. "Munaf Kapadia details his extraordinary journey from Google to Bohra food in new book". ThePrint. 2021-04-06. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article provides biographical background about the subject: "Kapadia completed his MBA from Mumbai’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies and worked for four years as an Account Strategist at Google India before establishing ‘The Bohri Kitchen’ in 2014."
10. Pandya-Wagh, Kinjal (2017-10-09). "'I quit Google and launched a business with my mum'". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia runs a successful 'pop up' restaurant at his family's home in Mumbai. His mother also works as head chef."
11. Kumar, Sanjay (2017-08-18). "Munaf Kapadia: A Google exec who became a samosa seller". Arab News. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "His parents were initially apprehensive, but they started supporting him once he and TBK started getting attention from the media and Bollywood. ... Popular names in the Mumbai film industry, such as directors Farah Khan and Ashutosh Gowarikar, started visiting his home."
12. Shenoy, Sonali (2017-06-16). "Munaf Kapadia wants to take Bohri cuisine from Mumbai to Manhattan". Indulge (The New Indian Express). Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "What started out as a weekend project inviting people home to try his mother’s food in 2014, has fast expanded into a business model with a delivery kitchen and catering business. So much so that Munaf decided to leave his job at Google where he handled a $10 million portfolio to sell mutton kheema samosas instead."
13. Sawant, Anagha (2020-03-07). "For this MBA graduate mom's cooking skills helped build a Rs 4 crore turnover eatery chain leaving a cushy job". The Weekend Leader. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "In one stroke Munaf Kapadia, a former Google employee, did four things. First, he exposed his mother’s culinary skills to the world. Second, he popularised his community’s Bohri cuisine in Mumbai, third, he gave foodies a go-to dining spot, and the fourth and best part - he made a lot of money out of all this."
14. Nair, Priyanka (2017-06-08). "This MBA graduate quit his job at Google to sell mutton samosas". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "In 2015, Munaf Kapadia, an MBA graduate who was working with Google, decided to keep his mother Nafisa away from daily soaps on TV by starting a food project. The Kapadias belong to the Bohri community, who are popular for their lip-smacking thaal (a platter that consists of everything from mutton samosas, nargis kebabs, dabba gosht, kaari chawal and much more)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Munaf Kapadia to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Munaf Kapadia has received international coverage in the BBC and in Arab News. He received significant coverage in major Indian publications like Business Line, The Economic Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express, and Mint. He received sustained significant coverage in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021.
Regarding editors' comments about the article's being spam, I agree with KylieTastic (talk · contribs) that "I don't see any reason to suspect COI here as the author has been around for almost four years and has created several articles India authors and their books." I reviewed the article and found it neutrally written.
Regarding editors' comments about the independence of the sources, the sources include quotes from the subject but there is also substantial commentary and reporting.
Regarding editors' comments about the article not demonstrating sufficient notability, per Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."
Cunard (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uhhh... most of the listed sources are self-published ones, starting with the first one which cites directly from the own Book of the subject.... CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I linked may quote from the subject of the article but they contain independent commentary and reporting. The sources are published by newspapers and companies not affiliated with the subject. The sources are not Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. Cunard (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is disingenuous and egregious to say that the companies and newspapers are not connected or affiliated with the subject. No company or newspaper is connected to anybody apart from their readers and the people that work there. What does connect them is advertising and this is a case of Google advertising executive gaming the system, in what is essentially a WP:BLP1E event. It is exact same news on every site, with him standing there holding a samosa, or holding the tray, or standing next to his mother. Here is one here, with him standing with his samosa: https://theshillongtimes.com/2021/05/02/up-close-and-personal-munaf-kapadia-the-bohri-kitchen-story/ and written by By Agencies, coming from his book. Certainly from an external viewpoint, it looks like promotional advertising for marketing, and if it was creating sufficient waves the BBC would have picked it up. Even the Arab News, which is well down the list of reliable news, will print your news: [17]]. Here is the For this MBA graduate mom’s cooking skills helped build a Rs 4 crore turnover eatery chain leaving a cushy job and on the photo: Munaf Kapadia quit a high-paying job at Google to focus on his food chain, The Bohri Kitchen (Photos: Special Arrangement). Another marketing story. At that point in the marketing scheme, his book has not written, so all the references which are before April 2021, don't have the book image, the ones after that day have the image. Certainly at the beginning that would be special interest in him quitting Google, hence the reason it was picked up by the BBC. Nobody outside IT knows what Google does, so there is a special interest. But all the coverage that, is artificial, and you start to see him with his tray and then the samosas and his mother, then the books. The whole thing is a scheme to promote and market the business. scope_creep^Talk 13:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this: This MBA graduate quit his job at Google to sell mutton samosas The well-known bastion of truth and honour. Created by Text: Priyanka Nair, ETBrandEquity. scope_creep^Talk 13:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selling samosas in a pandemic It says it is an advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 13:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Munaf Kapadia: From selling ads at Google to selling samosas at The Bohri Kitchen Holding his tray and his book and his mum. Where would the week get the images? scope_creep^Talk 13:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read BLP1E policy, it says, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals. And when you read who is a low profile individual, it says, "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." I can safely deduce that this person is not a low profile individual because he has been getting significant continuous, international media coverage in RS from 2016 to 2021. BLP1E argument isn't valid here. Dial911 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the reference that Cunard used on the book: [Munaf Kapadia: From selling ads at Google to selling samosas at The Bohri Kitchen] which is a classic case of constructed PR. In the opening paragraph it states:

That is because Kapadia, 31, a former account strategist at Google, not only has an engaging story to tell, but he is also great at selling his story. The whole lot is PR. scope_creep^Talk 21:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reputable publications frequently include photos of the subjects they report on. From this guide from the BBC, "Newspapers get their photographs from these main sources:" (1) "A photographer goes to the scene of a story to get the best possible photographs", (2) "Photographs provided by members of the public", and (3) "Photographs from news agencies such as Reuters and the Press Association". That these publications have images of Munaf Kapadia retrieved through one of these methods does not invalidate the sources from being independent reliable sources.
The book review in The Week said, "Kapadia, 31, a former account strategist at Google, not only has an engaging story to tell, but he is also great at selling his story". This is commentary from a book review about how Kapadia has strong writing and marketing skills in telling his story in the book. This commentary does not make the book review PR. This commentary does not invalidate the book review from being an independent reliable source.
Cunard (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VV 12:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is great at selling his story because he is an ex-Google marketing executive, or more accurately an account executive. Somebody who is by definition is excellent at digital marketing. The primary driver for this whole discussion is the fact he is an ex-Google executive, that is what piqued the initial coverage. If he was an ex-Microsoft executive or an ex-Intel executive setting up shop, there would be no special interest and no coverage. So the whole idea of him being notable is rotten to the core and is an appeal to the fact that PR is ascendant. It is the idea that a simple examination of coverage is the ideal whereas a detailed examination has no value. The very existence of PR being present or being used here is negated. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those arguing against keep have a strangely stratospheric bar for RS contributing to notability. If a Forbes-branded publication, even an Indian one, isn't an RS, what would be? Oh, wait, WP:RSP already weighed in, and finds Forbes staff-written articles (and the referenced one is such) entirely reliable. I simply do not understand how a good-faith editor can argue that when an RS picks up a PR and bases an article under it, this is somehow a fruit of the poisonous tree issue. Quite the contrary, when independent RS'es pick up PR and transform it, it sheds the self-published an promotional baggage, even if the resultant article remains positively disposed towards the subject. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid but you are on the wrong way and I am a little afraid to read this - Forbes 30 have been especially classified as not a WP:RS because they are promotional mentions by 3rd ones which are not redacted by Forbes itself, they more or less only publish the list. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CommanderWaterford This link says it has been curated by Forbes India, not any third party. 30 under 30 is not a promotional mention but recognition of notability by Forbes. Dial911 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dial911 Forbes 30 Under 30 .... CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The weird thing about all of this: Forbes doesn't really matter considering the sources available. Cunard specifically identified enough sources over a long enough period of time that clearly meet WP:GNG, including coverage from the BBC and a book review (for a HarperCollins published book - not "constructed PR.") Passes WP:NAUTHOR. SportingFlyer T·C 23:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer I have been stating that he has been getting continuous mainstream coverage from 2016 till now, in international media. But I am not sure on what basis people are saying he is not notable when he passes GNG, quite clearly. Dial911 (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the discussion is on, I found these new sources in the media 1, 2, 3. I haven't added them to the article because it already has plenty RS. He is a high-profile individual as per our policies. Dial911 (talk) 23:26, 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 Human Torch (android)#Physiology. Missvain (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyronano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Trivial fictional element with no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Human Torch (android)#Physiology. BOZ (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely obscure fictional creatures that, as far as I can tell, appeared in exactly one issue of a six-issue comic book series whose own notability is debatable. I can find pretty much nothing mentioning them. Even the Marvel fan wiki's entry of them consists of one sentence. If a Redirect must be created, than Livewires (comics), the comic in which they made their only appearance, would be the more appropriate target. But again, these things are so obscure and utterly non-notable that I think even a Redirect would not be worth it in this case. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understand that redirects are cheap, and there's a good chance that the term is unique enough that it might be thought of as a viable search term, but surely, we have finally, at long last, found something that falls so far below notability that it should just be removed outright?--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human Torch (android)#Physiology. Fails NFICTION for a stand-alone article, unreferenced to boot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu rongjun[edit]

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

Non notable singer and actor who fails to satisfy either WP:SINGER and WP:NACTOR and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a GNG fail also. A before search confirms this and a review of the sources used in the article are not reliable as they lack editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. Celestina007 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Chinese Wikipedia article zh:朱容君 does have descent amount of sources but the article is not ready for publishing, so ~~I would say draftify for now.~~ Sun8908 _Talk 10:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The article has been significantly improved so it can be kept now. Sun8908 _Talk 15:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we can keep it. She has over 20M followers on Chinese tiktok (aka Douyin). I can gradually translate from corresponded Chinese wikipedia article, make it better. :-) User:Mitochondrions 1th May 2021

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 罗嘉铭 (2020-08-20). "深扒朱容君（兔子牙）爆红的秘密" [The secret of Zhu Rongjun's (rabbit tooth)'s popularity] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2021-05-03. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  The article notes (from Google Translate): "When it comes to Zhu Rongjun (Rabbit Tooth), most people may think of these labels: sweet smile, explosive appearance, talented singer... In short, they are some words that are already big winners in life at a young age. Her masterpiece singles "Little White Rabbit Meets Cappuccino", "Longmen Inn", "Before Daybreak", "An Eighteen Line Poem for You", "You Finally Waited for Her", "Starry April" and albums "Chunjiang Huayue" and so on are the "single loops" in many people's playlists." The article further notes (from Google Translate): "Not only was she loved by fans and praised by predecessors in the circle, Zhu Rongjun (Rabbit Ya) also won her recognition in the industry, and won the "Popular New Singer of the Year" award in the 9th Pop Music Gold List."
2. 拾壹 (2019-08-06). "歌手朱容君撕掉标签后的新探索《铁甲雄心2》综艺小白初体验" [Singer Zhu Rongjun's new exploration after tearing off the label "Iron Armored Ambition 2" first experience of variety show Xiaobai]. 艺人网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-05-03. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  The article notes (from Google Translate): "As a singer, Zhu Rongjun's musical achievements are obvious to all. The sweet appearance and the matching voice make the name "Rabbit Tooth" famous on the short video platform, making it a well-deserved "Queen of Music Short Video Traffic". With her love and persistence in music, Zhu Rongjun has a bright career as a singer, but her goal is much more than that. This time, Zhu Rongjun joined "Iron Armored Ambition 2" with his real name, on the one hand, he broke the public's inherent impression of him, on the other hand, he also showed his true self."
3. 刘文思 (2019-11-19). "超人气歌手兔子牙跨界演戏：认真起来自己都怕" [Super-popular singer Rabbit Teeth cross-border acting: Even she afraid when she gets serious]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-05-03. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  The article notes (from Google Translate): "But Rabbit Ya (Zhu Rongjun) is not satisfied with the current results. Recently, it was reported that this new-generation singer with more than 30 million fans on the entire network will star in the web drama "Detective Night Rin" and play a cute, kind, optimistic and just detective girl."
4. WY-BD (2019-03-28). "酷狗歌手兔子牙是第二个冯提莫？网友：可能发展还更好" [Kugou singer Rabbit Teeth is the second Feng Timo? Netizens: It may develop better] (in Chinese). TOM Online. Archived from the original on 2021-05-03. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  The article notes (from Google Translate): "Looking at the newly promoted celebrity Bunny Teeth, it is almost the same as Feng Timo from the popularity experience. Born as an anchor, she began to sing live on Kugou live at the end of 2015 and has accumulated a large number of loyal fans. Last year, she became famous on all major short video platforms with a string of songs "Little White Rabbit + Cappuccino". She brought related songs on fire, and it skyrocketed 16 million fans in just four months."
5. 冯宇轩 (2018-09-01). "一首歌曲串烧吸粉百万，酷狗主播兔子牙在短视频平台走红" [A song skewered to attract millions of fans, Kugou anchor Rabbit Ya became popular on the short video platform]. zh:三湘都市报 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-05-03. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  The article notes (from Google Translate): "While serving as the anchor of Kugou Live, Rabbit Teeth is also actively honing her musical skills. She has been passionate about music since she was a child and is not satisfied with cover singing. She began to try to release her original single, which is integrated into the popular short video. "Starry April" is her first representative work released in January 2017."
6. 胡弋 (2019-01-04). "超百万粉的酷狗歌手兔子牙遭淘汰红遍全网却输给她" [Kugou singer with more than one million fans, Rabbit Ya, was eliminated, but lost to her on the whole network]. zh:紅網 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-05-03. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  The article notes (from Google Translate): "It turned out that Rabbit Teeth was a contracted singer on the Kugou live broadcast. There were over one million fans in the live broadcast room, and her solid singing skills were practiced through the steady live broadcast every day. As early as the first year of her residency, she won the best image award and the best popular king in the Kugou Live Broadcasting Festival."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhu Rongjun, widely known as Tuzi Ya (兔子牙, literally rabbit teeth), to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The subject is extensively covered and by extension notable, but the article is in very poor shape, and the language barrier regarding sourcing decreases the chances of improvement compared to an Anglosphere figure of similar prominence. I'd like to see some work here. Vaticidalprophet 21:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, non notable singer, fails WP:SINGER + WP:NACTOR + WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I agree the article is not well-written and needs some big improvements, I think considering the news coverage of her by Cunard, she does pass WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update @Sun8908: @Mitochondrions: The article has been significantly improved with additional reliable sources references by me. She also won several notable awards such as [18]. So that WP:Basic and WP:MUSICBIO is passed and deletion is unnecessary. VocalIndia (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Orz...VocalIndia, I didn't got pinged. Sun8908 _Talk 15:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion and used to rewrite the article that now shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 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 Song of the Sirens. Missvain (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apple (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 music group. Sources like this and this are more of routine coverage without an actual discussion on the song's composition. The sole Metro source is obviously unreliable and this briefly mentions about the track while focusing mostly on the album. The recording has appeared on the Gaon Digital Chart at 54 and K-pop Hot 100 at 41, but 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. I had originally redirected the article to Song of the Sirens but another editor reverted it, so it might it be worth discussing if a standalone article for the song is at all appropriate. Ashley yoursmile! 03:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 03:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 03:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are reliable and the song has recognition in South Korea. I think that the article doesn't fail WP:NSONG. 2A01:E0A:252:630:8C0F:8A54:20F7:95F 21:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Charting may indicate that a song is notable, does not mean that it is notable. Where is "substantial" coverage in multiple reliable independent sources? Ashley yoursmile! 04:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the IP above said. Ahxomy (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahxomy, sorry but that does not address the concerns raised. Notability requires significant independent coverage, something that the song does not have. Ashley yoursmile! 10:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for deletion given, but those supporting "keep" haven't given rationale beyond NSONG bullet points, which only suggest possible notability (depending on other sources).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Song of the Sirens. There is only one actual source reference about the song (Teen Vogue); all the rest are links to videos or chart lists. Does not meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG in my opinion. If coverage blows up later then a separate article may be warranted, but this is at least WP:TOOSOON. LizardJr8 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for parent album, it doesn not meet WP:NSONG, at least for now. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:46, 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 merge to Nagasaki University. Missvain (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Neutral nomination on a procedural renomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University was closed by a now-blocked and specifically AfD topic banned editor and voting was impacted by SPAs and double voted. Re-nominating for accurate consensus on this article. StarM 14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems a notable topic to me. Athel cb (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not evident that any WP:GNG-type significant coverage in independent reliable sources have been brought up since TheAafi's WP:BEFORE search in the original AfD. A natural alternative to deletion exists though, via the redirect to Nagasaki University suggested by Mccapra in the original AfD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging the remaining original AfD participants since my above comment did ping two particular stances: @Hatchens, TOKYO2021, and Verseau: — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my stance in the original AfD. I wouldn't object redirect either. Noting that, MarkH21's ping brought me here. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I had draftified this article earlier. Now, I believe ... it should be merged with Nagasaki University. - Hatchens (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or, possibly, merge. Mccapra (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VV 12:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge is strongly preferable to a redirect. This encyclopaedia has separate articles about individual episodes of TV shows, people who played in a major soccer match once for 13 minutes in 1922, and townships with a population of 83 in Where the Heck, Utah. It's rather hard to explain why we would remove content about a serious academic research institute of international importance without making our rules sound really badly thought out.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge seems like a good outcome here, no indication of independent notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:53, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Garcia[edit]

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

A city council member in a city of 75,000 people. A google search for "Monica Garcia" "Baldwin Park" to make sure it's only about this person, yields just six pages. Most of this is social media, Wikipedia mirrors, very local media talking about election entries, stories that don't seem to be centered on her, and even a list of track results featuring someone of the same name. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Baldwin Park is not a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors, so the test that she would have to pass to get a Wikipedia article is not just the ability to offer minimal verification that she exists, but the ability to write and source a substantial article that demonstrated the nationalized significance of her work. Which is not what this article is, by a long shot. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found no coverage to indicate WP:GNG is met here on a search. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:56, 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 delete. ✗plicit 10:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob White (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Almost every source on the page is a primary source and the two that aren't are just campaign announcements that have no biographical value. A Google search ("Bob White" florida republican liberty) returns only limited passing mentions, mostly from a single site. Curbon7 (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in political party primaries they did not win, but this offers no evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of an unsuccessful candidacy, and seven of its nine footnotes are to his own self-published campaign website rather than reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:33, 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 merge to Star Fleet Battles#Star Fleet Universe. Feel free to discuss other options - proper page to merge, redirect - on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fleet Universe[edit]

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

Pure WP:FANCRUFT/WP:OR that fails WP:NFICTION (no evidence of reception/significance; the only referenced parts of the article is a plot summary sourced to the game books themselves). BEFORE fails to find anything outside of a few mentions in passing, mostly from the game books anyway; some hits seem to be referring not to this game-universe but are just a synonyms for the main Star Trek universe. A niche POV fork of Star Trek#Star Trek Universe (which may merit its own article, actually, it's rather embarrassing for wiki-trekkies that we have Wikipedia entry for this but not for the main franchise's universe...). If no sources are found to rescue this, could perhaps redirect to Star_Fleet_Battles#Star_Fleet_Universe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star_Fleet_Battles#Star_Fleet_Universe. Some summary elements from the lede might be worth migrating there. --EEMIV (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. The overall topic does not meet WP:GNG at this time. It is just a collection of plot elements suited to Fandom. TTN (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - The subject itself fails the WP:GNG. There is not a single reliable, secondary source being used, and none that I can find upon searching. There is also nothing worth preserving or merging, as this is nothing but a ton of in-universe plot summaries, the vast majority of which is not sourced at all. Redirecting to Star Fleet Battles#Star Fleet Universe could work, if people agree this is a plausible search term, though. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Star_Fleet_Battles#Star_Fleet_Universe . The Pyramid review is RS, and I would suggest including some critical commentary on the Star Fleet Universe continuity, such as this. Newimpartial (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I have seen some mentions in secondary sources, but I could not see enough to support a separate article. But it is talked about in secondary sources, so it's just that kind of rather obscure information that it would be great if Wikipedia can help an interested reader inform about. The target suggested by Piotrus, Star_Fleet_Battles#Star_Fleet_Universe, is not perfect, as it is limited to the board game, while the Star Fleet Universe spans different games, but I guess one can live with it. A sub-section in Star Trek universe would be better, but as has been said, that does not exist now. Star Trek#Star Trek Universe would be the consequent alternative, but possibly that's too prominent a location. Anyway, this should not be deleted wholesale, as at the very least Star_Fleet_Battles#Star_Fleet_Universe can be improved by merging the one secondary source present in the article, Pyramid.

More secondary sources not present in the article: Cinefantastique 28, Computer Gaming World, Science Fiction Video Games, "Retrospective Futures?Law, technology and copyright control in cyberspace". As usual, I am happy to reconsider my opinion if more detailed sources can be found. Daranios (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens below, or Merge to Star Fleet Battles#Star Fleet Universe as per above. BOZ (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant RS include [19] which does a pretty good job of explaining what the SFU is, and how it expands beyond just SFB. [20] is paywalled, but appears from the preview to extensively discuss the interplay between the Star Trek and Starfleet universes in an academic article. [21] is another paywalled article, and there's nothing relevant I can see on the front page, but I'm suspecting there's a discussion of SFU vs. Star Trek Universe and the associated copyright issues. So, that's three RS, so I'm a Keep AGFing that Google Scholar isn't lying to me. Having said that, what I would expect for an SFU article is not what this current article is. I'd rather see a parent article for SFB, F&E, Prime Directive, etc. with at most a brief commentary on how it differs from the Star Trek universe, rather than what we have now. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jclemens, [22] does not explain what the SFU is - you are confusing the topic of the game with its fictional universe. A listing of game editions and its supplements is a totally different topic. The other sources are just vain hopes that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. That said, the odds are those articles are available through Library Genesis - did you check it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: But Science Fiction Video Games does tell us that the Star Fleet Universe is the universe where the listed games are set, that it's different from the Star Trek universe from TNG onwards (in which Starfleet Command III is set in contrast to the other games), that it has "a relatively well-developed (linear) plotline", and that the games describing it have "focused on developing its militaristic elements, creating a future history suitable for use in a wargame". I don't know what's on p. 365, but at least together with the one clarifiying sentence from Pyramid magazine, that gives a definition + a bit of evaluation. The source given by Newimpartial is more extensive, though. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just for the record - and much as I would like to have !voted "keep", since the SFU is the setting for games in three different media (board, roleplaying and video-) by multiple publishers - I don't think the source I added above necessarily counts for notability. It is essentially self-published and the status of the author as a "recognized expert" cannot be readily confirmed. However, I do think the source is usable and interesting in the context of a notable article (probably the SFB article since that is where the SFU originated). Of course Pyramid is RS and independent from the SFU in that period, but that's only one independent source. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - And also for the record, Daranios' understanding of that source says matches my own. Granted, it might not be obvious to someone unfamiliar with the topic, but the relationship of SFU to STU is somewhat like that of Super Dimensional Fortress Macross to Robotech: Same original source material, branched due to creative and copyright differences. At any rate, I do have more than a passing familiarity with the topic; even though I've long since dropped it from my CV, I've been published as a named contributor to one of the SFB commercial products. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Daranios, I do appreciate the sources, but SIGCOV is an issue. We do have enough to warrant a section, but a dedicated stand-alone article still seems unjustified to me. Particularly when it is debatable whether comments like "focused on developing its militaristic elements, creating a future history suitable for use in a wargame" are really about the "universe" or the games themselves. What exactly is a "universe" here? Still way too much fancruft, too little substance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there looks like enough references to keep, but could do with a cleanup. Starspotter (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Starspotter, Which references you see that meet WP:SIGCOV and are independent? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be sad to see this deleted, but the sources just don't seem to be there. I played a lot of SFB back in my teens... Hobit (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:49, 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 no consensus due to the lack of participation. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Dobrov[edit]

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

BLP for businessperson does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is inherited from Belon Group steel company or by being the 162nd richest person in Russia in 2011. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only in 2011 but also now. --GlebK (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if we are just judging by notability. He is a billionaire Russian on a major Forbes list, but the promotional tone of the article needs some serious cleanup. Batmanthe8th (talk) 14:59, 21 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) 01:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I fix the tone in a week.--GlebK (talk) 16:58, 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 no consensus due to insufficient participation. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramya Raj[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NACTOR. In my opinion, it just a promotional page as the subject participated in the recently aired reality tv show Cooku with Comali. The page was recently deleted by WP:PROD. I request to create an afd discussion for this article. Romil.Choudary (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She acted in four movies out of which acted in major roles in Thee (2009 film) and Naanayam. So passes WP:NACTOR for which the actress need at least two major roles. Kirtos67 (talk) 22:20, 19 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) 02:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:08, 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 10:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaazhchakkappuram[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the one who nominated the article for PROD. No evidences of notability. The IP user who removed the PROD is currently on a 1 wk cool down from editing WP. Kolma8 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 11:46, 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) 23:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Shade[edit]

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

Non-notable public figure who does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two LA Times articles which features her prominently but their main thrust are about the City Manager's hiring, then firing. These meets independent, reliable, but fails significant. Also found a an article naming her as a candidate along with a few other people. So again, not significant. Nweil (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Glendora is not a large or significant enough city to secure the "inherent" notability of its mayors just for existing as mayors per se — so the notability test she would have to pass is not the ability to minimally verify that she existed, but the ability to write and source a substantial article about her political significance. Specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IILM Graduate School of Management[edit]

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

A private, tertiary, degree non-awarding institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. I have cleaned up the advertising cruft. VV 07:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. VV 07:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 07:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 07:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 07:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Putting aside all other issues like lack of references for now, the organisation's website says the award the Postgraduate Diploma in Management. Is the contended NSCHOOLS failure saying that the PGD is not a degree, or that that degree being awarded isn't enough to satisfy the notability requirement? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DoubleGrazing Several factors here each of which must be looked at separately even if related. A postgraduate diploma is lower rated than a post graduate degree. Basically, different criteria for admissions to them. This institution, along with several in the AFD list, do not award degrees since the university it(they) is(are) affiliated to perform that function. So either way, the parameters mentioned in NSCHOOLS and SCHOOLOUTCOMES are not satisfied. Hope that answers your query. VV 10:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also, please note that this article was created by a single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Ritesh_saxena. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a private, non-award winning institution and there's zero references for it in the article. I couldn't find any that would satisfy WP:NORG when I did a WP:BEFORE either. Plus, the article was created by an SPA. So I'm not seeing any legitimate, guideline based reason to keep it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. No references.Saahil Vats (talk) 02:37, 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) 23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katumani Experimental Farm[edit]

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

Deprodded, this article fails WP:NBUILD and the GNG. Thorough WP:BEFORE searches in English and Swahili find nothing beyond trivial mentions, mostly along the lines of "Such-and-so experiment was conducted at the Katumani Experimental Farm." No real information about the farm itself exists, meaning that the coverage is neither substantial nor in-depth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course most sources are about experiments conducted at the farm. Performing experiments is the whole point of an experimental farm. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That clearly wasn't my point. My point was that the sources, which consist mostly of single-sentence mentions, don't provide WP:SIGCOV. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found little coverage on a search, virtually all passing mentions. Even less is independent. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 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 procedural close per WP:CSK, nominated by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. ✗plicit 03:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat Renganathan[edit]

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

On doing a WP:Before, I only got sources which mention about the subject for his notable role in the television series Pandiyan Stores. No other useful sources were found giving enough sigcov to the subject. Fails GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:00, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attahaasam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the one who nominated the article for PROD. No evidences of notability. Kolma8 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 11:46, 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) 23:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teleport (website)[edit]

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

Promotional article for a product that fails WP:NSOFT, poor coverage and not notable. Ew3234 (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing the initial phase of this proposition, supported by start-up announcement coverage which is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. No article on "MOVE Guides" so no redirect alternative, and I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate WP:NSOFT / WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 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. Despite two relistings, no further comments have been made to consider deletion. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viper Comics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the non-primary sources in the article discuss the company "Viper Comics" in any depth. They tend to just be brief mentions of comics noting that the comic was published by Viper. The information also appears to be out of date - I can't find evidence that the company is still operating, for example - so if it is not notable it would be better to remove the unverifiable article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... this is weird. On the one hand, HenryCrun is revealing that there isn't much verifiable documentation on the company itself, which I haven't looked into how true that is. On the other hand, the last nomination that wasn't that long ago basically came to a Strong Keep consensus, and their works have been covered as adaptations plus becoming adapted in other media by major companies by several sources, plus they've even been interviewed in magazines. I don't have a strong vote, but I'm leaning keep given my previously-stated reasoning 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the previous nomination, this was in 2007 when the idea of 'notability' was less clear, and in particularl there was a strong backlash to deleting articles related to webcomics. Many commentors on the first deletion discussion reference the "webcomics purge" or feel that it's being deleted to make deleting another article "easier". People also cited press releases from the company and forum posts as evidence. That said there is at least one source raised during that discussion that doesn't appear in the current article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:54, 21 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) 02:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 06:52, 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) 23:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roswitha Augusta[edit]

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

Filmmaker that seems to not pass WP:GNG. Has a few hits and won a couple awards, but as far as I can tell they are not particularly notable. Mbdfar (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to have only attracted non notable awards and an article in the local section of the Washington Post about turtle crossing-- not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILMMAKER Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:10, 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 delete. ✗plicit 06:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Abdullah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, appeared in only one notable film. The Hindu and New Indian Express sources are interviews while the rest of them lack WP:SIGCOV. There is already a draft at Draft:Faria Abdullah. Ab207 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete our actress notability guidelines require multiple significant roles in notable productions, these guidelines are not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but retain the draft - does not meet our standards at this exact moment in time. Possible WP:TOOSOON Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women of the World Poetry Slam[edit]

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

Thee are no third party references to show notability except atlantaintownpaper, which is not a RS. All other references are to its own press releases. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider merging to its parent org, Poetry Slam, Inc. (whose page is also in need of attention). pburka (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the more prestigious poetry slams in the US and the only one for women. A simple search of news sources brings up oodles of reliable sources. Albuquerque Journal, DNAinfo, Westword, and WBUR all have significant coverage. Coverage has been sustained over the life of the contest. The slam poets who win these contests typically have the victory mentioned early in their bios. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"more prestigeous" is not an indication of notability , the coverage is minor , and the contest is second tier within the group. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am opposed to the deletion of this page. It is of general cultural merit as it is one of the more prestigious poetry slams in the US and the only one for women.Valueyou (talk) 11:23, 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 speedy delete by Deb per WP:CSD#G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhikaji Cama Subharti College of Hotel Management(Estd. 2009)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Article is not ready for mainspace. No reference added. Fails WP:GNG. RungtaCol (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RungtaCol (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RungtaCol (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant advertising. Deb (talk) 08:26, 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 06:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roozbeh Moeini[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE (with Google Translate) shows no pass of WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. nearlyevil 665 05:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 05:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - career to date does not meet NACTOR and I'm not seeing enough in-depth coverage for GNG at all Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serna Amini[edit]

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

Would require someone knowledgeable in Iranian sources as there are 0 sources in English but a quick Google Translate WP:BEFORE leaves the impression of a fail of WP:GNG. Sources (other than the obvious primary sources) do not look reliable. nearlyevil 665 05:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 05:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Based on non-English references. Fails WP:GNG. RungtaCol (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Was the article indicated for deletion because it has no English sources? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: This was in reference to Iranian sources, otherwise why would Google Translate be used? "... but a quick Google Translate WP:BEFORE leaves the impression of a fail of WP:GNG. Sources (other than the obvious primary sources) do not look reliable." nearlyevil665 17:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
  - Yes. I looked at the sources and, at first, they did not seem reliable. I opine, for now, to delete. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 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 speedily delete by Deb per CSD#G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Vishnu Gupt Subharti College of Management & Commerce(Estd. 2008)[edit]

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

Non-notable college, fail of WP:GNG. Cannot find anything that would satisfy notability criteria. nearlyevil 665 05:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 05:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. fails GNG. The whole Article based without any reference. RungtaCol (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Chamois Niortais F.C. season[edit]

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

Team in a non-fully professional league. Sakiv (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantive prose, no significant coverage - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 10:45, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athula Perera[edit]

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

Non-notable human resources manager, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GILO A&E⇑ 01:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable, didn't pass WP:GNG. Google searches on his name and his native name turns up nothing, there are some hits but it was not him. One was a professor talking about pest-resistant plants, one is Chief Inspector, one died in a terrorist landmine, and one other is a board director. SunDawn (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, clearly fails WP:ANYBIO. None of the sources cited are reliable secondary sources. Based on the article creator's edit history it would suggest that there is a conflict of interest here (i.e. one of the sources cited is an article, Oraltunes.tk, is an article that the editor has repeatedly tried to create, and whilst I note that Perera is a common name in Sri Lanka, the fact that other articles the editor has created appear to have family links - such as Madurawala Maha Vidyalaya, where the principal is listed as Anura Perera, is just very suspicious). Dan arndt (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD closer - the article's creator has also created an identical article, Athula Sanjeewa, which is currently the subject of a Speedy delete. If a decision is made that this article should be deleted than the other identical article should also be deleted if it hasn't been already. Given the article's creator's propensity to create, re-create and create duplicates I would suggest that this title, if deleted, (as well as that of Athula Sanjeewa) be salted as well. Dan arndt (talk) 05:28, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rent Reporters[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me to user generated sources which we do not consider reliable when establishing notability. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This content is irretrievable and I agree that should be deleted, but I do think there might be an encyclopaedic piece of writing to be done about the issue of rent payments not boosting someone's credit score. If so it would belong at Credit score in the United States#Criticism rather than as a separate topic of itself.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see anything in the article that'd help it pass GNG or a relevant subjective criteria. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ALso, please visit this other AfD discussion. Mausebru (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 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 keep. A clear snowball consensus to keep; even though I disagree with the conclusion, I doubt that there will be a change in vote in the next six days and respect this consensus. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 17:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers' Choice Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated a year ago and kept because of some little-sourced inane ownership/founding argument no one outside the Thirty Mile Zone cares about which has afflicted this page from the beginning to the point of page protection and an ANI/COI unmasking, but three years from its 'first annual' ceremony which became its only airing, it's clear this is a non-notable award ceremony in its entirety, and its only WP:NOTABILITY is through the ownership/founding legal dispute, along with a tenuous 'first ever video games award show on American broadcast TV' claim that can easily be unproven because video game shows such as GamePro TV in the '90s regularly gave awards to games themselves, and in this era where the Oscars just got to 10 million viewers, is spurious and a hollow honor.

There are few inbound links into this article outside it being an award footnote in nom/won sections of articles. The awards show's website is dead, and it hasn't had any videos updated to its official YouTube page since after the event (which outside the red carpet and one acceptance video, has three-digit views on its other seven videos, and 131 subscribers). Their Twitter has been dead since the start of 2019, and has a low follow/follower rate.

The only reason it aired on broadcast TV was because it bought time from CBS Sports usually devoted to its CBS Sports Spectacular before or after a normal NFL regular season game on a Sunday they could purchase, depending on time zone, so it didn't air live. Yes, it aired 'nationwide', but not at the same time, and quite a few affiliates pre-empted it locally. CBS likely did little-to-no marketing themselves outside a few tweets on the CNET and CBS Sports accounts, and now that the company is owned by Viacom (which had its own game awards ceremony and likely a gentleman's agreement with The Game Awards not to compete), this show isn't coming back to CBS.

Most of all...2018 was the only time the trophy was awarded. It wasn't in prime time. As far as I know, it wasn't crowed about on the boxes of winning games outside it being a generic honor to asterisk onto a 'Game of the Year' reprinting claim. It's now 2021. Everyone seems to have moved on, and outside the legal dispute, there is nothing here to suggest this article should stay any longer. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We just had this debate 12 months ago and I don't really understand what's changed such that we should have it again. Looking at the article and the sources cited therein, it seems to me that WP:SIGCOV is met. A lot of the points raised in this AFD seem directed towards the fact that this was a crappy award show. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but I don't personally feel that the quality of something should bear on the issue of notability. It was broadcast on a national network (CBS) and attracted, IMHO, significant coverage due to the show itself, the awards/nominations given, and the subsequent litigation. And a quick search indicates that it's still be referenced when people talk about games that won/were nominated (see e.g., [23], [24], [25]). Do I, in my personal, subjective opinion, think we need an article about this award show? No, not really. But do I think it meets our notability guidelines? Yeah, probably and I don't think we need to revisit this debate a second time. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with everything the nominator says. Only problem is that these are not policy based reasons for deletion. It is more of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fact it there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Enough for it to meet WP:GNG. The reasoning given by the closer of the 1st nomination is also a strong argument to keep the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is coverage of this event and it's even in reliable sources. But it is not significant coverage. Take a look at the reference list and see how many of them can be replaced with a single source: this press release published by a company that distributes press releases (i.e. a primary source). Per WP:NEWSORG, "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release." It's clear that the Gamers' Choice Awards were just made up one day, but the person doing the making up happened to be a millionaire producer who could afford to buy credibility, press coverage, and broadcast time. The only source of note is explicitly about how the show itself is not notable or esteemed. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taking into account Axem's concern on press release coverage which is 100% fair, we still have clear SIGCOV; the Dec 2018 Variety article, as well as this followup from Variety a month later on the lawsuit (which should be added). (I have tried searching more to see the fate of this suit but have come up empty handed so far). We have non-press release coverage of the show/results from Deadline and SVG for example. While I'm having a hard time finding sources (as the more "respected" awards, the Game Awards 2018, happened a few days later and thats where most of the VG media's attention was focused) there's clear significant coverage here to keep at this point. The press releases and articles that derive from them are still necessary for the nominee and preliminary detail lists. --Masem (t) 14:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Masem, I think the relevant guideline is WP:PERSISTENCE. The fact that Crecente did not bother to follow up afterwards is an indicator that the Variety article, on which this article's notability hinges, does not represent lasting coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per CNMall41. kpgamingz (rant me) 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Broadly, the points being made here make sense to me. I think the event certainly meets SIGCOV and GNG requirements, even though it occurred in 2018 and wasn't the most prestigious affair. If this had been an annual, ongoing ceremony, there'd be no question as to its notability. But, I also don't think we should be excluding well-documented, one-off events from the encyclopedia (nor do I think there's an explicit rule mandating exclusion on those grounds). At a base level, it makes sense to keep it, because plenty of good independent sources covered it. Gargleafg (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The award has significant coverage from several secondary and reliable gaming sources. The nominator himself recognizes the notability of the article. The article must not deleted based on personal opinions, but based on non-compliance with the notability criteria. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:06, 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 03:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Camera and Video Repair[edit]

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

I am not seeing much significant coverage from reliable sources. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing it either, and someone at least has decided to turn it into an attack article. Way too much fluff-to-content. Ravenswing 02:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Literally an advertisement and not reliable sources, easy delete. TigerScientist Chat 22:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. BEFORE search turns up promotional material. Sennecaster (What now?) 01:41, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also thought of AfD'ing this when I came across it, but got sidetracked... It basically reads as someone who has had jobs at well-known organisations. Good for them. And? The claim that she set up this foundation looks on the surface as something noteworthy, but it seems she was actually part of a larger group of students who set it up, so the claim may be somewhat over-egged. Despite the apparently-RS referencing, I agree that this still fails notability as per nom. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is common for multiple news outlets to publish the same story, based on the same underlying source, sometimes with minor alterations, but this does not constitute multiple works. All the citations are to primary source recaps of a virtual meeting in which the company displayed a capsule bio of their employee, Diay. It's churnalism, the news organizations didn't add any independent analysis or research. Searches of the usual Google types found things written by Diya, but no independent coverage about Diya. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:51, 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 redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Missvain (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Ossetia–United States relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is a recreation of the previously deleted page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Ossetia–United States relations. There are no relations between the United States and breakaway South Ossetia. The title tries to prove something that the body of the article denies. In fact, the whole text is just a collection of quotes of the US officials who criticize those who have relations with South Ossetia. Nonrecognition is extensively discussed in the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia entry. Hence, the article possesses no encyclopedic value. Kober^Talk 14:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia : There is no need for an article because there are no relations between the 2. However there is more information at International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so a redirect would be appropriate. ColinBear (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article isn't a recreation. It looks like that simply because I changed the original redirect to the international relations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia article to my draft version which I decided to no longer wait on the review process before I added this version to the original redirect. The original article that was created had no sources or any real encyclopedic value. Here is the first published version. Clearly, it's quite different from what I've added. The fifth paragraph about the Congressional ban on U.S. aid to Abkhazia and South Ossetia is significant in regards to the relations between the U.S. and South Ossetia and in part, Georgia. "The title tries to prove something that the body of the article denies." Then that would have to include North Korea–United States relations, Armenia–Turkey relations, Armenia–Azerbaijan relations, Bhutan–United States relations. The first three have tense relations and no formal relations, but enough notability exists in keeping these articles. Bhutan and the U.S. don't have formal relations and yet the two countries get along quite well. There are also articles about Israel's relations with Arab and Muslim majority states that don't recognize it (Algeria, Tunisia, Afghanistan to name a few). And yet there is still plenty of value in having those articles. This argument is contrary to argue for deletion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as per above. Two states don't need to have friendly relations for there to be an article about it, but one state must recognize that the other even exists. The entire article is just about the US declining to recognize South Ossetia / Abkhazia, and that facet is already well covered at the redirect target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, clearly. An article about something which doesn't exist. Hmmm. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:05, 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) 23:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willowtip Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of multiple, significant, independent coverage expected by WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company has released records by many notable bands, but it is only ever listed briefly in conjunction with those releases and has not received independent and specific coverage as a company in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red-Herring[edit]

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

This magazine does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPERIODICAL. My search on Google, Google Books, and Newspapers.com does not turn up any significant coverage of the magazine. If this WorldCat entry is accurate, it is only held by a single library, and it does not appear to be particularly influential or widely cited. There may be some sources I am missing, as this is an older periodical, so I'd like get input from other editors. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 00:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In general I like the idea of broad coverage of projects. In this case, the Art & Language article includes some material on the preceding The Fox journal but not Red-Herring. That said, aside from this brief mention, I am not finding much which might justify a merge. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A magazine that publishes only two issues total is not notable. Rogermx (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red herring as a plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 12:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Do you think someone searching for the idiom is going to capitalize the second word and put a hyphen between them? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's a proportion of end users who're terrible at English. Most Wikipedians are accurate with their spelling and capitalization, and in discussions, we're mostly talking to other Wikipedians: people who've self-selected as editors. But we have to consider the full spectrum of end users, bearing in mind that the fact that they're searching for a commonplace English idiom suggests that English may not be their first language.—S Marshall T/C 16:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:27, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

French laundries of California[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any significant coverage about French laundries of California in reliable sources. I'm not seeing anywhere to merge to, so I support deletion. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely agree with nom, to the point that this article might qualify as a light WP:HOAX. KidAd • SPEAK 01:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Laundry does have a few subsections such as Chinese laundries in North America, but this doesn't qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't doubt there have been laundries owned by French immigrants in California, but there is no actual coverage in sources demonstrating why this is a notable concept. The sources in the article, none of which appear to be from reliable sources, are each talking about three separate individuals, with nothing within any of those sources connecting them to each other or to the overall topic of "French laundries of California", making it pure WP:SYNTH. Rorshacma (talk) 06:13, 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.

[Laux_1972_pp._147–160-1] Laux, Jeanne Kirk (1972). "Small States and Inter-European Relations: An Analysis of the Group of Nine". Journal of Peace Research. 9 (2). SAGE Publications: 147–160. doi:10.1177/002234337200900204. ISSN 0022-3433.

[Weiner_1984_p._63-2] Weiner, R. (1984). Romanian Foreign Policy and the United Nations. Praeger scientific. Praeger. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-03-071594-5. Retrieved 6 May 2021.

[Makko_2016_p._93-3] Makko, A. (2016). Ambassadors of Realpolitik: Sweden, the CSCE and the Cold War. Contemporary European History. Berghahn Books. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-78533-285-2. Retrieved 6 May 2021.

[Staff_Memorandum_on_United_States_Investment_of_Military_Assistance_Funds_in_Military_Installations_Located_in_France_1967_p._6-PA28-4] Staff Memorandum on United States Investment of Military Assistance Funds in Military Installations Located in France. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1967. p. 6-PA28. Retrieved 6 May 2021.

[Voorhoeve_1979_p._133-5] Voorhoeve, J.J.C. (1979). Peace, Profits and Principles :: A Study of Dutch Foreign Policy. Springer Netherlands. p. 133. ISBN 978-90-247-2203-7. Retrieved 6 May 2021.

[CVCE.EU_by_UNI.LU_2005-6] "The idea of a pan-European security conference". CVCE.EU by UNI.LU. 21 December 2005. Retrieved 6 May 2021.

[Palmer_1971_p._10-7] Palmer, M. (1971). The Prospects for a European Security Conference. Chatham House, P.E.P. European Series. Chatham House:PEP. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-85374-037-7. Retrieved 6 May 2021. The Group of Nine / Ten met several times to explore initiatives that could be taken to achieve a greater degree of European détente. ... held at the U.N. in October 1969, the experiment of the Group of Ten appeared to have come to an end, at least for the time being . ... over the course of 1966 were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Rumania, Sweden, and Yugoslavia.

[Conference_on_European_Security:_Hearings,_Ninety-second_Congress,_Second_Session_1972_p._2-8] Conference on European Security: Hearings, Ninety-second Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1972. p. 2. Retrieved 6 May 2021. Invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact countries disrupts efforts of Group of Ten for CES planning.

[Due-Nielsen_Petersen_1995_p._136-9] Due-Nielsen, C.; Petersen, N. (1995). Adaptation and Activism: The Foreign Policy of Denmark, 1967–1993. Dansk udenrigspolitisk institut. p. 136. ISBN 978-87-574-3022-6. Retrieved 6 May 2021.

[Leatherman_2003_p._72-10] Leatherman, J. (2003). From Cold War to Democratic Peace: Third Parties, Peaceful Change, and the OSCE. Syracuse Studies on Peace and Conflict Resolution. Syracuse University Press. p. 72 ff. ISBN 978-0-8156-3032-6. Retrieved 6 May 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]