Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 06 May 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homie (company)[edit]

Homie (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an advert, relies on sources that are just PR puff pieces Dexxtrall (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, the article reads like an advertisement more than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reads like an advertisement and has no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure everyone else is using the internet to advertise real estate these days. Nothing notable about this company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:55, 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. ✗plicit 00:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf Side Story[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Deaf Side Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established. Only two sources and neither shows the notability of it. The idea of a musical incorporating sign language is hardly an unique idea, see the Deaf West Theatre JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 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 00:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2018 CJSOI Games[edit]

Football at the 2018 CJSOI Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable youth tournament, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some minor coverage in French here and here but nothing that can really verify the info in this article nor show that the tournament is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Author had requested speedy deletion under criteria WP:G7 one month after creation in 2016, but was erroneously reverted as they had also tried to blank the page. No substantial edits by other authors, so speedy deleting and closing this discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piers Christian[edit]

Piers Christian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:GRIDIRON, and WP:PROMO; I can't find anything written on him not already in the article, which isn't good coverage, but even if I've missed something the entire article needs to be WP:TNT'd. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 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 00:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Berry (baseball)[edit]

Tim Berry (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor leaguer, fails WP:NBASE. SportingFlyer T·C 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry. There is plenty of material such that it does meet the WP:GNG, so you could keep on that basis... and we do have articles on minor league players (eg Happy Hogan), so that's not necessarily a deal-killer... but I mean the assumption is that minor league players don't get articles, and I think "had a least one game in the major leagues" is a reasonable cutoff for baseball players, even if they have a couple features in their city's paper's sports section. Minor leaguers such as Hogan or Brien Taylor or Steve Dalkowski had long notable minor league careers or other points of special notability. Berry doesn't. Herostratus (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current news publications fails WP:GNG. Hypogaearoots (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's been signed by major league teams but never played in the big leagues. 00:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:30, 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. ✗plicit 00:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Bartolotta[edit]

Diego Bartolotta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never appeared for Veracruz. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 1964 Arab Cup#Matches. This seems to do the least harm. There's certainly no consensus to keep and this is just about a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq v Jordan (1964 Arab Cup)[edit]

Iraq v Jordan (1964 Arab Cup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 1964 Arab Cup was held in a round-robin format; the winner wasn't determined by a final (or decisive match). This article exists solely because it is inferred (WP:OR) to be the "final" (even though Jordan finished in last place). Routine coverage, with the goals and only one of the two lineups; not notable. Nehme1499 17:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 17:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 17:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 17:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any content to 1964 Arab Cup, I have admittedly not checked to see if there's any overlap, otherwise delete. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a credible competition under the hospicies of the UAFA and FIFA ; Organized since 1963. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about the competition, but a single match within the competition, which has a different standard of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the WikiProject Arab world. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:17, 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 1963 Arab Cup#Matches. This seems to do the least harm. There's certainly no consensus to keep and this is just about a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon v Tunisia (1963 Arab Cup)[edit]

Lebanon v Tunisia (1963 Arab Cup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 1963 Arab Cup was held in a round-robin format; the winner wasn't determined by a final (or decisive match). This article exists solely because it is inferred (WP:OR) to be the "final" (even though Lebanon ultimately finished third). Routine coverage, with the goal and lineups; not notable. Nehme1499 17:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 17:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 17:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 17:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 17:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the WikiProject Arab world. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1963 Arab Cup#Matches, I see nothing that justifies a separate article. GiantSnowman 07:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I don't see the point of a redirect, the main article is enough. Govvy (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep worthy and can be expanded. -- Maudslay II (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Maudslay II: Can it really be expanded? If so, can you please provide the sources (as it would also be of interest to me personally). Nehme1499 15:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Reminder that information being "credible" does not make it "encyclopedic." Wikipedia is not a repository for details about every international match.--User:Namiba 14:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful into 1963 Arab Cup. We don't need a separate article for this match, when it was the final match (not a Final) of the tournament, and nothing suggests it passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:16, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Ibrahim Zada[edit]

Abbas Ibrahim Zada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Only link to the article is from the disambiguation page. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:02, 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) 00:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriels Mills, Missouri[edit]

Gabriels Mills, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourced to GNIS and a county highway map, neither of which are enough to establish notability. Not in Ramsay's directory of Benton County place names. WP:BEFORE brought up people named Gabriel Mills and a post village in Williamson County, Texas. This location doesn't seem to be notable. Hog Farm Talk 22:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 22:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 22:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we have the stupid USBGN naming conventions to thank for this not being correctly named Gabriel's mill.
    • White, Kathleen Kelly; Miles, Kathleen White (1969). The History of Benton County, Missouri. Vol. 3. Warsaw, Missouri: White & Miles. p. 1309.
  • Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any claims of notability, nor does a search find anything. Jeepday (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:27, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Gold[edit]

Jacob Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sock. scope_creepTalk 07:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources currently in the article. I get the skepticism of the reliability of sources on fake business gurus in recent years (especially with paid pieces on magazines like Forbes and Fortune), and I wanted to say delete just for that stupid author name alone. However, looking at the sources currently in the article, I really don't get why the nominator thought there was no significant coverage. He has a full article on him in The Wall Street Journal, and he has been interviewed for his financial experiences and advice in sources like the Time, CNN, MSNBC, and US News. Searching on Google News also gives me this Patch article listing him as one of the worst New York City landlords of 2016, a New York Times article interviewing him, another Wall Street Journal, another one, and the fact that one of his books got published by Wiley is also pretty significant. I know, with that last one, WP:Notability is not inherited. But, look at that mixed with the other evidence I provided. If that first WSJ profile I mentioned happens to be a paid piece (where I don't know if it is, hopefully not), I'll change my decision to a moderate keep. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is fairly decent, but the rest are very weak. One looks like a paid profile, another one is a statement-based, passing mention, the bad landlord is a passing mention. All in all, they are pretty weak in terms of depth. Certainly, coverage i'd say, but the seems on the surface fairly weak, more so because of the link with his dad, has received it. See what happens. Could be wrong. scope_creepTalk 15:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, some of these sources do actually interview him for opinions and advice. I wouldn't consider those just passing mentions. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Between the NY Times profile piece, multiple non-self-published books, and then many many articles where te subject is interviewed by various journalists as parts of broader financial articles, this subject seems notable. Most importantly, going by the spirit of GNG (remember when guidelines had a purpose?) it seems reasonable to conclude for rhese reasons that enough sources can be reasonably presumed to exist to build a decent article. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of presumptions in there without an actual examination of references. Where are the book reviews to satisfy WP:AUTHOR? The coverage is minor and insufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Interviews and profiles don't cut it and are dependent. scope_creepTalk 23:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is there seems to go back into the 1970's. That is worth a look. Sustained coverage over years is certainly notable. scope_creepTalk 17:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WSJ profile is a solid source but all the other sources that I have looked at (the sources in the article and the sources mentioned above, including the NYT piece) are too weak. They quote his opinions about something but don't really cover him "directly and in detail" as WP:GNG requires. For satisfying WP:GNG or WP:BIO I'd want to see a few more sources with the kind of direct coverage that the WSJ source provides. Nsk92 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that he's interviewed by sources like CNN for financial info at all, I would say, makes him notable, but I could understand the concern about coverage not being about himself. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:31, 26 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) 18:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per sources surfaced as part of this AFD. I wanted to vote to delete after reading the article but it seems there's a decent argument for notability. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. I still consider the sourcing to be weak, but am withdrawing the nomination nonetheless.(non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Jane Belanus[edit]

Betty Jane Belanus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP that has been unsourced for 15 years. When I do a search, I don't see anything more than casual mentions of her. Rusf10 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner:Would you care to elaborate? Declaring failed BEFORE without offering any sources really isn't helpful.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the article and count the present sources. The Banner talk 09:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 04:17, 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 no consensus. I am choosing no consensus as good points were made all around. Here are a few ideas:

1. I think there could be an opportunity for this article to be expanded with offline sources.

2. If not, propose a merge to an appropriate article and a redirect to follow. That can be purposed on the talk page.

Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Mill[edit]

Columbia Mill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject. The draft of this article (Draft:Columbia Mill) was rejected last month on the grounds of its non-notability. Some of the information on this page could be added to pages such as Cedarburg, Wisconsin and Cedar Creek (Wisconsin) if it isn't there already. CoatGuy (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in the history books, and that's its history. In fact, there's more in the history books than in the article at hand, because what the 20th century history books skim in a subordinate clause, the 19th century history books cover in detail, and no history books were used in the making of this article.

    We don't pick and choose articles based upon your subjective notion of what's important. That way madness lies. Notability is not subjective, and Project:fame and importance is a famously rejected notion. This is also entry #422 in H. Russell Zimmermann's 1989 The Heritage Guidebook: Landmarks and Historical Sites in Southeastern Wisconsin, from which there might be a small bit to add.

    Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not my subjective notion of what's important; with the exception of Columbia Mill, the existing articles on buildings in Cedarburg, Wisconsin, are all sites on the National Register of Historic Places. The Washington Avenue Historic District (Cedarburg, Wisconsin) alone includes 80 historic structures. Should each of them have its own page? I've read some of the non-peer reviewed history books that you're talking about. For example, Butterfield's The Town of Cedarburg was written within the town's first three decades of existence and chronicles the building of nearly every blacksmith shop, mill, general store, tavern, and stagecoach inn in the community. And I have read Ryan Gierach's Cedarburg: A History Set in Stone; I've even cited it as a source in contributions I've made to articles about Cedarburg. His book contains a paragraph about the construction of Columbia Mill's dam in 1845-1850. The subsequent paragraph is about all the shoe stores that opened in Cedarburg in the mid-1840s. Should Fred Schliefer's shoe store (and the lovely anecdote about his hiring of a Bavarian sales clerk who would work in his employ for the next 19 years!) also get an article because Ryan Gierach thought it was notable enough to write a few sentences about?

      Wikipedia is not a directory of every old building that once existed and is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But we turn the encyclopedia into just that when we don't take a thorough look at the sorts of secondary sources we use in determining what is notable. Just because a name appears several times in Google Books does not make the subject notable. An article based solely on entries in these sorts of local history books, which are essentially directories peppered with a few entertaining anecdotes about the "old timers," runs the risk of becoming a directory entry itself. It is not an exaggeration to say that you could produce several hundred articles for all the historical buildings and now-demolished 19th century structures in the small town of Cedarburg, Wisconsin, but that way madness lies.

      The Columbia Mill site lies within the Columbia Historic District (although it is not a contributing property to the district); maybe this information could be included as part of a larger article on that NRHP site. CoatGuy (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – satisfies WP:GNG, since the article's References indicate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I acknowledge CoatGuy's comments regarding the Further reading resources, but the references seem to me to demonstrate that this subject satisfies GNG. — Hebrides (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom: I would also note that none of this article's references satisfy WP:GNG. Ref 1--which accounts for most of the information in the article--is a scan of a typewritten, hand-edited document. While it is housed in a university archive, it is not a peer-reviewed or formally published work and should not be treated as a reliable source--certainly not a reliable source on which more than half of an article is based. Ref 2 is a webpage about a totally different building with one passing reference to Columbia Mill. Ref 3 is a state government report that proves nothing other than that the mill's dam exists and was inspected as early as 1915. Refs 4 and 6 do not reference Columbia Mill at all and instead deal with pollution that doesn't seem to have anything to directly do with the mill. Ref 5 also references the pollution and at least mentions the Columbia Mill pond, but looking more closely at the source, it seems that the pollution actually had nothing to do with the mill itself other than the fact that it occurred in the vicinity after the the building had already been demolished. And the source makes clear that pollution was caused was a totally different company, a mile upstream. The paragraph about pollution, which accounts for half of the page, doesn't even have anything to do with the subject, and would be better suited to a page such as Cedar Creek (Wisconsin). I urge you to take another look at the sources to determine if they truly are significant and reliable coverage, Hebrides. CoatGuy (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reference 1 seems to show good coverage.
  • Delete, I'm not seeing much significant coverage in reliable sources. The first source is the only one that has some coverage, but it's only a single source. Much of the sources in the article are either passing mentions, or not about the subject of the article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only the first source is possibly okay per WP:GNG. I can't find anything else in a web search. The Further Reading may be the key to determining whether WP:GNG is (weakly) met. I also wouldn't be adverse to re-draftifying, since most of these will be offline. SportingFlyer T·C 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: three further sources now appear in the References section, so when interpreting the comments above that refer to citations by their numbers, an appropriate mapping should be applied (2→3, 3→5, 4→7, 5→8, 6→9). Hope that helps — Hebrides (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. Boy, this is tough one and a borderline case. Still, in borderline cases we want to learn toward preserving material, I think.
So OK, reasons for preserving the material... Well, most important, it's a OK article. Most of the last paragraph has nothing to do with this mill and should go (it's good material, but it doesn't belong in this article). And that's the most important material I guess. Still, even then, it's an OK size article, it's not just a stub. And every single sentence is ref'd! That's a far better level of reffing than most of our articles. And it was the first mill on Cedar Creek, after all. And it's on a clearly "encyclopedic" subject, it's not like a Pokemon card.
The key principle Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia opens with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... and incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. But there's no "Encyclopedia of American Grist Mills" or "Encyclopedia of Wisconsin Mills", that is true, but then, we are making one aren't we. How is that a bad thing to do. And we're not running out space, and the article exists, so why not include this entry.
On the other hand, good grief but is this thing obscure. They tore it down to build a bank branch, and no human person seems to have taken a picture of it before that, at least that google knows of. There's really no articles about it and I can't find anything. The one notable lengthy article in the Chicago Tribune doesn't mention the mill all, and would go if the last paragraph goes.
Everything else is either bare primary documents or really obscure. WP:GNG doesn't say that that matters, but it's a notability guideline so of course really obscure sources don't help much there: does not meet WP:GNG in my view. But... WP:GNG is something to always seriously consider, but it's a guideline, a suggestion, and here somebody has made an acceptable article, well-ref'd article, so keep.
I mean, what should really be done IMO is make an article Mills on Cedar Creek in Cedarburg Wisconsin, merge this article into it (minus most of the last paragraph), make an entry on the Wire and Nail Factory (which I think is doable), and two-sentence entries on the Concordia Mill, Concordia Mill, and Hilgen and Wittenberg Woolen Mill with pointers to those articles with the "main article" template. That'd be great, if the article creator want to do that. Herostratus (talk) 01:49, 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) 00:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Robineau[edit]

François Robineau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NARTIST. An unsourced BLP. The article makes claims about how famous his work is, but I don't see the sources to back it up. Rusf10 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:05, 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 keep. Consensus was that sources in this discussion are sufficient for meeting WP:NCORP. They remain to be added to the article.

Merging proposals based on content can be raised via wp:mergers instead. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Ltd[edit]

Sea Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sea Limited (aka Sea Group) is just a non-notable parent company of Garena, which content can be mentioned at Garena article. And the former name of Sea Limited, according to news article is Garena too.

The content was also added by global locked account User:FHDIJDI847481 before at Sea Group article title, the new version by User:आकाशगंगा seem a trimmed down version so that i am not decide to start SPI yet. Matthew hk (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable [3][4][5][6][7][8] and a company with multiple notable subsidiaries shouldn't be a redirect to one of them. The draft can be merged. Peter James (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources posted by Peter James, meets WP:NCORP in my opinion. Financial Times reference is actually written by its sister website Nikkei Asia [9]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an addition, the article should move to Sea (company), which seems to be WP:COMMONNAME in these sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the company's subsidiaries are notable, and the parent itself is getting quite a bit of coverage in Finance RSes. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's really the case that Garena has been rebranded as Sea, then surely either this or the Garena article needs to go, they can't both be about the same company, only under different names. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ...and another thing: the holding company, if it really is only that, ie. holding and not trading, is unlikely to be notable (and no, it does not inherit notability from its subsidiaries, as has been suggested). If, however, the argument is that Sea isn't properly a holding company but rather the corporate umbrella for its various (notable or non-notable) subsidiaries, and is in fact a trading entity itself, then I think this article should stay and the subsidiary articles be merged and redirected here. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge info to these pages Shopee and Garena, since its just their holding company. Lesliechin1 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Curious about thoughts on merging!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:02, 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. The dominant view is that WP:GNG is not met, which was considered the most important to cause deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harshad Patel[edit]

Harshad Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete 1 FC and 13 LA matches, one of which was for a county side (albeit against a Uni side). There is one GNG article in the article itself, but more is needed for a GNG pass. Unless there's anything in Wisden I'm at weak delete atm. No suitable redirect as played for multiple different teams with no clear prominent team. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found this BBC article on him, and this one. In fact, lots of BBC coverage I found on him. Multiple pieces in The Guardian about him, covered in The Independent, was interviewed by The Times, was discussed in an obituary by the source, The Telegraph has covered his sports performances plus interviewed him, Coverage of him on the Birmingham Mail, plus an interview by RNZ, mention in Stourbridge News 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a couple of decent sources there, but seriously, most of these links are very trivial passing mentions in routine sports reporting (i.e. not about him at all), two are merely search/related article results, and it seems clear that the NZ one is a different person ([10]). wjematherplease leave a message... 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this one's another "there's sources" but none of the sources are very good. Interestingly the best ones come from his short stint as the chair of the county board, but I don't see clear notability of him as a cricketer. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? "Trivial passing mentions"? "Not very good"? He is heavily interviewed and his performances are discussed in thee these sources. How are The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, RNZ, and BBC not good sources? I don't think you read the sources carefully enough. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Using The Guardian as an example, he's barely mentioned over the course of two sentences. BBC is one sentence and three sentences, respectively; many of the hits are articles where he's just barely mentioned. The RNZ article is almost certainly about a different person, possibly a relative, as noted by Wjemather. Mere mentions don't necessarily equal notability, significant coverage is required. SportingFlyer T·C 16:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not reading the sources carefully. There's entire friggin interviews with him with the Telegraph, The Times and RNZ which I provided. Those aren't brief mentions. If you want to talk about BBC sources, this was a source where's he interviewed for multiple sentences. Far from a passing mention. Also another BBC source states that he was "one of the starring acts of Herefordshire's C&G Trophy giant killing act against Middlesex, who was sacked earlier this month". Even if it is for a couple for sentences, a significant claim is being made here that makes this far more than a passing mention. One of the Guardian examples I provided stated, "Four overs and 23 runs later, Harshad Patel and Nathan Round - more used to opening together for Old Hill in the Birmingham League - had manufactured the perfect start. It did not last as Patel, employed by the Worcestershire CCC as a development officer, fell lbw to Andy Bichel." This is more than just a mention. It highlights the player giving a "perfect start" to the round that affects the team's performance. That's not a passing mention. These are just examples to indicate you're not even trying to research what coverage this topic has gotten. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep referencing things which are only mere mentions/a couple sentences long (including the BBC interviews, the Telegraph/Times are paywalled for me but they appear to be sports roundups), or the RNZ article, which both myself and Wjemather have pointed out are probably about a different person. This isn't a clear delete, but it's still by no means a clear keep just because there's lots of brief mentions in sources. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Times article it is not an interview with Patel – it has a very brief quote by Herefordshire captain Chris Boroughs that mentions Patel in passing. And again, the RNZ article is about an entirely different person, who hails from from Gujarat, India and has lived in New Zealand for nearly 40 years. The BBC and Guardian reports are simply not significant coverage; despite offering very small snippets of information, they are routine sports coverage that mention him in passing. However, The Telegraph piece (not the bulletin link you keep posting) is substantial and has been added to the article here. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the above and a long-running career across county cricket. There is enough coverage to satisfy GNG and enough matches to pass CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the coverage found and the matches played. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Only one the references described about a sufficient indepeth to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and that is the New Zealand coverage. The rest are passing mentions. How can you they are coverage when they are one or two sentence per article. They are rank. The Telegraph linka above is decent. Its not a lot. scope_creepTalk 18:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: As discussed above, the New Zealand coverage is of a different person with the same name. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, thanks for that @Wjemather: I need to be more careful in the future. I'd say that is bit sloppy practice. scope_creepTalk 18:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the whole, I don't think the coverage of him quite rises to the level of WP:GNG. The New Zealand articles are pretty clearly about a different person with the same name. SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:01, 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) 00:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soumik Haldar[edit]

Soumik Haldar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure promotional piece, minimal sources in the article, not much more found via search. Lots of name-dropping in the article, giving it a very promotional feel (since removed). Not enough to show notability. Ravensfire (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article may be promotional. But AFD is not cleanup. This is one of the most reputed cinematographers in Tollywood (Even though, Im hearing this name for first time since Im actually from Kerala). Since the subject has worked as a cinematographer in plenty of Bengali movies over the last two decades, I did a detailed and thorough WP:BEFORE and got this[11] and this [12]. But these two are not sufficient alone to establish GNG. So I went more deeper and got this[13] one from TOI, which is giving good coverage to the subject. It covers his entire career as a DOP since its beginning in the 90's to the present. The title itself says; Meet the popular lensmen of Tollywood. I also did a WP:Before in Bengali using google translator and got this[14] which is also giving enough sigcov to the subject. The person has worked as a DOP in more than 50 movies if Im right. So all these makes subject easily passes WP:FILMMAKER or WP:ARTIST.Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kashmorwiki, TOI is not an ideal source for showing notability with their The_Times_of_India#Paid_news. There is no way to identify what's paid and not paid, and there are a lot of puff pieces around anyone in film/tv industry (and of course politics in election time). The news18 sources is promising, but it's an interview which isn't the best for showing notability. I get the body of work they've done is significant, but there is so little else to go on. Ravensfire (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ravensfire, I already knew the issue with TOI. But this person is one of the most reputed DOP in the Bengali film industry, who has worked in more than 50 films. So he automatically passes WP:FILMMAKER. I cannot also say this source is paid one. Its quite natural that film personalities like this would get coverage from multiple sources. And after analysing the TOI source, I dont think its paid one. It is looking fine to me. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 13:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:48, 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 New Gods. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalibak[edit]

Kalibak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article provide significant real world coverage on the topic. The character doesn't appear to be mentioned in anything that can meet GNG, mentions limited to junk listicles. TTN (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: K or more specific list if one exists. I don't see SIGCOV sufficient to make him warrant a stand-alone article; any coverage in licenced, illustrated fanpedias (The DC Comics Encyclopedia: The Definitive Guide to the Characters of the DC Universe, The Essential Superman Encyclopedia) cannot be treated very seriously as they are not independent, limited to plot summary/list of appearances, and not written by scholars or experts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I feel the character warrants notability if we done the right digging. A recurring dc supervillain / New God and son of Darkseid in many depictions. I usually avoid such AFD but this one stands out as a no-brainer that he should stay. I welcome more opinions on this as always.Jhenderson 777 12:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let this page stay. I am voicing my agreement with @Jhenderson777: on his claim. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to build a stronger argument than bouncing off of someone who hasn't actually presented any sources that could be used to salvage the article. Just a general thing as well, but "Let the page stay" makes your point look weak because it seems you're simply arguing from the standpoint of WP:ILIKEIT. You should try to cite some relevant source, guideline, or policy, but I don't think there are any to be found in this specific case. TTN (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I would show off would be contested I feel. So I learned to give up my feat. Jhenderson 777 20:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other person who has been finding proper sources was @Toughpigs:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to New Gods, which contains a fair amount of detail about the character from both comics and other media. A search for sources turned up a lot of plot information but not enough real-world coverage to justify a standalone article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to New Gods - He is mentioned in sources covering the New Gods as a whole, but there is not much coverage outside of plot summary on him, specifically, in reliable sources that would really justify an independent article. The New Gods article, where he is already mentioned, would definitely be the more appropriate target than the general List of DC characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorshacma (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - If this page gets redirected to the New Gods, I ask that it get put under the section for the New Gods of Apokolips. A lot of articles that redirected to the redirected List of New Gods page are going to have to go there as well. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plenty of secondary sources in the article, which include Washington Post, Collider, CBR.com, etc, which provide material that explain the character's importance in the mythos. Any information in those sources or the New Gods articles that is not already in the Kalibak article can be copied or composed to it. Nightscream (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you really look at them? It's trashy listicles and passing mentions. The Washington Post "article" is literally a single sentence with no actual commentary. There is a reason why the content from those is not actually used in the article, instead just haphazardly shoved into the article with no purpose. TTN (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, those sources are the very definition of trivial. Single sentence mentions in larger articles on the New Gods in general, which is exactly what I stated in my recommendation for a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I hear you guys saying is that Darkseid and maybe Orion, Mister Miracle and Big Barda being the only notable major New Gods. We might as hang up New Gods like Desaad, Granny Goodness, Glorious Godfrey, Steppenwolf etc. Because the only time they get good sources that are still existent is when they get film adaptations. It’s possible Kalibak might be in the New Gods film. What then? Anyways these aren’t the only sources. The only non-passive sources though are CBR and there is fan-casting of the New Gods film. CBR is trash to you guys. So back to the drawing board. Jhenderson 777 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characters are notable if they receive the proper coverage per WP:GNG. Their in-universe relevance and relative importance to the fan-base have no consideration in that process if it has not lead to coverage in reliable sources. The majority of comics characters are not notable, but the sheer number of them means there will still be hundreds of notable articles at the end of the day. I do not believe this is one of them. The sources you've added to the article either barely mention the character, or they're low quality, mass-produced junk that I believe everyone has come to see as unreliable even if the rest of the content of the website is deemed reliable. TTN (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is an multi-media and classic character from the 70's (still ongoing currently in modern comic books) major character created by Jack Kirby of all people. None of this is in-universe reasoning BTW. Sometimes logic should be on the side that he is notable if the news would still focus or some less or more relevant current info. Yes thousand of minor characters are deemed notable thanks to recent and current news that you are using as examples. But familiar New Gods like this are not because you don’t (and don’t want to) find relevant sources on the character and because you are trying to clean up Wikipedia of the subjective GNG and nit-pick. What I don't like is you dodged the film adaptation and other character question and didn’t see my point and decided to be redundant of your obsession of GNG clean up. Also please don’t bring up the other stuff essay I am well aware of that too. Jhenderson 777 13:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concepts of major and minor characters do not matter to GNG. We have plenty of major characters that'll never have articles and plenty of obscure topics with articles simply because they received the appropriate attention. All that you can say is that major characters are much more likely to have received the coverage necessary to meet GNG, but it is not a guarantee. Film adaptations are the same thing. Major characters in films are more likely to receive attention, but it is not a guarantee (and the film in question seems to be a canceled production). There are plenty of characters in both the MCU and DCEU franchises that do not meet the GNG threshold. TTN (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is a Bible to you lol. Your way of explaining and obsessing and preaching of it amuses me. Anyway still searching so not much to reply for now. But I will say this. It’s about Recent sources now. That’s all it is. It’s a flawed way of saying do not get overboard with the topic in Wikipedia. You are not Wikipedia’s savior for cleaning it up too. In fact it is something Wikipedia is not. Jhenderson 777 14:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 01:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fond of it but it's better than the alternative. Some sources and info might need to be preserved in my opinion. I think it’s a work of progress until maybe more tie-in media adaption comes of the character. Jhenderson 777 01:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to New Gods - the majority of the sources on the article are the comics he appears in themselves, and trivial mentions in more reliable sources, nothing that shows notability. Waxworker (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources key finder seems to be either New Gods or Darkseid. Either that or Google is concealing the sources. Makes me think how many other New Gods villains should have articles to. Jhenderson 777 16:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predator SOV[edit]

Predator SOV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. A quick Google search only shows two sources: Cavalier Group, which makes the vehicles, and Pakistan's defense ministry, which uses the armored vehicles. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist since it's clearly contested, but would note to @Hawkeye7: that that is an essay, not a guideline
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability; a BEFORE search revealed no further sources. Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) is an essay and is therefore useful for its persuasive value but not as an authority, and I am not convinced by it or anything else that this topic is notable or that having a two-sentence one-source article on this topic (without much hope for any future expansion) is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Available sources fails in passing WP:GNG. Zackdasnicker (talk) 13:45, 13 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 Becky G discography. Already redirected and page-creation semi-protected. (non-admin closure) versacespaceleave a message! 21:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They Ain't Ready[edit]

They Ain't Ready (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content created by a sockpuppet known for adding hoaxes to this website, this song does exist but never indicates why it satisfies WP:NSONGS. In a month, it only has managed to have two primary sources, an iTunes link and its YouTube video. There is nothing to merge here. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: Redirected, but the content should probably be deleted and salted altogether per WP:DENY. Mailik is very persistent with the articles and redirects they touch. (CC) Tbhotch™ 14:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The redirect was restored and semi-protected. That said, IMO, I don't think an AfD is necessary. Since its semi-protection is set to expire next week, I suggest that the page should be semi-protected for a longer period of time. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 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. Improving the article with the sources indicated is highly encouraged to prevent renomination in the future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Elementary School[edit]

Commonwealth Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It could just be because of the really general name, but all I could find was trivial coverage in a few articles of a school in Texas with the same name. I couldn't find anything about this school though. So, unless someone else can come up with WP:THREE in-depth, independent sources about this school and not the one in Texas the article should be deleted IMO. If some usable sources can be found though, feel free to ping me and I'll change my "vote" to keep. BTW, the references in the article aren't enough for notability from what I can tell either. I can go into why if anyone cares, but I rather not. Adamant1 (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this elementary school has had enrollment between 9,000 and 13,000 students, larger than many universities, and populated places. The Standard source, already in the article, is a superior source. The Philippine Inquirer is also relevant. Addition information can be taken from [15] and [16]. It appears to be a very significant institution within the Manila metro area. I'm not sure deleting this is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "superior" source in the article are you talking about and what exactly is it superior to? The problem with keeping it is that if you take away what's not referenced and (or) badly sourced there's only like 2 sentences of the article left that only mention extremely trivial information. Maybe we could technically have an article about the school with like five sources that just contains the location of the school and how many people are enrolled in it, but it wouldn't be encyclopedic. So I don't think we should. Not that there's five good sources anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are three sources in the article, two of which I can access. I'll repeat myself: The Standard source is very in-depth, is independent, and is certainly not local. The Philippine Daily Inquirer is local to the area, but "area" being one of the world's major metropolitan areas. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26: Nothing else is significant about the school except the number of its enrolments, I don't think anything will go any further from here. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, don't expect me to spell.... My user name is has no letters in it, perhaps fortuitously. Anyway, it appears to me that the topic meets GNG. Now, I haven't !voted "keep" yet because I'm not from the Philippines, nor Hong Kong, and I'm not familiar with these sources. They are in-depth, and independent, but why are they not reliable? I also need to be convinced as to why the encyclopedia is better off without an article on one of the major institutions in one of world's major metropolitan areas. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26: Please accept my apologies. I'm not very aware of this school as well but I think it's not a major institution. A brief mention in Quezon City would be enough. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: I have no idea what you need to apologize for. I'm basing the "major institution" as an incredibly unscientific judgement call, based upon the number of students (13,000+ at one point, but it still seems to hover around 10,000), and that many sources name-drop the school in a way that suggests that if you're a local, you know what it is (these sources not establishing notability, of course), and according to the sources, parents across the city seek to enroll their kids in the school because it is considered "safe", provides amenities not available at other schools, and, incredibly to this pampered American, is less crowded than other schools. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But to the topic of notability, it's not even a secondary school, it's a primary school. The vast majority of primary schools aren't notable, but I'm still thinking this meets GNG, and I'm thinking this is not your run-of-the-mill primary school by any definition. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26: "The Phillippine Enquirer" thing. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness, that was funny! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The enrollment numbers aren't that surprising. The city its located in has almost 3 million people. "Largest whatever in wherever" usually doesn't establish notability. Anyway, do we even know if its a public or private school? It seems like the vast majority of schools in Ph are private. If so, it would have to pass NORG, not GNG. Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distinction between needing to meet NORG and needing to reach GNG is not public/private, but rather for-profit/non-profit. In the US and GB, for-profit primary and secondary schools are virtually non existent. They are more prevalent in Asia, but the Philippines educational system is closely modeled on the US system, so an assertion that this article must meet NORG would need to be proven. I do agree however that size alone shouldn't be in any way determinate of notability. 174.212.228.209 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: It is a public school. And yes, Quezon City is the largest in terms of population. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would love a few more eyes on this!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSCHOOL with sources presented by 7826. They're reliable enough aside from the sources in the article IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are multiple (two is multiple) good sources with extensive coverage, in the Philippine Daily Inquirer which looks to be highly notable (and as reliable as any other large paper, I suppose) and The Standard (Hong Kong) which has a long article here which says its daily circulation is 200,000. It's a giveaway paper, and American giveaway papers aren't very reliable, but this is a daily and maybe its different in Hong Kong. Assuming that The Standard is OK, the school meets the WP:GNG. And I mean 13,000 students... that is just a whole honken lot of little people. For comparison, Rockwood School District for instance has a nice article here, has 21 schools, and has 21,000 students. Parkway School District has a small article, has 28 schools and 17,000 students. And these are huge school districts. So this one school is near that size and meets the WP:GNG, keep.
And I mean the newspaper articles are plenty to make an a good article around. There's a lot of good material on the challenges this huge poor school has to deal with and so on.
The problem is, that's not this article. The article is not good and doesn't brink in the newspaper articles really and what is there isn't ref'd. You could make a WP:TNT case I guess, but then you could make a WP:TNTTNT case, and that's the one I'd make, since the needed refs are right there and it's just a matter of adding the material and tagging (or finding refs for) the material that's there now. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 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) 00:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Ratnayake[edit]

Dimitri Ratnayake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 7 matches but only for uni sides, only really database results in a search, nothing that could be considered GNG coverage. There may be some stuff about him in Wisden but I'm not sure. Games were for 2 different uni sides so there's no good redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First class cricketer. Tintin 02:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tintin. WP:CRIN clearly says that any player playing any domestic match are considered notable. And there are reliable sources like ESPN Cricinfo, Wisden and CricketArchive that says that player is notable. I don't know why Storm is nominating suitable cricket articles for deletion in a mass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.A Prinon (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could only find one SIGCOV source; notability depends on multiple of these. NCRIC does not supersede NSPORT (which itself does not supersede GNG), so even if it did say playing a domestic match conferred automatic notability (it does not say this) the subject would still need to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 15 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) 00:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marksman Ijiomah[edit]

Marksman Ijiomah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline G11 eligible covert UPE article on an “entrepreneur” and “businessman” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus a GNG fail. All awards “claimed to have been won” are not substantial and predominantly are paid for awards. A before search doesn’t show hits in reliable sources. The ref bombing is a futile attempt in creating a mirage of notability of which almost all sources used aren’t remotely reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to me that the subject fails WP:GNG requirements, as the sources seem to be only either passing mentions (e.g. about sponsorships) or not of suitable quality, and I couldn't find anything else substantial with a BEFORE-style search. I'm watchlisting this AfD discussion, as I may be wrong about quality of the sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this article because I was fascinated by the philanthropy of Marksman Ijiomah. When I Googled and found out that he was a billionaire running an international conglomerate and wasn’t on Wikipedia, I decided a few days ago to make a biographical entry. With national dailies in Nigeria like This Day, Sun Newspapers, and National Asset writing about him, as well as several other news sites, I believed both the acts and sources were genuine enough for notability. Should editors feel that he fails WP:GNG, and the sources used in this article are promotional, I wouldn’t put up any defense. I have nothing to lose, save the time I have put into writing it. To be clear, I do not know Marksman Ijiomah, neither have I or anyone I know personally benefitted from his philanthropy, or expect to get any reward from him. Tagging this article WP:G11 is reasonable and understandable for the purpose of consensus, but the nominator referring to me as a UPE editor in an edit summary on the article because he/she was emotional about the death of someone mentioned in the article, whom the subject paid medical bills for (which was also reported by no less a medium than BBC), is enough insult to the times I decided to sit up and write researched articles here. How does one profit from the death of another by citing an act of generosity that was made when the dead person was alive. Is there a guideline requiring editors to be selective of the published facts they include in articles so they don’t offend emotional editors? The nominator is forcing me to think he/she either has an axe to grind with the subject or has an unrevealed vested interest.Bemmax (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — @Bemmax, you wouldn’t see it now but your last statements betrayed and outed you. It’s called reverse psychology, a method that has been used in vain to guilt trip editors combatting UPE. Sorry it doesn't work anymore. Okay, prove me wrong and feel free to bring to this AFD the reliable sources you say makes the subject of our discussion satisfy our notability inclusion policy and id dissect them for you. Furthermore if you can stop spamming/using Wikipedia as a platform to promote non notable “business men” and “entrepreneurs” it would be a good idea. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Celestina007, I wouldn't have replied to this but your last statement gives the impression that I have been spamming/using Wikipedia to create articles for "businessmen and entrepreneurs," whereas this is false. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is my second article relating to a businessperson in my over six years of being here. Using words like "reverse psychology," and going further to create a false impression of my activities here is misleading. I was led to creating this article because of the "philanthropy" of the subject, and not because he is a "businessman". It is the sources I came across that made me write a section about his business. I would not be drawn into defending this article since you have already stated your reasons for this AFD. Other editors are well vexed in dissecting them too. Whatever the decision, it is for the betterment of Wikipedia, and I stand by it. Let's not dominate this space, please.Bemmax (talk) 05:15, 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 List of Loughborough MCCU players. Consensus exists to apply WP:GNG instead of WP:NCRIC here. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harveer Gandam[edit]

Harveer Gandam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as I did find a teensy bit of media coverage of his sports performances, but otherwise the only other sources are data profiles cited in the article. None of this is WP:SIGCOV 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Loughborough MCCU players Only matches for uni sides. There is this but not enough for GNG. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First class cricketer. If there are questions on notability, the AfD creator should perhaps read about it WP:CRIC and discuss there. Tintin 17:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NCRIC offers only a weak presumption of notability (the suitability of the subject for a standalone article due to likely existence of coverage meeting GNG requirements). When challenged at AFD, it must be shown that that presumption was correct and that GNG has been met. It is not sufficient to simply restate that the SNG has been met, although even that is tenuous here since his participation is limited to non-competitive matches for a university side, not a first-class county, in an era when they were regarded by the counties as little more than practice games and an opportunity for padding averages. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:33, 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 keep. Improve! Missvain (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Association for Biometrics[edit]

European Association for Biometrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE found some passing mentions in books (but not significant coverage), and a lot of results from https://biometricupdate.com/, which appears to be a press release republishing website (at the bottom it says "Submit a Press Release"). Recently added sources have various problems (not secondary, self published). –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Sources appeared difficult to be found but there are references like [18], [19], [20], [21] which may be considered as reputed, independent secondary sources. Chirota (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 30 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) 19:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since first request for deletion the article has been considerably upgraded and sourced - please consider the significance of their activities taken. LukaszKatlewa (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE show only passing mentions in books, lacking independent sigcov CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article definitely needs better and more current sources, but it is worth keeping. It has been substantially improved already as a result of the AfD nomination. ABT021 (talk) 15:41, 15 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 Hingol National Park. I am going rogue and doing a redirect here. I would have said "merge" - however, I looked at the Hingol National Park and basically everything in the Balochistan Sphinx article is already in the Hingol National Park article. Missvain (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balochistan Sphinx[edit]

Balochistan Sphinx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rock formation, only coverage aside from a brief name check in a NatGeo article is in unreliable fringe sources suggesting that it a man-made monument. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Unless its notability can be established, it should be deleted. While it does not need to be an actual sphinx (or manmade) to be notable, secondary sources that discuss it in detail and establish its notability are lacking as far as I found. I looked again at Google scholar and found only a couple of papers that it list it among many other features as potential tourist attractions if properly marketed. Searches using JSTOR found nothing in the way of secondary sources attributing any significance to this landform. Searches using Google Books, Google Search, and DuckDuckGo found a tsunamis of primary fringe and tourism sources and a lack of any useful secondary sources. Interestingly, the majority of tourism-related sources that mention the "Balochistan Sphinx" (or the "Lion of Balochistan") typically state that it is a natural rock formation and recommend visiting it not for any historical or cultural significance but because it is a pretty rock formation that resembles the Sphinx. This seems to be its only claim to fame Paul H. (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hingol National Park, of which it is a feature. (see:Wikipedia:GEOLAND) Djflem (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hingol National Park. Not enough WP:FRIND sources to justify a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe? Robinson, J. P. "Is The Sphinx of Balochistan Really Just a Natural Rock Formation?". www.ancient-origins.net.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Author claims to reveal suppressed information and hidden history which contradicts these current paradigms of thought regarding the origins and development of Man, so, yeah, WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to clear the notability bar, and the content is not worth merging. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above it fails to clear the notability bar as of now. Zackdasnicker (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. Djflem (talk) 19:17, 13 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) 00:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Wright[edit]

Jesse Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this article passes WP:GNG (sources include interviews and a sponsor profile, which don't normally count towards notability), and while I found some mentions in reliable sources in a search I couldn't find anything which clearly met WP:GNG. If kept, needs a bit of cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Looks like he is featured in some notable magazines, but we need to include more sources. Borderline notable sportperson. Batmanthe8th (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
motorsport No primary ✘ No
racestargraffix No primary; company blog No ✘ No
mxsa No primary; interview ✘ No
lwmag No primary; interview; company blog No ✘ No
monsterenergy No primary; corporate sponsor ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete for lack of notability; none of the cited sources were notability sources (reliable, independent, and secondary). See above for source analysis. A BEFORE search revealed no notability sources. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with KevinL -- citations are not independent or are merely passing, so GNG is not met. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 15 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 Obvious keep, the nomination reads as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and clearly ignores the substantial body of sourcing in the article, which is also noted below. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Sarkar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ash Sarkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contravenes Wiki policy on notability for Creative Professionals TomReagan90 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

WikiPolicy is all that matters:

1. Is she widely cited by peers or successors? No. She's not cited once in any academic literature, or as an authority on any significant topic in any mainstream publication.

2. Has she originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique? No.

3. Has she created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work? No.

4. Has her work/s: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No.

There is no debate to be had.

Wikipedia is not a summary of everything that's ever been published in English print and online media. It's an encyclopedia.

TomReagan90 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly a notable individual per coverage of her in reliable sources: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Sam Walton (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious speedy keep. Suggesting deletion of an obviously significant media figure like Sarkar is so obviously ridiculous that I have to question whether this nomination is made in good faith. The only part of the nomination that is on point is the bit where it says "There is no debate to be had" which is obviously correct but obviously not in the way that the nominator intends. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've fixed the Google links at the top of this page and the results are now as you might expect: 2,420 hits in Google News and so on. Ironically, these hit counts are high, in part, because her enemies just can't stop writing stuff about her. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per GNG, pretty clear that she has established notability and has significant coverage. AnApple47 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, as anticipated. I don't think there's been a Question Time panellist in the last 20 years who's been non-notable, because the BBC do a good job of making sure that the people who appear represent some major demographic of the UK in some way. Significant role as a journalist. Significant coverage over the Birchill topic, the "literally a communist" remark and lots of bits and pieces elsewhere. Article as it stands shows notability three times over but there's plenty more coverage out there if someone wants to improve it. The nominator has failed to grasp how our notability policies work: WP:BASIC says that People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below, so any failure of WP:AUTHOR would be necessary but not sufficient for non-notability—if the user had actually asked then they would have cleared up this misconception. The nominator, who doesn't appear to have much history editing here, has misjudged the notability standards on Wikipedia for a lot higher than what they are. People accept any number of mistakes if you're polite and try to learn, but to do that you have to accept that you might be wrong. — Bilorv (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal Again, you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is. If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Question_Time_episodes there have been plenty of non-notable guests - passing celebs or comedians or pop stars who don't have bios in Wiki and in my opinion certainly don't deserve them. It's not the 1950s. Just because someone's "on the telly" doesn't make them notable. I suspect all of us commenting here could "get on the telly" by the end of the month if we really put our mind to it. The criteria is there for a reason, otherwise it's a free-for-all regurgitation of the contemporary (or in this case, 3-years-out-of-date) media landscape in one country. TomReagan90 (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a vote. It's a matter of policy. She does not meet the criteria as set out in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Either the criteria needs changing, or we just allow a tyranny of a majority (aka "the rabble") to run roughshod over Wikipedia's founding principles and the whole concept of what an online encylopedia is. It is not news. It is not a repository for gossip and scandal and Twitter disputes. If Ash Sarkar is to be included, then millions of journalists and activists around the world out to be included. That's not encyclopedic. TomReagan90 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TomReagan90: It doesn't matter if she meets those criteria: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". The actual standard she needs to meet is WP:N which she clearly does. Sam Walton (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Barely meets WP:BASIC per Sam Walton. Contrary to the nom's suggestion, Sarkar need not meet WP:NCREATIVE if she meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, which Sam Walton's sources (particularly those in The Times and Teen Vogue) demonstrate—although another in-depth profile would be nice if it's available. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that the sources mentioned by Sam Walton demonstrate that the subject passes the requirements of GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's no good just simply typing "The actual standard she needs to meet is WP:N which she clearly does." That is not a meaningful argument. You need to be specific, as WP:N unfortunately isn't. Is it seriously your contention that anyone who is written about in, say, The Times or Teen Vogue meets WP:N? Is that "Significant coverage"? Do you have any idea how many millions of people that would include if our threshold was so low? How on earth is this article encyclopedic. I.e. What is anyone supposed to learn from this Bio entry? She has made no original, significant contribution to political commentary, academic debate, nor has she produced any significant works of art. These kinds of articles reduce Wikipedia to a very Twitter/Tabloid mismash of gossip rag and vanity self-promotion. This person's "notability" derived from an incident on a morning chat show (there'd be millions of those guests to add too) in which she called Piers Morgan an idiot and declared herself a "literal communist". What is encyclopedic about that? WP:SUSTAINED "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION." Why can't you just be specific? Why can't you agree to maintain at least some basic standards of academic rigor? If the Encyclopedia Britannica was expanded to include 5 million articles, ask yourself, do you honestly believe this would or should be one of them? TomReagan90 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, Wikipedia is not engaged in Scandal mongering, Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:EXCESSDETAIL) to be filled with trivial content (such as, where Ash Sarkar went to school), Wikipedia is not a "Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic," and Wikipedia is not a democracy, "Polling is not a substitute for discussion". TomReagan90 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AleatoryPonderings. Several editors have now clearly explained that WP:N trumps WP:NARTIST, and nominator should withdraw the mistaken AfD to avoid wasting other people's time even further. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Question This isn't a poll. And WP:N doesn't "trump" WP:NARTIST, you need to read the policy again. Please, specifically, what is it about the "sustained coverage" of Ash Sarkar that qualifies her as notable? Is it that she was written about in The Times, with the writer saying "It is in her role as an editor at Novara Media, a radical left-wing website, however, that she has come to prominence"? Or is it the Teen Vogue article from 3 years ago which perpetuated her 15mins of fame by writing about the initial incident that gained her notoriety - namely, calling Piers Morgan an idiot on a cable breakfast TV show? TomReagan90 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TomReagan90: The Times article is a perfect example of the kind of in-depth coverage that qualifies someone as notable, e.g. "Her Bengali grandmother came to Britain from Calcutta, aged 17. She became a hospital carer, her daughter became a social worker. As a child Sarkar and her sister lived in precarious accommodation, but when she was 11 her mother remarried and the family enjoyed 'immense comfort and security'. For sixth form she moved from her comprehensive to a selective grammar...." etc. etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminder "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION." You just made my point. Her notoriety in The Times and Teen Vogue dates from nearly 3 years ago. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability", hence WP:NOTNEWSPAPER TomReagan90 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOTNEWS, events must be put into encyclopedic context. e.g. from Dazed: "The Muslim north Londoner is reinventing political punditry with her fiercely feminist frankness, catching the attention of BBC’s Newsnight and Channel 4’s controversial talkshow Genderquake. Her success hasn’t resulted in complacency in her fight for representation in politics, however. [...] As an editor at alternative left-wing outlet Novara Media, Sarkar challenges power, racism and austerity. For her, journalism is activism. [...] With each impassioned television appearance, Sarkar cements herself as a political force – and always starts and ends with her signature gun fingers. “I always did them in photos at school, I thought I was being hard. Being a bolshy little teenager has never left me, I guess.”" Beccaynr (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beccaynr: Again, you're just helping to prove my point re: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Like the articles in The Times and Teen Vogue, this website profile on "Dazed", dates to three years ago, the aftermath of the incident that spawned her notoriety. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". Please point me to any "sustained coverage" that doesn't source to Twitter spats of fringe-view websites. TomReagan90 (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC, People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below (e.g. WP:CREATIVE), and because there is another profile: Meet the voices resetting the political agenda in the UK (Dazed, 2018) and per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Beccaynr (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So now just any random website will do. Oh well, I guess this is the future of Wikipedia then - in 10 years we'll ALL have our own bio/vanity piece. I know I have more publications and citations than her already.... I just need to get on a morning cable show and call the host a buffoon, declare myself an primitivist anarchist, and I'm bound to reach the notability criteria for Wikipedia by that evening! What a joke. There's actually substantive, award-winning, storied journalists with over 1000 publications to their name that don't have Wikipedia articles. But the moment someone says something silly on TV/YouTube/Podcast, there'll always be an army of myrmidons regurgitating all the scandal on Wikipedia and telling us what football team they support (without a source of course) TomReagan90 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:STICK applies at this point. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or we could just adhere to Wiki policy. Or common sense. But nah, what the heck, let's aim for, say, 1 million more bios of fringe journalists and activists by the end of 2021? People doing original academic research and studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, we'll ignore them for now eh? Stick to the tabloidy stuff - that's what Wikipedia was meant for! TomReagan90 (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name some examples of articles you've created about award-winning journalism or academia? I spend a good amount of my time creating such content (for a journalism example, Pullitzer-winner "An Unbelievable Story of Rape"; for academia, Linear time property). If you name some names and start some drafts, I'll give you feedback/pointers/help in any way I can. What we have an absence of on Wikipedia is people willing to write content. What we don't have an absence of is bad-natured bickering. — Bilorv (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I work with award-winning journalists who don't even exist on Wikipedia, despite their presence at gala functions and one receiving such an award directly from the current President of the time, a certain Barack Obama (and there's photos galore). Yet this person's name doesn't appear anywhere in this encyclopedia. Yet the Wiki editors seem content to foster the kind of anglo-centric recentism which is explicitly stated by the Wiki's creators as being a pitfall of the entire project. Just look at the size of this article, or Paris Hilton's, compared to say, Richard Spencer, The Times current Mid-East correspondent with over 1000 by-lines to his name. Or multi award-winning Sunday Times Middle East correspondent Louise Callaghan who also doesn't exist in the Wikipedia universe. Or, to take any one of countless more obscene examples, the size of Ash Sarkar's article vs that of Sahar Khodayari - the woman who committed self-immolation in protest at women being forbidden to attend football matches, which led to FIFA forcing the Islamic Republic of Iran to change their law. So how about instead of saying "well, it is what it is", we start making a more determined and consistent effort to achieve balance and a worldwide perspective in judging what content is truly encyclopedic? Time is precious, time is money, I write for a living, but arguing "well Wiki is full of articles like this, the threshold for notability doesn't match the stated criteria in the policy documents, but, what can we do?" is irrelevant whataboutery. There's no reason why the football team that Ash Sarkar apparently supports should be deemed appropriate encyclopedic material, while the last four winners of arguably the most esteemed journalism prize in the world (the Albert Londres Prize) don't even have any bios themselves! TomReagan90 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Go on then. Expand those topics and create those articles. Who is stopping you? Do you think you're the only person here who has a full-time job? Couldn't you spend some of the hours you've poured into personal attacks and nastiness writing new content instead? Don't yell at the people who work hard to create articles, because they've not created enough of them (only 24 hours in a day). Go yell at some readers who've never contributed anything to Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some people have jumped the gun here, and have not carefully considered Wiki policy. I believe the discussion might benefit from some fresh eyes on the argumentation and competing perceptions of what kind of individuals are suitably notable for Wikipedia bios. TomReagan90 (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references now in the article are entirely sufficient to show that this person is notable. As an American, I had never heard of her until just now. It seems that this nomination is motivated by a wish to make a point and so I encourage the nominator to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If there are wonderful journalists who do not now have Wikipedia biographies, then write policy compliant biographies of those people. That's how we roll. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - This is not a poll. And that is not how Wiki works. Wiki has specific policies for just this type of article. They are so far being ignored. This is not a "policy compliant biography", that's the whole point of this discussion. - TomReagan90 (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I have been an editor for 12 years and an administrator for almost four years and do not need to be advised that "this is not a poll". You are bludgeoning this debate because you have not been successful so far at convincing other editors that this article should be deleted. You should know that repetition is not an effective form of persuasion. Your time would be better spent on writing policy compliant biographies of the "actually substantive, award-winning, storied journalists with over 1000 publications to their name that don't have Wikipedia articles." That would help improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply@Cullen328: I have been a journalist and researcher for 11 years and I don't write for unreliable/compromised outlets on the principle that doing so would lend them additional credibility. I'm hardly going to devote hundreds of hours of my free time composing articles such as this one - but of much greater importance than this one - for free, while at the same time putting those esteemed journalists/academics on a level pegging with fringe publicity hungry hacks such as Ash Sarkar. Clearly, at this point, it appears to me that it's better that serious journalists not have their reputations sullied by the appearance of a Wikipedia article under their name, less they be mistaken for notorious twitter warriors. TomReagan90 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These are unambiguous expressions of animus against Sarkar from the nominator. Clearly there is no good faith nomination here and I request a speedy close to this AfD under WP:SNOW. I would also remind TomReagan90 that he is under absolutely no obligation to edit Wikipedia if he does not wish to. If he has become disillusioned with the project, and feels that his time is better served elsewhere, then he is free to stop at any time. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply@Cullen328: Yes, and this is exactly kind of attitude that prevents experts from contributing to Wikipedia. Uncontroversial evaluative judgments are immediately used as ammunition to claim "bias!", "personal attack!", "no good faith!" - followed by a polite invitation to leave the project to the full-timers. Classy. Labeling, without qualification, Ash Sarkar as a journalist and - much worse, an academic - is akin to labeling self-proclaimed anti-vaxxers as "scientists" or "virology experts". To call that out is not an "expressions of animus", but an expression of factual accuracy. What kind of "academic" has never published a single academic paper? TomReagan90 (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Sarkar clearly passes WP:BASIC and this is a blatantly disruptive nomination. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG as demonstrated above. (pinged by feedback service).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. keep, meets WP:GNG. The noms WP:BLUDGEONING of the subject clearly isn't helping. I have to wonder if we should be assuming good faith or not at this stage. Seems WP:POINTy to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources provided by Sam Walton in the initial keep comment are more than enough for WP:BASIC Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sarkar is a well-known public figure here in Britain, sought by several national newspapers for her opinion, and frequently in the news herself. She easily passes the GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Satan[edit]

Sad Satan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most articles on the topic have been removed (for good reason) after speculation that the game itself was an ARG intended to function as a publicity stunt. Loads of OR content and ultimately not notable enough to justify the issues it brings by having a wiki page Deku link (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Deku link (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Supporting deletion. The sources listed in this article are generally tabloid sources that I wouldn't trust as an editor, such as Metro, BuzzFeed (not BuzzFeed News), and Kotaku. This article is really the type of article that would be on a fandom website, not on Wikipedia. Wizzito (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A game that, from what I can tell, never really existed and was just an attempt at some kind of creepypasta or hoax. The handful of sources in the article, many of which are not from reliable sources, are all just reporting on the same information from the games "reveal", and there does not appear to be any kind of real coverage after this point that would indicate lasting notability. The article itself is also a mess, consisting almost entirely of WP:OR, and would need to be largely gutted regardless. Rorshacma (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While many sources in the article seem to be unreliable, there are few non-trivial things I was able to find (some noted as reliable at WP:VG/RS). Meristation [27], GQ Germany [28], Die Welt [29], Kotaku [30], Pelit [31], Vice (magazine) [32] [33], Gamestar [34] (sadly paywalled) and was briefly mentioned in El Comercio (Peru) [35]. The Daily Dot [36] and Geek.com (owned by Ziff Davis) [37] seem decent as well. The article absolutely needs a rewrite, but the subject passes WP:GNG in my view. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jovanmilic97's statement above. Yitz (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jovanmilic97, with the addendum that WP:RSN clearly considers Kotaku reliable, although interestingly enough it doesn't seem to be on WP:RS/PS. Vaticidalprophet 20:04, 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 Exchange rate. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currency converter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Currency converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-referenced, does not meet GNG. May be WP:SYNTH EpicPupper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a weird nomination, and I'm no fan of articles for commercial ephemera. These are very notable, popular programs people use routinely in daily life, and which are even included in the Library of Congress. They're popular trial applications built in the process of learning software engineering, and covered in scholarly sources in this role (gscholar gets 6,110 results, many of which don't suck). Tech news is also concerned with them (1, 2, 3). Also see the tourist interest demonstrated by Piotrus in the previous nomination. Vaticidalprophet 20:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to exchange rate (which is what currency conversion currently redirects to). I have spent some time looking for RSes for this article on Google Scholar and found lots about currency conversion in general and little substantial about currency converters, the category: the best hits I found was 'Lemaire, P. and Lecacheur, M., 2001. Older and younger adults' strategy use and execution in currency conversion tasks: Insights from French franc to euro and euro to French franc conversions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3), p.195.' While as Vaticidalprophet observes, it seems strange that such a familiar topic falls foul of our GNG, if we can't furnish RSes, we are better off removing unverifiable information. As noted in the last AfD, this particular coatrack is a hygiene problem for us, since we are an attractive place for currency converter websites to advertise their wares. In general, our coverage of currency conversion is poor, since this is a substantial topic in accounting that goes beyond what we can cover in the exchange rate article; see e.g. with respect to the UK section 30 of FRS 102, which is current accounting practice for overseas-currency-denominated financial assets in financial statements, and which has been extensively commented upon. If I could wave a magic wand, I would want us to have a good article on currency conversion, with a short section on currency converters which the AfD subject is a redirect to. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thoughts here: I basically concur with this, but it doesn't feel like cause to redirect to me. It feels like that's better handled through renaming and rewriting this article to have a more coherent focus, rather than converting it to a redirect and then having to start another article via another redirect from scratch, with according issues attributing histories. Vaticidalprophet 02:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be happy with a merge outcome to this AfD if I thought someone would actually do the work to properly realise this outcome. I wouldn't be happy with the continued existence of this content at this article name unless I felt sure that the hygiene problem I discussed was manageable and that someone would actually hunt down enough RSes to meet the GNG. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are enough RSes to meet the GNG even if we go just with the narrow currency-converter topic, let alone "currency conversion with section on converter software". Are any wikiprojects on this topic active or are they all moribund? I can see this ending in WP:HEY, but I'm unconvinced I can personally handle the subject matter, and it'd be good to get more eyes on. Vaticidalprophet 12:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't need to see a WP:HEY improvement to be reassured on my verifiability concern if we had a keep or no consensus outcome to this AfD: simply having the plausible-but-not-obvious claims in the article be deleted would be enough, given that the sources you have found are not far away from GNG quality and I am satisfied there are more. But regarding the hygiene risk presented by the article, your suggestion of renaming the article and changing its contents so currency converters is just a subsection is nontrivial editing work, and with respect to involving a relevant wikiproject, most wikiprojects are not up to the job of providing oversight for this kind of article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NAD, reads like an Essay, alternatively a redirect to currency conversion CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your alternate suggestion, redirect to 'currency conversion', isn't an immediately available option for us at the moment, since that is a redirect. Would you be happy, as an alternative, to redirect to 'exchange rate'; the current target of that redirect? — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to exchange rate - I think Charles Stewart has it right there. The content is unsourced, and actual topic-specific sources seem hard to find. Yes, we all know it's a thing and it feels like it should be possible to write an article on the topic, but absent demonstrably applicable sources, that doesn't gain us anything. (I'm baffled by how all the iterations of "there should be sources" managed to carry the day in the last round - it's plain inapplicable.) Redirected isn't deleted and salted; if suitable material turns up, anyone can revive this as a standalone. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Economy of Andhra Pradesh. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Software industry in Andhra Pradesh[edit]

Software industry in Andhra Pradesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a WP:COATRACK list of companies that happened to have offices in Andhra Pradesh, e.g. IBM or HSBC. There are no sources discussing the general topic of the software industry in Andhra Pradesh. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a specific requirement of millions of young graduates in Andhra Pradesh, they will know the status of software industry in the state while they are applies for jobs. Applus2021 (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to help them in their job search. There are other websites for that. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article has 9 sources at the time of nomination by Headbomb - [38]. Now the article has 25 WP:RELIABLE sources to meet WP:GNG with 0 deadlinks as per #IABot (v2.0.8) analysis [39], further improvement is in progress, check similar debate [40] Applus2021 (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources yes, but none that discuss the subject as a topic in a significant way. A mention that there are people/business working in software in Andhra Pradesh is not significant coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Majority sources are recent and all sources passes WP:RELIABLE to meet WP:GNG. Moreover topic is important to the Andhra Pradesh, India and major sources are government related works. Applus2021 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:17, 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 keep. Participants who voted to keep the article are encouraged to improve it by removing anything promotional (including unnecessary sources) and adding most (if not all) of the sources in this discussion to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TeslaBjorn[edit]

Bjørn Nyland (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only claim to notability of this subject seems to be that he was "part of a team that set the new record at 2,781 km in 24 hours .." and that he won a Tesla Model X and a couple of other Teslas. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This subject" is actually named Bjørn Nyland, but due to the article on 1980s Bjørn Nyland (skater), the article is at Teslabjorn, which is the name of his live stream YT channel "TeslabjornLive24". The real channel is "Bjørn Nyland", so the article should be moved to Bjørn Nyland (YouTuber). For over seven years, Nyland covers Electric cars in an entertaining and informative way, which is recognized by e.g. InsideEVs here, by CleanTechnica here. Nyland belongs to Category:Motoring journalists or similar. Is it a coincidence that "the subject" who wants the article on a well-respected Electric Vehicle proponent to be deleted happens to work in the oil industry in Saudi Arabia since 2012?  Matthead  Discuß   10:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying that InsideEVs, Electrive.com are on the first page of the search results, and a whole lot of other webpages on the others pages? Like The incredible story of an EV evangelist who won 4 Teslas? Or is your self-proclaimed "Since the beginning of 2012 I am living in Saudi Arabia" to blame, Censorship_in_Saudi_Arabia#The_Internet filtering out valid sources?  Matthead  Discuß   09:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matthead, please desist with your personal attacks that have no basis in anything. The only link is indeed the link from InsideEVs, the other 9 are utterly unreliable, self published material. I however do not go by Google searches for notability, I go by what was in the version I saw, which are 7 youtube videos by the subject, his facebook, and quite some references which are not Bjorn's work that are referenced. You are free to upgrade the references (and there are now more, but also even more facebook and youtube links). Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it puzzling that reference is made to "what shows up at the front page of that search" [my emphasis]. The search is stated to return 366'000 results; some of these will be other Nylands (not least a famous skater), but it doesn't make sense to draw conclusions from only the first page.
I dug in a little deeper and did a quick sweep across the European language map. I found references (mostly online, but some also in parallel print) to Bjørn Nyland in Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Danish, English, Dutch, German, Polish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Croatian, Hungarian, Romanian, and Russian. There are more further afield, including Arabic, and of course many in Thai. I probably overlooked some, and one can probably easily nitpick about some of them, but overall there is no doubt that Bjørn Nyland is a well known, widely quoted and observed, and highly respected authority on electric vehicles. According to Wikipedia's published notability guidelines [51] "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I believe this criterium is amply fulfilled for Bjørn Nyland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.56.64 (talk • contribs)
@80.189.56.64:, yes, it is easy to find documents. Many searches on Google result in a lot of results. But Google does sort the results to a certain extend, based on their optimization of results and resulting in a list sorted by what people are mostly looking for on a subject on Google. If the first 10 are 9 times blogs / social media / youtube channels / etc. and one article then that means that that is what is mostly used through Google. The article that I proposed for deletion had 9 out of 14 to youtube/facebook, now it is 11 out of 23 (plus 5 search results). There may be more results on next Google pages, but a) they are already deemed less important by Google, and b) they are not used as references if they pass our bar of WP:RS. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note To expand, in this version references 1-4 are own material, reference 5 references "After German Youtuber Horst Lüning and his son have covered 2,424km" is not giving notability to TeslaBjorn, reference 6 references "in June 2016, Lüning in 2018 joined an Austrian G-Electric team", which hardly is a claim to notability of the subject if you are part of a team. Reference 7 is for "Nyland set this record using the IONITY 350kW quick chargers Demminer Land", which I agree is a claim to TeslaBjorn's notability, references 8 and 9 are for the network, not for TeslaBjorn's work. References 10 and 11 are for winning prizes (and unless a prize is of high significance/notability, winning a prize alone is not a claim to notability). That is one reference left over in that version.

In the current version (which has added references for a number of youtube videos, and another reference to their facebook feed) there is a set of references added between reference 4 and 5 of the previous (the first another SPS youtube): https://insideevs.com/search/?q=Bjorn+Nyland https://cleantechnica.com/?s=Bjorn+Nyland https://electrek.co/?s=Bjorn+Nyland https://www.autoevolution.com/search.php?s=Bjorn+Nyland https://www.teslarati.com/?s=Bjorn+Nyland . All 5 are search results without proper claim how they show notability. That you are being mentioned in a journal or magazine, that you published in a renowned journal, that you won some random prize, are not claims to notability. Then we have a proper new claim 'Nylands 18 hours long effort in 2015 to slowly hypermile his Model S to a "Record-Breaking 452.8 Miles On A Single Charge"' with references which is adding to the claim to notability. The rest of the references are already discussed in the previous paragraph. So now we have 2 claims to notability. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to me that deletion is being proposed because the references listed in the page could be improved upon. In this case I think it would be more productive to suggest improving the references; few things will be perfect from square one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.56.64 (talk • contribs)
    • @80.189.56.64: Yes, and I will gladly withdraw the nomination if in these handful of days the article really shows a significant relative increase in proper claims of notability. From 1 to 2 claims and for the rest a massive expand on primary sources without secondary support is not going to cut that deal, nor does a 'go look on Google'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How often is this supposed to get relisted? Where is any support for the deletion of this article, apart from the single user who wants "this subject" to get erased? Close this Afd and remove the template from the article.  Matthead  Discuß   22:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proposer is quite right in pointing out that the references in the article do not support a notability claim, and it isn't really useful to speculate about people's motivation. The only thing that matter is facts. In that context it must be kept in mind that an encyclopaedia summarises authoritative sources, commonly referred to as "second sources", in an attempt to ensure truthful information. Primary sources are not authoritative, and cannot be assumed to be truthful, any more than a politician's claim to be your best friend. While Bjørn Nyland is without reasonable doubt an authority on EVs, and a popular protagonist with something of a cult following, the article should substantiate that by providing references that support it. A Wikipedia page is not a fan page, and it's important to safeguard the integrity of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.56.68 (talk) 2021-05-13T22:07:41 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom, one source from Inside EVs only, the rest is self promo only, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per references that have been surfaced as part of this AFD. The references in the article are bad but clearly further references exist to demonstrate notability. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ybarra[edit]

Tyler Ybarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league baseball player. PROD was declined for some reason. Fails WP:NBASE, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... low round draft pick who never made it above the low minors and then played indy ball for a few years.. absolutely nothing notable about this guy at all. Spanneraol (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable minor league ballplayer....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 13 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kalala[edit]

Eric Kalala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 11:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are all the same reference, apart from the third one. They are routine annoucements for position of CEO and are effectively press-release or come from a single press-release, as the information is the same in every one. The third reference is a story of a funeral and seems to be a passing mention and is a deopendent source. Non of them are suitable to prove WP:SIGCOV nor WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 16:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some reason my comment was reverted. scope_creepTalk 16:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It is perfectly possible to assume that there is coverage in offline sources and for country like Congo it is hard to find coverage online. Störm (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Ref 6 is the funeral and is a dependent source.
Ref 7 the same annoucement for CEO.
Ref 8 the same announcement but a bigger article
Ref 9 the same annoucement and a dependent source.
Ref 10 An interview.
Last ref is an interview for a profile entry.

So not a single WP:SECONDARY amongst the lot of them. Three inteviews and several annoucements of work, for a man doing his job. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 16:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The four references currently in the article, are the same announcement, in French and English. scope_creepTalk 23:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Other articles and revelant citations that discusses Eric Kalala's work have been included. Comment transcribed from top to bottom. Added by User:NolwaziBam 21:42, 25 April 2021‎ (UTC) Sig added scope_creepTalk 21:36, 25 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) 02:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two citations have been added. One is a passing mention and small interview that is not specifically about him. They are very poor references. scope_creepTalk 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete. I agree that this is a pretty marginal case, but I note that WP:GNG only states that significant coverage is "presumed" to be adequate for notability. I have read most of the articles cited by Storm which are fairly detailed but do little more than attest his holding a number of roles within a mid-to-large size company in a fairly niche industry. What actual substance does that leave us for a biography that would not simply be a WP:CFORK of Bolloré Africa Logistics? Has he actually done or said anything notable while in these roles? His degrees and family background are not, I think, sufficiently important to justify a stand-alone article. And the Congo, by the way, is not a landlocked country as the article claims... —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per GNG, coverage is there, just not a ton of stuff he's really done. I find the CSB argument for explaining lack of further sources ill-informed at best, considering how much of the important Congolese media is online these days and the whole trove of online media outlets that could be checked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo#Library. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round just to suss out weak keeps and weak deletes. I'm leaning towards delete as a closer but want to give it another chance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Per Scope creep's analysis, most of the sources appear to be nearly duplicates of each other, and in any case, it doesn't really seem to generate general notability beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. jp×g 03:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. There are sources to support the article and I think it's debatable whether notability is met. More importantly however, I think there are probably additional sources out there to support the article that may not be apparent to folks outside of Democratic Republic of Congo. So, for that reason in particular, I lean in favor of keeping. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:57, 17 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) 00:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Miranda[edit]

Tom Miranda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any evidence of the subject passing WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, with no independent secondary reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject (with the possible exception of an offline South Dakota Hall of Fame magazine article which has not been verified yet). For example, this HuntingLife interview isn't exactly an independent secondary reliable source. I also could not find evidence that his works are sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:NAUTHOR.

Also see the unfruitful requests for reliable sources on the article subject from last week at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Source check for Tom Miranda and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#Source check for Tom Miranda. — MarkH21talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With some love this can be an acceptable article Rossouw (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether a subject warrants having a Wikipedia article is based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Without independent reliable secondary sources, this subject isn't notable under those guidelines regardless of cleanup. — MarkH21talk 05:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have found these: 1, might be used to show him as n expert in his field, 3, a review, 5, another review, 7, several facts here. The interview that the nominator mentioned can be used to support some of the facts as well - there's an introduction with some info. I am voting a weak keep as I'm not that good in the hunting sphere and can't evaluate the quality of the sources above. But there is enough sigcov. Less Unless (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those aren't sources that go towards WP:GNG/WP:BASIC: published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
      • The first reference (Bowhunting) is entirely based on a recent press release, which is not independent content.
      • The second reference (ESPN) is from his employer ESPN talking about his show on ESPN and is therefore not an independent source.
      • The third reference (Game & Fish) is a Meet Tom Miranda interview (also listed on their website as an editorial) which is not independent content nor secondary.
      • The fourth reference (Bowsite) is a book review from a source that doesn't appear to be a reliable source nor an independent source either: it is by the founder of a forum that Miranda frequents ("you interact on Bowsite quite a bit")
      • The fifth reference (Rhea Review) is an interview promoting a local event and is not independent content nor secondary.
      • The sixth reference (Tom Miranda The Rut Hunters Whitetail SLAM Blog) is a blog post promoting a book; it isn't close to being a reliable source.
      • The seventh reference (Outdoor Hub) is a press release (which is also why it's labeled pr) and is therefore not an independent source nor secondary.
      • The eighth reference (Southern Illinois University) only mentions Miranda when quoting him and doesn't give any significant coverage of Miranda.
There must be significant coverage from sources that are simultaneously secondary, independent, and reliable' sources. Each of the given references are lacking at least one of those three qualities. — MarkH21talk 23:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your source analysis, I think there might be more off-line sources from the 80th and 90th. He seems to be a well-known figure in his field. I'm not trying to speculate here per WP:SOURCESEXIST but it's often the case in the pre and early internet era. I do not oppose the deletion, but I believe it's the last resort. The current state of the article is inappropriate, but maybe there's someone who has access to hunting\wildlife magazines? If nothing is found I'll support the deletion. My search also showed these, but as I can't access the whole information, so I don't know if any of them qualifies: 1, 2, 3, 4. I hope you get my point. Best, Less Unless (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Less Unless: I understand your point completely, which is why I also posted at WT:ACTOR and WT:TV for a source check three weeks ago before opening this AfD. Nothing turned up there, and neither of us have been able to find anything besides passing mentions and connected/unreliable sources. At this point in the continued absence of significant coverage from independent secondary reliable sources, the guidelines support deletion.
From what I can see, those four sources also appear to be passing mentions. — MarkH21talk 00:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:52, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Anthoussa F.C.[edit]

Atlantis Anthoussa F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local sports club who I can't find any information on, playing in what appears to be a local league. I did try a Greek search as well and not much came up, so it's possible I've bungled that, so I'm taking this to AfD: but it seems to me like this fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they get match reports on the Greek amateur football portal (example) but I couldn't find any significant coverage from independent sources. Other than the match reports, there is one very brief article about them and a few mentions on Blogspot and social media. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:25, 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 Hope of the States. Missvain (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles (band)[edit]

Troubles (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This group does not meet WP:NBAND and is not reliably sourced. A search does not reveal additional sources. Rusf10 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suspect that there may well be coverage of the band in print versions of NME at the time, as they were largely composed of former members of Hope of the States, who had had considerable press and some chart success before they split, and there would have been interest in what the former members did next. However, without access to back issues of NME I can't make a case for keeping this article, and perhaps a redirect to Hope of the States would be the best course of action for now. Richard3120 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hope of the States. Why does nobody seem to consider alternatives to deletion these days? Here's some coverage: [62], [63]. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hope of the States. I don't recommend merging because they are two separate bands with distinct histories and trajectories, albeit with several members in common. The band called Troubles got no reliable and significant media notice (at least online) after brief mentions of their formation. The historical connection between the two bands is already mentioned at the Hope of the States article and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:26, 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 Byju's. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteHat Jr.[edit]

WhiteHat Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGSIG. This company existed for less than 2 years before it was bought out and merged with Byju's. There are not enough reliable sources to support notability. This should at the very least be redirected to Byju's or the founder's article, Karan Bajaj. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article should be kept, but should be moved to BYJU’S Future School as it was renamed. I will also add some new information. I have also removed some vandalism on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsi20 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You shouldn't rename a page while it is being discussed for deletion or redirection. There is already a section on Byju's that more than covers this subject adequately. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Byju's. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible redirect Notability not established. In the meantime, the article is a tug-of-war between blatant promotion and a criticism section that bears no apparent direct relation to the subject. May need to be protected. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soumendu Lahiri[edit]

Soumendu Lahiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:ENT Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable Bengali poet with coverage in multiple reliable sources including printed newspapers of Bengali language. This is a clear case of systemic bias. AniksDutta (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: AniksDutta is the creator of the article. David notMD (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: felicitation/felicitated in the Recognition section appears to mean praised or honored; even if referenced, not contributing to notability. David notMD (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For one thing I can tell that this subject meets WP:GNG. The person has several in-depth coverage including one in the most widely circulated daily newspaper, Anandabazar Patrika[64]. I would request the nom Theroadislong to please include this discussion in Bengali subject related articles. Articles on Bengali poets from the West Bengal, India lacks online publications. AniksDutta (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wix sites are not suitable reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is from Anandabazar Patrika[65], the print edition cut-out has been uploaded on Wix site. The Bengali language newspapers have less online presence. Any Bengali language editor can tell you that. This is why I mentioned systemic bias in my earlier comment. AniksDutta (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be online, so there is absolutely no need to use uploaded images of newspapers. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the cited sources have been provided with publication name, date, reporter name and newspaper name with their RNI no. for verification. You can ignore the links then. AniksDutta (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see? Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Courtesy relist for User:AniksDutta.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you RandomCanadian! Missvain (talk) 22:01, 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 00:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of service rifles by country[edit]

List of service rifles by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created last month when it split off from the Service rifle page because some editors couldn't accept the fact an extensive list of each service weapon used by almost every country wasn't necessary. This article fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS and user @FDW777: and I are both in agreement this article should never have been created in the first place. See main article talk page for more details [66] Labprison (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify or stub or anything to make the current version of the article go away. It should never have been created to start with, the content was correctly removed from service rifle as a policy violation. That problem isn't solved by forking the policy violating content to a new article. To anyone suggesting "it's referenced", no it isn't. For example Afghanistan has two service rifles listed, the M16A4 and the M4A1. However the reference (and a country specific version of the same page is used for every country on the list) contains no mention of service rifle, or them being standard issue, or anything similar. What makes those two guns service rifles and not any of the others listed? Out of the 60 guns listed, sure there are handguns and heavier weapons listed, but even in the first ten alone there are these listed which could reasonably be considered service rifles.

  • Kbs wz.96 (Beryl)
  • Colt M4
  • Colt Canada / Diemaco
  • Colt M16A2

So why just the M16A4 and M4A1? What makes any of the guns on that list a service rifle? Nothing, so the entire article violates policy. FDW777 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being improperly sourced, and for the given source not actually corresponding to the article's content. Loafiewa (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Another user earlier tried to pass off blogs, forums, and even gun shop websites as scholarly sources. All of which had absolutely nothing to do with the page. This article should definitely be removed. 2603:3005:1898:8000:D47E:9530:1ED1:ABD2 (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is dependent on https://www.militaryfactory.com/ for sourcing, which is clearly not a reliable source (its entries on Australia and New Zealand are full of inaccuracies, for instance) and doesn't support the content anyway given that it doesn't identify which guns it lists for each country are 'service rifles' versus those issued in small numbers for specialised roles. As a result, deletion per WP:TNT is in order as nothing in the article can be considered accurate. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all references are from a single source and source appears to be self-published and unverified. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 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 procedural close. Discussion continued at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Barriss. - Eureka Lott 00:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barriss[edit]

Barriss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A last name that is not uncommon should not redirect to an article where a person mentioned just so happens to have that last name. I don't think there's an appropriate place to redirect it to though. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possibly, I've never come across a redirect that shouldn't exist before so this is new territory for me. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now taken this to RFD. Admins, feel free to close this nomination. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:19, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Yochev[edit]

Georgi Yochev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a couple pieces of coverage of him in Bulgarian sources, though not that much, but he's a youth athlete and his only medals are in youth weightlifting. WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 29 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) 13:42, 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 American Hotel and Lodging Association. Missvain (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Hotel & Lodging Educational Institute[edit]

American Hotel & Lodging Educational Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"a nonprofit member benefit of the American Hotel and Lodging Association." I'm not suggesting even a merge or redirect, because this is material relevant only for their own members, and belongs on their web site, not in a general encyclopedia . As would be expected,, thee are no reliable 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 11:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable Dexxtrall (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - founded in 1953 and has some good sources. Part of the American Hotel and Lodging Association too. Atlanticatticus (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's affiliated with Cornell, Michigan State and UNLV, too, but that doesn't make it notable. No reliable secondary sources on the article to show notability, wouldn't expect to find any. This group simply provides a group of industry certifications (eg Certified Hotel Executive or CHE). They hold no legal significance and really are more used as marketing (eg General Manager Joe Foo, CHE). I hold three of them and spent maybe three hours acquiring all three. Can't see any reason this group would be noted in the general press. 174.212.228.12 (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article has some merit and is worth keeping, but it should be merged with the article on its parent organization, the American Hotel and Lodging Association. ABT021 (talk) 15:37, 15 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) 00:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grimsby Red Wings[edit]

Grimsby Red Wings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as unsourced/with notability concerns for almost a decade, my WP:BEFORE search only brought up an obituary claiming the club benefited from Canadian players during the Second World War. I did a historical source search with no hits but that didn't include many English sources. Sending to AfD in case anyone can find sources I haven't been able to, otherwise delete, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found this reference but given that the team has been inactive a couple of times with different names for different active times, I am not sure you can claim it is the same team. My search for reference to meet WP:GNG did not find enough to support notability for any of the 3 versions of this team. Jeepday (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:56, 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. Consensus that it doesn't meet NCORP Nosebagbear (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atossa Therapeutics[edit]

Atossa Therapeutics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restored WP:PROD. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. This source may pass GNG. The others are stats pages, press releases, or less than significant coverage. WP:BEFORE not turning up additional GNG passing sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article had been cleaned of some previous promotional text, but I am seeing just the description of a company going about its business, supported by routine coverage. The Simply Wall St posting mentioned in the nomination, I think falls short of the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH. Such coverage as I'm seeing is more about testing of their Endoxifen product (any coverage of which should fall under medical considerations here), but I am not seeing the level of company-specific coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor DC Comics characters. Obvious consensus not independently notable. While nom did specifically advise against redirection, the general consensus of discussion is that there is a good target. Currently, it's not there, but with the preservation of history, hopefully it will be added Nosebagbear (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptor (character)[edit]

Disruptor (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Found a passing mention of the third disruptor in an article about the Terror Titans, but nothing substantive. Term is generic, so a redirect is not appropriate Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:23, 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 Withdrawn. Missvain (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proverbs commonly said to be Chinese[edit]

Proverbs commonly said to be Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the topic of Chinese proverbs is, of course, notable (and I may even try to create such an article myself), this weirdly titled and unreferenced WP:ESSAY/WP:OR mess featuring an unreferenced template from 2010 needs to go. (WP:TNT, etc.). Related to this, the weird disambig-like mess at Chinese proverb should also go (WP:SPEEDY?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC) PS. Please note that the article has been significantly expanded since the nomination. The nominated version looked like this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, WP:OR CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Folk etymology. Made more sense in 2008, but was always original research. Related, Chinese proverb should probably redirect to Chengyu. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect ideally to Chinese Proverb which could be cleaned up into a proper disambiguation page containing both Xiehouyu and Chengyu. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chinese Proverb, maybe a section "Attributed to be Chinese" (not a good name, but I can't think of a better one right now). Wilh3lmGo here to trout me if I do a stupid 15:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A section on a non-existent page? That makes no sense. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just ridiculous and unencyclopedic. A redirect would only make sense if this were a plausible search term, which it clearly is not. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would turn this article inside out and make the subsection the main topic, and then rename to chinese proverb, deleting the pointless redirect to WikiQuote that is currently there. The "Authentic Chinese origin" is the real meat, and the "commonly said to be Chinese" is a minor sub-topic, if that. It is the edit history currently at chinese proverb that is of no use, containing nothing but redirects, cross-wiki or to List of Chinese proverbs. This edit history could actually be turned into something, with a bit of renaming and refactoring, and might well have begun at chinese proverb, and started out the right way out, had that mess not been there since 2003 when this was created in 2005. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G, Bottom line, this is a notable topic, but nothing here is rescuable. Well, some of this may be true, but it still requires verification. For what it's worth, I've added this topic to my 'to do' list. Also, just in case anyone cares, some of my Korean students are trying to write an article on Korean proverbs (sandbox draft) and could use friendly feedback (I've already given them mine). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that there's stuff here that's rescuable, and I'd rename and refactor right now if chinese proverb weren't in the way. I already found one interesting source that lists Chinese books of Chinese proverbs that could be used to expand, although I wouldn't be able to type their Hanzi titles in myself. I'm leery of making use of admin delete-and-move tools in an AFD discussion. I'll ask for a {{db-move}}. Uncle G (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Uncle G:, if you can provide a link to the source you found, my mobile device should be able to input the titles in Hanzi. I'd be interested and willing to help build out the article we intend to expand. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look for where I've put {{lang|zh|&zwnj;}} in the wikitext. Sources with the Hanzi are in the article, which is now the right way out. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescuable, but why to Chinese Proverb and not Chinese proverbs. Iknow we usually use th singularform, but it sounds strange here. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Chinese proverbs per Uncle G's and DGG's suggestion. Following today's expansion by Uncle G, there's clearly enough content here to warrant an article. Daß Wölf 16:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. I have removed an unreferenced section (I trie and failed to find sources for this). Please note that the article is now completely rewritten - it contains no content it had when I nominated it, outside the categories and templates :> The article has been effectively WP:TNTed and written anew, so this AfD is effectively moot. I fully support renaming to "Chinese proverbs", if the closer feels like doing so, otherwise a technical RM may be needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the first two sentences of the current article were there when you nominated it. Ironically, the second sentence turned out to be directly verifiable from a source that I found — its first page, no less. ☺ Almost all of the stuff below Special:Permalink/1008865890#Authentic Chinese origin is still there. I said that there's stuff that was rescuable, and that the article was inside-out. Uncle G (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is no longer the unsourced article that was nominated for deletion, but a completely different one. Having been kept, it could be moved to Chinese Proverb(s). Seems to me it is lacking a section on "Confucius he say", but that might need a lot of policing. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:22, 13 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 Voices (American band). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah! (Voices song)[edit]

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah! (Voices song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG. While the song charted, there does not appear to be significant coverage on it from third-party, reliable sources to justify a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. You said in your nomination that it charted, which is the very first point in WP:NSONG, so I'm not seeing how it fails. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read WP:NSONG, it says that charting may indicate notability. It does not say that absolutely does. Notability is more so tied to significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blogs are the only thing I found. Some of you don't kow how to read, regarding charting "Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were saying that AllMusic was not a blog, indicating it had more than the mention of the song, it doesnt have a review of the song. Proving the existence of a song doesn't guarantee it a article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I guess. ("Vote" now changed to "Userfy" per my comment below.) There really doesn't seem to be anything at all written about this song, that I could find. The Discogs and AllMusic entryies are just bare listings. I guess the question is whether proof of existence is sufficient to carry an article that was in the Billboard top 100. Maybe... but (FIWI) we don't have a guideline saying so, and "top 10" or "top 40" might be a better standard, and rather than separate articles for every charting song it might be better to have a different way to handle these, lists or what have you. Herostratus (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's how you feel, then I suggest you initiate a discussion to change the rules of WP:NSONG, rather than suggesting to delete an article that passes the guideline in its current form. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not pass the WP:NSONG guideline. As I have already said above (and as MarioSoulTruthFan has already said above), charting may indicate notability, and notability is established by proving that the song has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. The guideline is very clear on this. I do not see any evidence that this song has received significant coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, and even if it did, Wikipedia:Notability (music) (which NSONG is in) is a guideline (=suggestion). It's an important and often-followed one, true, but right at the top it says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I just don't think that every song that is gets in the Billboard top 100, if there's nothing much written about it, rates an article. I do think than any song that reaches that top 10 should rate an article, even if there's nothing much written about it. Even top 40 would be possibly reasonable. My common sense tells me that below the top 10 (or top 40), it should probably go in a list. We do have many Billboard list articles (List of Billboard Hot 100 top-ten singles in 2021, List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s. "List of Billboard top 100 singles of [year]" would be a reasonable article IMO (altho it would be a long list, easily over 1,000 entries I suppose, and might also get deleted). So, if somebody wants to make that article (starting as a stub I suppose) and put this song in it, and keep the song name as a redirect to that article, that is a solution I would support. The entry could include the artist, songwriter, peak postition, and maybe label and producer, which all we really have in the article anyway. Thus I now support Userfy to save the material for this future article. Herostratus (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not instead redirect to the Voices (American band) article where the information on the song and its chart performance can be shown and supported through citations? This song is already in a table there, and if that article ever gets expanded, I would imagine that the song would also be discussed in the prose. If this article gets redirected, I would imagine redirecting it toward the group article would be more helpful to readers than a Billboard list? Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, redirect. Most deletions should leave a redirect behind, of course. Apparently this is often not done, which is silly, but I can't help that. If the article does get flat deleted (or userfied), just make a new redirect under the same name, that's perfectly legit. Herostratus (talk) 18:08, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Riley[edit]

Sheldon Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a model and contestant in singing competitions that does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the nominee failed to do a before check prior to this nomination. The article is in definite need of improvement, sure, but the artist is definitely notable (despite not being well known). Sean Stephens (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you’ve found sustained in depth coverage in reliable independent sources could you add it to the article please? The Rolling Stone one as the only one that looked decent in the article and I didn’t find anything else as solid. Mccapra (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: Here are a couple I found [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], including this Billboard article also (apologies if there are any here that are already in use, I haven't checked). I will aim to improve the article later today when I have the chance. As anyone tried pinging the original author of the article? Sean Stephens (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another Billboard article also. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these I’ll take a look. The article creator was a blocked sockpuppet but the main contributor was notified, yes. Mccapra (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is what I make of these sources:
  • 1. Doesn’t load for me I’m afraid.
  • 2. This source is in the article. I don’t think this can be treated as a reliable source. It describes itself as “Talent Recap is created and run by fans, for fans.”
  • 3. Same source as 2.
  • 4. Also in the article. This is an interview with him, not a piece independently written about him.
  • 5. Also in the article. Independently written, but basically tells us what a fan said in Twitter (that Riley had previously entered contests) so not very substantial and really part of the publicity froth generated by the show.
  • 6. A passing mention, not in depth coverage
  • 7. Passing mention.
  • 8. (Billboard piece). Yes, independent, but what does it tell us? That Riley got three yeses from the judges and made it out of the auditions in AGT.

This is all run of the mill coverage for talent contest singers. There are thousands of artists who have this kind of coverage. In fact Riley doesn’t have great form in contests as the article describes. Coming third in AGT was by quite some way his best result. To me the Rolling Stone article is still the only solid piece of independent reporting about his artistic work rather than chatter about who he’s going out with, fancruft or stuff that is really publicity associated with the tv show. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSICBIO. More sources are needed but insufficient reason to delete the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks for finding those. One is an interview with him and the other repurposes the same jnformation in non interview format. I agree they carry some weight but I still don’t think this passes WP:MUSICBIO. Mccapra (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This getting a bit desperate now. You’ve added his role in a school play and a table which shows two singles that never charted. Mccapra (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The school play is part of his Personal life, which describes his upbringing. I've seen such content in other articles about performers. As for the table for two non-charting singles, see here: it was already in the article when you nominated it for deletion on 23 April. My first edit on this article, on 11 May, was almost three weeks later, I did not add that table.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes my apologies I was wrong about that - not sure how I got that idea. Mccapra (talk) 04:15, 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 12:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ornellas[edit]

Daniel Ornellas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-time poorly sourced BLP, fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage. The only real claim to notability is that he is a member of Tree63, so I suggest redirecting to Tree63 per WP:BANDMEMBER. Lennart97 (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 07:59, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Ibrahim (politician)[edit]

Abbas Ibrahim (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Lacks sources. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep member of parliament, minister and speaker of the constitutional majlis. Mccapra (talk) 09:30, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ezzat (boxer)[edit]

Mahmoud Ezzat (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of notability, short article, lacks sources Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:59, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abass Ibrahim[edit]

Abass Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Three sentences in the whole article. Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know what the sourcing requirements on the Arab project are, but there are only two in his article there. I could not find any sources, but I think the problem is that I was looking for the subject on Google in English and we have a Saudi performer and most of the press would likely be in Arabic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep three RIS found with a fairly cursory search 1, 2 and 3. Mccapra (talk) 09:40, 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 merge to Đuro Živković. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient mode[edit]

Ancient mode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic, sourced entirely by primary sources authored by the inventor of this musical scale. nearlyevil665 10:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 10:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As already being told on your talk page - 3 Minutes after creation nominate for deletion is somewhat by far too quick. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost entirely unsourced article. Just because someone says a thing is a thing doesn't make it a thing. Fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Djuro Zivkovic. I find the topic quite interesting, but it seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM. Batmanthe8th (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on these grounds:
    • Procedural keep, as the article was nominated for deletion three minutes after being published. Without first engaging the author. That's -- not how we build an an encyclopedia, folks. Procedural keep on grounds of not wanting to encourage this sort of thing.
    • On the merits, well, Đuro Živković is pretty notable I guess, Britannica has a meaty article on him where they say he's "among the ranks of distinguished 20th- and 21st-century composers". Both centuries. That's... impressive, and so the presumption would be things that are quite important to his work should be covered somehow. The article says "used by composer Djuro Zivkovic in his compositions since 2004", so that sounds pretty important.
    • So, we want to cover the subject, if we possibly can. So, rather than saying "How can we find an excuse to erase this article", we want to be saying "How can we find a way to keep this article?" We need sources. I don't see any right off, and that's not good, but that doesn't mean they're not out there, and if we delete the article, we're never going to find sources are we. Tag it for sources and come back in six months or a year and see what's what then, mnmh?
    • You could merge it into Đuro Živković's article I suppose. It kind of doesn't matter. But the creator decided to do it as a stand alone, it really six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other, so let's not gainsay and micromanage the editor who did the work. Merge would be OK I guess if we want to be busybodies and not trust our editors when it doesn't help anybody. Herostratus (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The issue of fast nomination has already been addressed. Regardless, the author has had 9 days to address the lack of reliable sources, yet has not done so. I don't see why we should give this subject a six-month pass to pass notability wherein hundreds of others are not given the same treatment every day because they lack sources and are not given a slack because of a perceived inherited value of a sort. I'm OK with a merge. nearlyevil665 04:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, them maybe a merge is a fair compromise. I mean your points are well taken. Herostratus (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is the simple answer here. If this subject were indeed notable, we would see significant coverage from reliable sources on it. The editor couldn't find them and neither could we. Rogermx (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as I believe this article would do better Đuro Živković because of its lack of sources, instead of it being a standalone article. I am concerned about what will happen to it if it does get merged, though. The "Quality" section is the only section in this article that I think could stay in the Đuro Živković article without being challenged and/or removed. The rest is just unsourced material, which will probably remain with a maintenance tag on it until someone gets around to removing it or adding sources (which I don't really see happening, seeing how we couldn't find any). I don't think this article should be deleted if it can be helped, but I do think we should be aware of what we want to be merged, and why, instead of dumping some unsourced content in an existing article. HoneycrispApples (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, "merge" doesn't necessarily mean to merge all the into the other other article. You use your judgment, and I suppose "This material i not ref'd and frankly is quite unlikely to be it seems, so I judge not to include it" is reasonable. I have no idea who does the actual merge when an AfD is close as "merge" or what the procedure is? Would like to be educated if anyone knows. Herostratus (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:MERGE, it looks like any editor can do the merge if an AfD discussion closes as such. Merges are based on consensus, of course, not just the opinion of a single editor, usually that consensus comes from a merge discussion. Since this is an AfD discussion, consensus about what to merge will come from here instead. Here's an essay I found relevant to this: WP:M?. Essentially, we need to establish what we want merged, otherwise whoever's merging this will probably just get confused. So to any other editors who voted to merge here, now would be a great time to voice what you want merged. I believe we could merge the "Quality" section, along with some sentences from the rest of the article for context, but I'm willing to change my opinion, of course. HoneycrispApples (talk) 18:12, 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 merge to Serbian Progressive Party. Little discussion, but nobody wants to keep this, and we don't usually keep "X controversies" articles. Sandstein 16:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SNS-related allegations of crime and corruption[edit]

SNS-related allegations of crime and corruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article hasn't been updated for months and most of this information is already mentioned on the Serbian Progressive Party's page, more information will be added too since the SNS page is still being constructed. Vacant0 (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:29, 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 keep. I'm going with keep right now. Here is what I suggest:

1. Improve article OR 2. Propose a merger OR 3. Purpose a redirect

On the appropriate page. Missvain (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid roller coaster[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hybrid roller coaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my opinion, the key issue here is that while various amusement parks describe their roller coaster rides as "hybrid roller coasters", this term does not appear to be used independently of those businesses. This article is significantly different enough to the one deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hybrid roller coaster in 2012 to avoid outright WP:G4 deletion. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you or anyone else have an archive of the original deleted article? Also, what do you exactly mean by "used independently of those businesses?" Do you mean by just the parks themselves or the general public? 🎵SingingZach🎵(talk) 12:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:SingingZach I suggest you ask a friendly administrator to WP:Userfy#Userfication of deleted content the old article to you. Coasterpedia sums it up, I think. See Coastercritic too. I note that there is a category for Hybrid rollercoasters in wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Reposting from article talk page in response to SingingZach). This is further evidence that this page should be deleted. You are trying to make an encyclopedic article out of enthusiast jargon. So far all of you come up with for sources are glorified enthusiast blogs and RCDB entries. The only news source from WKSU likely got that information from Cedar Point's press release. CP marketing jumped on the chance to have a new coaster type — the "Hyper Hybrid," but marketing departments are even worse sources than enthusiast blogs. There isn't enough information to make this an encyclopedic article. I applaud your effort, but I also encourage you to consider not putting any more time into this.—JlACEer (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:JlACEer Hold your fire. I didn't use these as sources. I was suggesting lines of research and inquiry. Chill. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that — that is why a prefaced the entry with (repost). I do think the information is relevant enough to be included here. I thought it would be clear enough that it is not directed at you — I will modify the lead in.—JlACEer (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No harm, no foul. Sorry for the overreaction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I probably couldn't do anything else here anyways. What is featured here is about all that I could find in my limited research. Unfortunately, nobody really explains well what a hybrid is, and that's even getting past the lack of reliable sources. I was hoping that someone else may have more to contribute but I'm thinking not. At this point we should wait for the review process to conclude and leave it at that. At worst it could be just a brief mention on what a hybrid coaster is elsewhere. 🎵SingingZach🎵(talk) 14:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Coasterpedia is just another encyclopedia about amusement parks and rides, and I wouldn't think that would be a reliable source. And yes I checked for where they got their information and all they listed was RCDB. Which we came to the conclusion that that isn't a reliable source as they fail to define what a "hybrid" is. 🎵SingingZach🎵(talk) 14:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. If not kept, then Merge to Roller Coaster. It would be a worthwhile addition there. It is barely mentioned there, and the article is short on sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, if this article ends up being deleted. Cause that is looking likely. 🎵SingingZach🎵(talk) 15:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do invent terms for article titles from time to time, when an article is called for but we don't have a good name. It's not unheard of, so it's not a deal killer. As for WP:GNG, we don't want to be blindly rulebound -- we don't have an article in TIME magazine to point, but we have enough smaller refs to make a nice, plenty-long article, with most everything ref'd, which is on a perfectly encyclopedia subject, and which some non-negligable number of people are going to be interested in, and that's what matters. What's not to like? Herostratus (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect To the main roller coaster article roller coaster. Since there doesn't seem to be anything especially unique or in-depth enough about the this article to warrant a fork from the main one. Plus, from what I can tell the sourcing is extremely lacking anyway. As it looks like there's only single usable source from a news outlet that likely created their article off of a press release. Other then that, all I'm seeing is blog posts, primary sources, and a few extremely trivial mentions in books about roller coaster design that are not directly about hybrid ones.
It's also worth mentioning that the term "hybrid roller coaster" was created by the roller coaster community, not the parks that originally built them. According to the roller coaster article Six Flags just called their "hybrid roller coaster" a wooden one. So, having an article about hybrid roller coasters as if they are a technical term that used to describe a specific, widely accepted and built type of roller coaster is seriously going into original research territory. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A section for "hybrid roller coaster" has already been added to roller coaster, so possibly just a redirect is all that is needed here. Unfortunately, nobody can officially define what a "hybrid coaster" is anyways, partially due to what you said as the term was coined by the roller coaster community. I think that the quick mention their is all that should be done with this topic for a long while unless very substantial sources come out about what they really are. Although I find that very unlikely. 🎵SingingZach🎵(talk) 15:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to roller coaster. I can confidently say unlike the time of the first AfD (2012), the term hybrid roller coaster is starting to become terminology in mainstream mediums. However, at this time, I don't think there is adequate material about the term and type itself even if there are more and more roller coasters being classified as such. I do favor using the terminology so long as it's transcribed in reliable sources, but not confident in an article by itself just yet. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind a merge, but just to point out that Roller coaster is 44kb now and WP:SIZERULE (granted, just a guideline, but still) says that while at <40kb the length is fine, at >50kb it's time to start considering spinning off parts into separate articles. So merging this in, and with normal development and growth of the rollercoaster article over time, pretty soon we'll be maybe spinning it back out again (or something else anyway). Herostratus (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As things currently are there's a lot in the roller coaster article that could be chopped out because it isn't referenced and probably won't be or is just completely unnecessary (referenced or not). So I doubt there will be a need to spin it off any time soon, if at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:43, 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 delete. czar 05:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amparo Heights Road[edit]

Amparo Heights Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable road (fails WP:GEOROAD). The only source used, [74], does not explicitly mention this road in any way, so I suspect WP:OR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claim that this is a major road worthy of encyclopedic inclusion is not supported. --Kinu t/c 05:45, 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. czar 05:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Abu International HAM Radio Club - MHRC[edit]

Mount Abu International HAM Radio Club - MHRC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Phuzion (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Phuzion (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely nothing of notable value for this organisation. Ajf773 (talk) 09:03, 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) 00:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damibliz[edit]

Damibliz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article does not meet GNG or MUSICBIO. The awards listed are not notable. The author of the article may have a conflict of interest with the subject seeing as the infobox image is listed as 'own work'. The Sokks💕 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Sokks💕 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Sokks💕 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. The Sokks💕 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Sokks💕 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he’s not notable at all. Also I believe the awards were just made up by the author. Fails WP:MUSICBIO -Xclusivzik (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of streams on Spotify. He has fans. Quite a new artist. scope_creepTalk 19:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Question Hey scope_creep, I want to clarify something about your !vote per a conversation I had here. It was stated that having a large fanbase/cult following is especially useless in determining notability, especially for Nigerians. What are your thoughts? Also, do number of streams and having fans contribute towards MUSICBIO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSokks (talk • contribs) 2021-04-29T23:35:57 (UTC)
    • Comment — @TheSokks, please start by learning how to sign after each entry you make. See WP:SIGN. Now, it is your prerogative to challenge a rationale for a keep or delete !vote but what you may not do is be POINTy about it. The question you asked @scope_creep was a subtle attempt to be POINTy which constitutes disruptive editing and is a quintessential example of arguments to avoid in an AFD. See WP:ATA. So please do not do such next time. Celestina007 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable Dexxtrall (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A note for the closing admin - I want to point out that per my rationale, there may be undisclosed COI/paid editing going on here because at the time of nomination, the infobox image was listed as 'own work' credited to the author. It was conveniently changed to this after this AfD was opened. The image was coincidentally uploaded to Flickr on same day it was uploaded to commons. AGF but this was a suspicious move. The editor that voted keep has also not substantiated on their keep vote as number of Spotify streams and having 'fans' do not contribute to MUSICBIO and no RS point to any of the criteria in MUSICBIO. The GNG is also not met. The Sokks💕 (talk) 03:04, 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 05:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi cricket team in Pakistan in 1986[edit]

Bangladeshi cricket team in Pakistan in 1986 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A search seems to suggest this was just a warm-up tour where no matches with official status were played with matches against club/regional sides in Pakistan rather than the full Pakistan team. Not really seeing any GNG related coverage as most of that relates to the Asia Cup. No suitable redirect target to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 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. czar 05:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deccan Blues cricket team in Bangladesh in 1989–90[edit]

Deccan Blues cricket team in Bangladesh in 1989–90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tour, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable cricket tour. An internet search doesn't bring up any coverage that would pass it for GNG. No suitable redirect to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 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 keep. There are four editors in favor of keeping the article and two in favor of deletion, and both votes for deletion ( including the nominator) were made before the discovery of reliable sources by Caponcrush. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nielsen (CEO)[edit]

Mark Nielsen (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG lacks reliable sources Articuno appears (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Insufficient independent reliable sources to show notability. References give in the main just passing references to him. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Articuno appears (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has indepth coverage in reliable Australian websites and news magazines. As per WP:THREE, these 3 sources talks indepth about the subject. [75] [76][77]. I am also adding few more additional sources [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] etc. Caponcrush (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These aren't journalistic articles about him, they are a promotional piece by the magazine that gave him an award, and a piece where he is quoted on a different subject - i.e., it is not about him. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems to have some indepth coverage to qualify for GNG. Purosinaloense T/K 12:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Media Week and CEO Magazine have in-depth coverage. Business Insider and NY Post are very notable publications. He passes WP:GNG.Webmaster862 (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 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. czar 22:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diliman Preparatory School[edit]

Diliman Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All that's in the article is two primary sources and a dead link. Plus, the only stuff that came up in a WP:BEFORE when I looked were some name drops in books that mentioned people who go to or work there. Along with a few local news articles about their swim team. There's nothing from what I can tell that would pass WP:NORG though. Which is the relevant notability guideline since this a private school. Maybe WP:GNG, but barely (if at all). It doesn't really matter if it does or not anyway though since the GNG does not work for private schools anymore. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 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 12:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Seton School[edit]

Elizabeth Seton School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is clearly promotional, full of original research, and there is a serious lack of adequate sources on the topic. Just some run of the mill name drops in school directories. So from what I can tell there is no guideline based reason to keep the article and multiple reasons to delete it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Mine Bay Beach[edit]

Silver Mine Bay Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable beach. Claims of notability include a man drowning in waters near the beach, a beach house catching fire, and a red tide, oil spill, and shark sighting all contributing the the beach being closed. These run of the mill news stories lead to some mention of the beach in reliable sources but are in no way significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Article creator disagrees so bringing here to resolve dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 14:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nom is to delete on the basis of insufficient notability, there remains no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources Polyamorph (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I have found reliable sources regarding the improvements and the number of visitors visiting the beach. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I saw this in the AFDs and thought to myself "Nah, that couldn't be the beach on Lantau". Well, blow me down. HK isn't globally renown for it's beaches (compared to food or financial sector at least), but it's basically a cluster of tropical islands. Conde Nast lists it in Top 19 HK Beaches. I think it was one of the major tourist attractions to do on Lantau Island besides seeing the big Buddha and the ferry service made it really easy to access from the (HK) island. While I can see the benefit of merging it with Mui O, I think the village and the beach are distinctive enough entities in this case. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That article is not significant coverage, simply giving the location and dimensions. As to tourist attractions on Lantau, I really don't think this beach ranks above Disneyland or even Tai O fishing village, which is probably why it isn't discussed in detail in multiple sources. There isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article, and it can be perfectly well covered in the two article mentioned above.----Pontificalibus 12:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I support merge to Mui Wo. Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline merge. The beach is named for its silver mine which was in Mui Wo in the 19th century. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does the fact that beach is named after a mine in Mui Wo make it independently notable from the town? Polyamorph (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting: in WW2, the beach was the site of Japanese war crimes in which the army was "rounding up villagers and bringing them down to the beach at Silver Mine Bay where several were killed...". Doesn't name which villages, but the beach seems to be of historical and legal relevance. in "Hong Kong's War Crimes Trials" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estheim (talk • contribs) 07:56, April 29, 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, but the reference is still not even close to establishing independent notability of the beach. Polyamorph (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources you list are far from significant coverage and several are dubious in terms of reliability - see comment by Sun8908 who already addressed some of the chinese sources. Polyamorph (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources only have a few sentences of coverage (the guidebooks I mentioned in the seventh bullet point in my list of sources) so are not significant coverage. But there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources through the Condé Nast Traveler review and the newspaper articles retrieved through Hong Kong Public Libraries to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Conde Nast Traveler seems to be some opinion piece / interview, it's not exactly the best quality source. How are the newspaper articles evidence of significant coverage? They just appear to be a bunch of Chinese newspaper cuttings and there is no indication to me, not being fluent in chinese, how much relates to the actual beach. The burden of proof then lies with you. Polyamorph (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Condé Nast Traveler article is a review of the beach from a reputable publication. The journalist chose to write the article in the style where she poses a list of questions and answers the questions herself. This beach review in a travel magazine is a high-quality reliable source. The newspaper articles retrieved through Hong Kong Public Libraries are all about the beach and provide significant coverage of it. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A high quality source for a tourist looking for a nice beach perhaps, but for wikipedia, which is not a travel guide, not so useful IMO. Polyamorph (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems apparent that the nominator doesn't actually want to delete this and so they are just forum shopping in bringing it here. The beach in question is one of the most popular in the area and there are numerous sources documenting this and related factors such as its geology and facilities. On a personal note, one of the most remarkable incidents at the HK Wikimania, was being taken on a hair-raising coach ride to the similar Shek O beach, where we were confined in a compound for several hours. The locals seemed to think that this was a great treat but I found it more reminiscent of a WW2 prison camp. Another inmate whispered to me, "It's like a vision of hell!" @Kudpung: may remember this too... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson I remember it well. After the bus ride we queued in line for two hours to get to the food and drinks sheds only to find that there was no food and drink left and it was time to trek back to the busses. It was the other one of the two organised evenings where food and drink was only enough for the WMF and their privileged guests. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for deletion because it clearly fails WP:GNG. That is NOT forum shopping. That said, I would support a merge on the basis of comments here. You speak of sources but provide none. Your visit to a different beach during Wikimania 2013 is wholly irrelevant. Polyamorph (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kudpung (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

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

The result was redirect to List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redline Networks[edit]

Redline Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Ltd. Essentially WP:1S. Fails WP:NCORP Kolma8 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 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 redirect to List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kagoor Networks[edit]

Kagoor Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Ltd. Essentially WP:1S. Fails WP:NCORP Kolma8 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 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 redirect to List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Advantage Ltd[edit]

Pacific Advantage Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Ltd. Fails WP:NCORP Kolma8 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Magic[edit]

Micro Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Ltd. Essentially WP:1S. Fails WP:NCORP Kolma8 (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peribit Networks[edit]

Peribit Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Essentially WP:1S. Fails WP:NCORP. Alternatively can place a redirect to List_of_acquisitions_by_Juniper_Networks. Kolma8 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 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) 00:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrar al-Najran[edit]

Ahrar al-Najran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR, lacks independent sources (both sources cite Iranian media outlets). No real proof that this group ever existed. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Norm. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to infobox purposes and whoo cares ,I found results here, here, and most importantly, here. Keep this page, there ae references, like the ones I put. Also, Mausebru (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that the "sources" linked to by Mausebru are a page for them on a wiki, bing search results which mostly show our article and articles from other wikis, and a reddit post, none of which are remotely reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovin' It[edit]

Lovin' It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG -- dylx (t | c) 14:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- dylx (t | c) 14:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- dylx (t | c) 14:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomJTZegersSpeak
Aura 16:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The artists's discography page mentions that the song has charted on the Oricon Singles Chart at number eight and the physican version has been certified Gold, however I could not find any evidence of charting here. Neither was I able to verify the certification from here. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 01:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this should be repurposed as a disambiguation page with links to the album that contains this track, Song Nation, and to Yours Truly (Ariana Grande album), which has a song with the same title. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have said redirect to its parent album, but after seeing it also completely unsourced, I'll just say delete. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:47, 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 merge to NJ Transit#Incidents. czar 04:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Ridgewood Junction Train Derailment[edit]

2007 Ridgewood Junction Train Derailment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With one exception, the entries in Category:Railway accidents in 2007 involved fatalities with extensive numbers of injuries; the other was for an incident that involved toxic cargo on a freight train. This incident had no deaths and no injuries and doesn't seem to have any lingering impact in the 14 years since it occurred. Nor do I see any other article that would be a target for a merge. Alansohn (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While one can understand the possible reluctance to include an article on something of such obscurity, it must be noted that the unique nature of the accident and the regarded local significance by certain individuals make this interesting incident worth recording. Furthermore, the response of NJ Transit at the time is important to contrast with the procedures of today and therefore help provide what I believe to be an interesting insight into the past of NJ Transit. If the issue is about a relevant article to merge it with, I can easily create a Ridgewood Junction article, but that would take some time to create. In the end, if the article is deleted I understand. --NJT5119 03:22, 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 Keep. (non-admin). brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feloni[edit]

Feloni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly unnotabe. At first I redirected the page to Coming Out Stories. Then I realized that it would be more appropiate to redirect the page to Felony, which is it's misspelling. The creator obviously disagrees. So I brought it here. Should it be deleted, kept, redirected to Coming Out Stories, or redirecred to Felony? brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep assuming reviews here are verifiable. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_May_7&oldid=1025368474"