Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 30	May 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Directive Records

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

WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS, WP:NCORP failure. WP:BEFORE search on Google News and books find no significant independent coverage on the company. "so and so notable person" released on this label can not establish notability per WP:INHERITORG. I see no credible indication of notability for the company itself. Graywalls (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the notability guidelines for companies as cited by the nominator. This company released records by a few notable bands, but has never received significant coverage as a company in its own right, and is only found in typical industry directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. Not a lot of notability as a company itself. JayzBox (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Missvain (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxiton

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

Fails WP:GNG. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Not notable, and all sources are primary. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7/G11 --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find any coverage addressing this company directly and in depth; clear WP:NCORP fail Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added few more contents to the Foxiton--Sanovepunchakunnel (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per CSD G11, fails WP:NCORP further CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable spam with only a few primary sources. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CommanderWaterford. EpicPupper (talk) 18:56, 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. Tone 06:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geykido Comet Records

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Lacks evidence of existence of multiple significant, independent, reliable sources on the company itself as required in order to meet WP:CORPDEPTH Graywalls (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with the nom's rationale. The company has some notable releases but it has received no coverage as an entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NCORP. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent published sources. I cannot see enough evidence of notability to warrant a standalone article. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:07, 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 speedy delete. Either a bad faith attempt to subvert AfD consensus or a genuinely misguided attempt to create a list. Either way, the list of players already exists elsewhere. No need to keep this open any longer givencthe opinion below Fenix down (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of FC Basel players (2)

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

Unnecessary, CRUFTY, and just a way to list unnotable players in one article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced the players are non-notable, but this isn't the way to present the information. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Spirig, which was the basis for this page's creation. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I had seen that. SportingFlyer T·C 16:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, this is absolutely not an appropriate way to present non-notable individuals. Kurt Spirig should be redirected to the main list, not kept in this roundabout fashion. Reywas92^Talk 07:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Nothing wrong with redirecting a person's name to a list of players (such as the established List of FC Basel players), but entirely inappropriate to create mini bios to bypass AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 08:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly an attempt to game the system and have pseudo-articles on non-notable players on WP by merging them into one article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, end around of existing list.--Mvqr (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge These players can be included in the current structure of the main list as they usually are; if the list becomes too long it can be split, as the list of Arsenal F.C. players was. Peter James (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 03:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. Griffith

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

Noticed this because this was tagged for sports notability with only a first initial, which was a red flag, but my research shows that he was not the head coach, but rather the team captain and quarterback: [1]. A Griffith was the left end in 1890 as well [2].

While we tend to keep head coaching articles for passing WP:GNG, this article both fails WP:GNG and appears to be based on an incorrect premise that he was the head coach and not the team captain. My assumption is that these were effectively the same thing at the time, but I don't think this is eligible for a stand-alone article: I'd suggest merging and/or redirecting the information, probably to the list of Franklin & Marshall coaches in the template, or to the football program generally. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say first validate the information and then decide. If it can't be validated, we have our answer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like our man here is Bruce Griffith (1867–1956). See https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76858279/evening-eagle/, ~~https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76858279/evening-eagle/~~, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76858230/obituary-for-bruce-griffith-aged-88/, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/23809993/bruce-griffith. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense! I found a Bruce Griffith in my search, but he was referenced in the context of a fraternity, not in a football sense, so I didn't list it here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the sources given above, none so far that I can see make the connection between this B. Griffith and the Bruce Griffith from Findagrave and the Evening Eagle. Perhaps it's in the first page of the latter article, as that one isn't given above (by accident I suppose). Even so, it doesn't look as if he was a notable headcoach, just like many other head coaches from this period. Fram (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've started to expand there article. Found another 1931 feature article that solidifies the Bruce Griffith, postmaster of Wichita, as the member of the Franklin & Marshall football team circa 1890. Between Griffith's college football exploits, work as a clergyman, military service, and civil service, I think he passes GNG, much like his F&M teammate and predecessor as captain, William Mann Irvine. It's unclear exactly whether Griffith was head coach or just captain of the F&M team in 1891 and 1892. Current day records on the F&M website credit him as both captain in 1892 and coach in 1891 and 1892; see https://www.godiplomats.com/sports/m-footbl/Career_Stats/yearandcoach and https://www.godiplomats.com/sports/m-footbl/Career_Stats/captains. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 1951 article sheds some light on F&M early captains doubling as coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not as a coach. The historical record (including this, this, this, and this) does not IMO support the assertion that Griffith was a "head coach." To the contrary, it shows that he was a student, player, and team captain during the 1891 and 1892 seasons. Many colleges (even major ones) did not have head coaches in the early 1890s, and team captains were the de facto team leaders. But captaincy is not the same as "head coach." I have encountered this situation before where college sports information departments, reporters, and Wikipedia editors, operating many decades after the fact, retroactively try to fill vacant "head coach" slots by inserting the names of the team captains. While referring to him as a head coach is not IMO historically accurate, Griffith does pass the GNG bar based on the coverage cited above and in the article (see also here and here). Cbl62 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what your search terms were? I only found a small number of results, and none directly listing him as "Bruce Griffith." I did only limit it to the years in which he played, though, thinking about it. Also, the article's been well improved and I no longer support deleting it, but it should be more football-orientated. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used griffith “Bruce griffith” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup/edit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the keep !votes seem to have the headcount, some of them are just vague waves at policy. Further discussion regarding the sources found and their applicability to passing GNG would be warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I agree on RandomCanadians previous argument for relisting, since then no new votes so give it another round.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian:, @CommanderWaterford:: this discussion should be closed as keep. User:Cbl62 and I made substantive keep arguments that were not "vague waves" at policy. Paul McDonald and Ortizesp tersely endorsed those arguments as there really wasn't much more to say. User talk:Fram's delete vote is based largely on two false premises: 1) the "connection" (or alleged lack there off), which has been clearly demonstrated by the sources and 2) the claim that "many other head coaches from this period" are not notable—it's rather rare that we've been have been unable to show notability for a college football head coach of any time period. User:SportingFlyer, who nominated this article for deletion, has stated that he no longer supports deleting it. SportingFlyer, perhaps, you'd like to withdraw the nomination? Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I don't understand the relist and hopefully someone will just close this as keep. My own personal preference would still be a redirect - I find WP:GNG marginal, I don't think he'd be notable if he hadn't captained F&M, which I'm not sure is notable regardless - but given the consensus, the improvement, and the fact my motivation for the AfD was being unable to clear the notability tag on my own, this should probably just be closed as keep already. My only request at this point is that we take care of the prose in the article stating he was the "head coach" as I've only seen him listed as captain, either by rewriting/explaining or citing a more contemporary article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:: Griffith is listed as a head coach in this 1951 article and here on the Franklin & Marshall website. That being said, some investigation in the status of all of F&M's captains / head coaches prior to Alfred E. Bull in 1896 warrants some more investigation. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I actually like that 1951 source, I'll use it to clean up the article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG based on the sources found by Jweiss11 and Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 21 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) 21:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SD Download Manager

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

The subject in question is simply abandonware that fails WP:NOTABILITY. No third-party sources could be located for this title. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per failure of WP:GNG. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how this is notable.--Mvqr (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note that this article was created single-handedly by Light25360 who did not contribute to any other pages: Special:Contributions/Light25360. Looks like a single-purpose account. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gevrik

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

Not a notable style of cheese, more likely a non-notable product made by a single producer. — HTGS (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cheese is notable being covered in the following books: Gourmet Cornwall and Great British Cheeses. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these books constitute WP:SIGCOV, and at this point I'm getting sick of your entitled attitude. First you DEPROD the page without comment, and now you leave other editors do the real work of finding, reading or adding these sources. I sincerely urge you to reconsider what you are adding to the Project by participating in this way. — HTGS (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage passes WP:SIGCOV in my view and so my !vote stands. See also WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and respect WP:NEXIST. My issue is not that you have broken any rules, but that you are being unhelpful in your edits.

Whether the coverage passes SIGCOV is a debate I'm happy to entertain, but at this point I think we need input from other parties. — HTGS (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should also add that I suspect this page has been created or kept for promotional or advertising purposes. That the tone of the article is promotional shouldn't matter in order to determine whether to delete, but I suspect this page in any form would serve only to promote a product that is otherwise non-notable. — HTGS (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created by Stevage in 2007 and since then it has been edited by other respectable, good-faith food editors such as DuncanHill and Northamerica1000. It's just a cheese like many others and it's not clear what HTGS does not like about it. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything against Gevrik, and I'm sure it's a delightful cheese that maybe one day I will have the pleasure of trying. That "it's just a cheese like many others" is certainly not evidence of its notability. My efforts here are to simply maintain an encyclopaedia. In keeping this project of ours, it is worth considering what should not be kept on Wikipedia, as well as what we do keep. Please check in with these guidelines on encyclopaedic content for more detail. — HTGS (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really remember the history, I probably added it for Articles for Creation, or following a red link or something. No particular interest or connection to British cheeses here. :) Stevage 22:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both references are dead links, and I cannot find anything about this cheese other than the fact that it exists. Does not meet WP:GNG in any way. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British cheeses#Soft and semi-soft cheeses, where it is already included. As stated by the nom, this appears to be a type of cheese made by a single manufacturer, and has very little coverage that establishes anything more than its existence. Of the two sources provided by Andrew above, the coverage in Great British Cheeses is not bad, and should definitely be added to the main British cheese list as a source. The "coverage" in Gourmet Cornwall, however, is literally just a four word description and a picture. Rorshacma (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, after thinking about it more, and seeing the arguments made after mine, I'm changing to straight up deletion. As the List of British cheeses article says itself, there are over 700 named British cheeses, and so there needs to be better inclusion criteria than "brief coverage in one OK source" to be listed there. Rorshacma (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, already exist at List of British cheeses#Soft and semi-soft cheeses , no need for separate article, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your and Rorshacma’s suggestion in theory, but what is the inclusion criteria for List of British cheeses? I would have thought they should be bluelinked? I found this page from Goat cheese, where too many non-notable cheeses were cluttering a list there (and a list that seemed better suited to cheese styles than cheese brands). It’s possible that a redirect would be a harmless resolution here, even if Gevrik were later removed from that list, but I thought I should raise the question anyway. — HTGS (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would think the List of British cheeses would be limited at least to those made by multiple cheesemakers, not a single producer's unique product that is moreover discontinued. Reywas92^Talk 23:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to O Fortuna (Orff). Redirect to preserve history after a merge has been performed Tone 06:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture

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

Excessive pop culture trivia - article relies heavily on unreliable sources such as IMDB, WhoSampled and YouTube links to songs that use it. Waxworker (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this is excessive pop culture trivia more than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the text and a few examples to Carmina Burana (Orff). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge This is one of the most (if not the most) widely used pieces of classical music used for dramatic effect in trailers and films, and probably not a single one of them uses it in any way that is relevant to the work itself. This list will be huge if anyone ever attempted to even make it a fraction of being complete (thankfully nobody seems to have expended the effort, or I'd feel very bad for them). Any actually relevant and notable examples can be merged into the article about the work itself. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, you'll find that, as always, that wasn't the idea. Sweeping unwanted content under the rug, out of sight, was the idea. See Special:Diff/309333638 and Special:Diff/309333686. As noted at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing the cycle is to split off the part of the article that one doesn't want, and rather than just blank the content, make a new article with all of the unwanted content elsewhere. Then someone, like you here, advocates merging back in when inevitably the "in popular culture" article gets nominated for deletion, and around the cycle we go again. Benzedrine in popular culture (AfD discussion) is now on its second trip around this loop, notice, after the first split-off article having been deleted through Amphetamine in popular culture (AfD discussion). It has happened many times over the years, including at Homelessness in popular culture (AfD discussion), Syrinx in popular culture (AfD discussion), King's Lynn in popular culture (AfD discussion), Tang in popular culture (AfD discussion), and elsewhere. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Merging, as suggested above, would be the worst outcome. As already mentioned here, none of the uses in popular culture has anything to do with Orff's work. Since splitting it, the main article has been free of these entries. That article doesn't need constant attention, and people can still indulge here in "I heard it today on xxx – I must add that to the article." I know this is not a Wikipedia policy based argument, but it's the better of two poor situations. BTW, and batting away WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, intitle:in popular culture shows this article is not alone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 08:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – trivia magnet. There are quite enough articles to handle the reception history of Carl Orff's "O Fortuna". Trivia that don't belong in a reception history narrative of another article should hardly get a separate article. O Fortuna discography might be viable for listing recordings, but not this trivia magnet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Consensus There is no consensus to delete the article at this time. ——Serial 08:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as it happens, I was reminded yesterday [yet again] that we do not have an article about O Fortuna (Orff) -- just Carmina Burana (Orff) and O Fortuna the poem. So I started one. I dare say that's the best target for this (but, as usual, I think the bar should be high for any "in popular culture" sourcing). Of course, as I type this, the material has been copied out of the article I started yesterday and pasted into the article about the poem without attribution, so that's a separate thing to talk about elsewhere and may again complicate the correct merge target. Hmm. Ultimately I don't think we should have an article for "in popular culture" trivia alone. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I merged whatever is salvageable from the Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture article to O Fortuna. Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture can now safely be deleted. No non-trivia information is lost. I don't understand Michael Bednarek's defense of the indefensible in their !vote above: they suggest to use Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture as a WP:CONTENTFORK for information that should not be in Wikipedia in the first place. What doesn't belong in Wikipedia, doesn't belong in either article: throwing cruft from one corner to another is hardly a solution for anything, and not in any guise a defensible solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is trending delete or merge, but some more discussion in the light of recent edits/article creation might make for a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:06, 1 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 1982 ICC Trophy squads#Bangladesh. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 03:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anwarul Amin

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable cricketer Rondolinda (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1982 ICC Trophy squads#Bangladesh Fails CRIN as he didn't play in an ICC Trophy final, only the tournament. A search bring up no real results for GNG coverage and his performances make it unlikely that he was covered offline in Wisden for example. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD as stated in a previous AfD for a similar player. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1982 ICC Trophy squads#Bangladesh per Rugbyfan22. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 11:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1986 ICC Trophy squads#Bangladesh. Tone 06:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nehal Hasnain

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him notable. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1986 ICC Trophy squads#Bangladesh Fails CRIN as he didn't play in an ICC Trophy final, only the tournament. In terms of GNG there's some results in a match report, but nothing really that would get him to GNG coverage. He did score a 50 but this probably isn't enough for offline coverage either. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD as usual. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khandker Nazrul Quader

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:V. Störm (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails CRIN as he didn't play any FC/LA matches. In terms of GNG there are again some passing mentions, but not enough for him to pass GNG. No suitable redirect as he didn't play any matches for a major side. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 05:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mainul Haque

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. No mention in the cited magazine. Störm (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable cricketer Rondolinda (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails CRIN as he didn't play in any FC/LA matches. There are some passing mentions of him but not enough for GNG coverage. No suitable redirect as he didn't really play for a specific major team at any point. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. And I am also inviting all of you to participate in this discuusion. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and reasons stated above. StickyWicket (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pom-o-sa Heights, Missouri

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable location. Newspapers.com brings up one auction announcement and 12 real estate listings. Searching brings up some HOA stuff for Pom-o-sa Heights but basically nothing else. Doesn't seem to be anything we can really significantly say about this place. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the article is literally a dot on a DOT map. The map legend classifies these dots as "other cities and towns". I tried looking for sources for this, also using "pommosa" given that that is the name of the road. I couldn't find anything actually documenting this subject in depth, although as per Hog Farm there are suggestions that this is simply a housing estate. This is legally recognized (given that people are buying and selling, and the land ownership is recorded), populated, and not notable. Uncle G (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 23:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete HOA subdivisions are not notable, no indication this is an exception. Reywas92^Talk 07:17, 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 keep. Tone 06:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infanta Alicia, Duchess of Calabria

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

The subject does not appear to be notable as an individual. She had little to no public role. She only got some coverage when she died, and that was routine. The entire article revolves around her place on the family tree of the Spanish royal family, but Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like a classic case of claiming notability by inheritance. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Spanish article does reveal some significant contemporary coverage of her wedding in 1936 by reliable sources, but I'm not sure that this counts for notability. Given her long life, it is possible that she received significant coverage in historical society publications that would be difficult to access and assess. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I see on es.wikipedia is genealogy. Could you please point out what strikes you as signifcant coverage? Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: It's references 9 and 10 in Wiener Salonblatt direct link and ABC respectively. I can't speak german and spanish so I can't evaluate whether these sources are sigcov. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretender to the throne of Navarre. This website isn't demosntration of notability itself, since it looks self-published, but it cites dozens of sources under Fuentes y bibliografía Furius (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That she was a pretender to something is pure rubbish. The website indulges in a fantasy; she never claimed any throne or associated herself in any way with the long-defunct Navarrese monarchy. The sources do not demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear case of deposed monarchy cruft. The throne of Navarre seems to have ceased to exist in 1841. There is not even a clear place that it would applies to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The significant aspect here isn't that she was pretender to Navarre, but that she was part of the royal family (and very close to succession, if Alfonso XII didn't have children, she would've been queen: [3][4]). Her funeral got significant coverage, even by the Daily Fail ([5]) as well as several reliable sources: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Coverage of her was not limited to her funeral, here is an in-depth piece from her birthday in 2015: [12] in El Mundo. or coverage from ABC in 2015: [13]. British royals much more removed from succession than Alicia are notable, she was very much part of the Spanish royals and has significant coverage.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem like decent coverage. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the oldest and senior member of the Spanish royal family. She have plenty of coverage by Spain mainstream news source (not about her funeral) such as Alicia de Borbón, the longest-lived Infanta who could have been Queen of Spain, The titles of the King's family from El Mundo, [14] from La Razón, [15] from ABC (newspaper). Moreover, a lot of coverage about her high-profile funeral ALICIA DE BORBÓN, THE WOMAN WHO COULD REIGN IN SPAIN, DIES with quote Doña Alicia was 99 years old, she was the last living aunt of King Don Juan Carlos and, for many, a living history of our country., The four Kings attend the funeral of Alicia de Borbón-Parma, which the Infanta Cristina has also attended with quote Given her condition as Infanta of Spain, she had the right to be buried in the Panteón de Infantes de El Escorial and She could have become Queen of Spain if Alfonso XIII and Victoria Eugenia, Felipe VI's great-grandparents, had not had children., Death of Infanta Alice, the dean of the gotha with quote King Felipe VI of Spain and Queen Letizia, King Emeritus Juan Carlos and Queen Sophie, Infantes Elena, Pilar and Margarita, his nephews and nieces, the princes of Bourbon-Sicilies, mourn the disappearance of a great lady., Disappearance of Princess Alice of Bourbon-Parma, The Infanta Doña Alicia de Borbón-Parma, aunt of Don Juan Carlos, dies at 99 years of age with quote The King has ordered that the coffin be veiled by the Royal Guard and covered with the flag of Spain and the last living aunt of King. The oldest Infanta in Spain., Alicia de Borbón, aunt of King Juan Carlos, dies and many many more. I think these multiple RS enough to meet WP:GNG.VocalIndia (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update The article has been significantly improved with additional reliable sources references by me. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry W. Kirby

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

I don't know if his company is notable, but he certainly isn't. There is no meaningful coverage of Kirby and all the sources are either interviews, passing mentions, press releases or outright not about the subject. TAXIDICAE💰 19:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus s Major GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I do believe it does need to be re-written, but if you research the guy he is legit.177.11.130.38 (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Seems well cited IMO. Why should it be deleted if he has good references? 223.235.151.116 (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin the two above IPs have each made a single edit, both edits being in this deletion discussion. WHOIS does not show that they are associated (Brazilian and Indian IPs), but still something to consider. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the sources in the article don not confer notability, maybe WP:TOOSOON Devoke water 10:08, 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. Tone 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Street Beat

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no indication of notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find better sources. All mention of the band I can find online seems to be as a footnote to coverage of its members; it's possible that offline or foreign-language sources can be found which demonstrate notability beyond what's in the article now, but as it stands, I don't know if this can (or should) be saved. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources emerge. jp×g 06:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some sources added but more are required. In theory this passes WP:BAND due to it being an "ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians". SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed you were able to find anything after I failed completely to do so, but I think it's still hanging by a shoestring here and I would want to see something additional before changing to Keep. jp×g 17:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting on the off-chance additional sourcing can be found. Currently the conensus is trending towards delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round here folks - anyone else see anything that would inspire them to change deletes to keeps? Or any other sourcing out there? Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is too skimpy and the article too poorly written to establish why this band is notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage isn't sufficient for the subject to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG, and does not indicate notability of the subject. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:12, 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 Draftify. You can find this article at Draft:Antonio Leone. Missvain (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Leone

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

Declined draft (see Draft:Antonio Leone) that was then copied and pasted over to main space. Hasn't played a game according to MLS Soccer, LAFC and Soccerbase so WP:NFOOTBALL isn't met. In my searches, I could only find routine and brief youth football coverage such as Medio Tiempo (routine announcement of being added to the first team squad, along with two other players), Futbol Total and a paragraph in ESPN. I don't think that it's a clear WP:GNG pass yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify keep in the draftspace until he makes his MLS/pro debut. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify by merging with the declined draft. Giant Snowman 21:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No starts, but many times on bench, most notably 2020 CONCACAF Champions League Final. I'm not sure I've seen a player other than a keeper on the bench for such a period, for so many major games, without a start. Might not meet GNG, but perhaps we should dig deeper. Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, HG player on the roster. Move to draft in case he does actually make an appearance in the pros.--Mvqr (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: You never know when he can make an appearance and start playing, then he will be notable. JayzBox (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Atkinson

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

The only Donald Atkinson that I can find in Wikipedia is Donald R. Atkinson. Perhaps move Donald R. Atkinson to Donald Atkinson? Leschnei (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search does show another (recently deleted) one named at Venta Icenorum, Bremetennacum, and Kathleen Mary Tyrer Atkinson - his wife. And different ones here: Marion Koogler McNay, 2002 Michigan Senate election. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And Don Atkinson’s are mentioned here: List of Water Rats episodes, Northern Football Netball League, 1996 British Columbia general election, Powell River-Sunshine Coast among others. JabberJaw (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have rescued the two who were recently commented out, by finding blue links for them, and added one more. The proposer says "The only Donald Atkinson that I can find in Wikipedia is Donald R. Atkinson.", but it was not hard to find blue links for the entries which they had themseles just commented out. PamD 07:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The archaeologist was an FSA and probably merits an article, though this says that "Atkinson received no Festschrift or any other kind of dedicatory volume while alive and no obituary and bibliography in any national journal after his death." so it might be a challenge. PamD 07:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's reasonably conceivable that these WP:red links have WP:potential, keep the anthroponymy article as is, instead of trying to short-circuit navigation to point to a single person who may not be the WP:primary topic. This is typically bad because it makes it harder for newbies to actually find a way to write more articles about the other people, and when they finally do that, we have to go through ambiguous links anyway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all meet criteria at MOS:DABMENTION, MOS:DABRL, MOS:DABENTRY. Boleyn (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MOS:DABMENTION allows entries linking to the most trivial of mentions. I've yet to understand if that is good or bad.—Bagumba (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At its current state this is a valid and useful disambiguation page. There may be a case for moving Donald R. Atkinson but that's a different process. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 02:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Grove High School

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

As per WP:NSCHOOL, schools "must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both". This one satisfies neither. Rusf10 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some references to establish notability. This school's events are regularly covered in the The Daily Ardmoreite and new stories about the school also appear on KXII. Stedil (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local news coverage exists for almost any school, it doesn't make it notable. As an organization schools have to meet WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, uour assertion thst schools must pass NORG is 100% false. A secondary school is considered notable if it meets either GNG or NORG. It clearly meets GNG, but I'd argue that a detailed article in the state's official paper of record wouldalso pass NORG. 174.212.228.209 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school also has articles about it published in The Oklahoman, which is a regional paper and thus satisfies AUD. Stedil (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not guarantee notability, it only creates a presumption. That presumption can be challenged (which is what I'm doing right here). If you want to argue that the school is notable enough for its own article using GNG, go ahead, but your still going to have to overcome the fact that only local sourcing has been provided. The Oklahoman is not regional, it is an Oklahoma-based newspaper for distribution within Oklahoma. Find a source outside of Oklahoma.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lone Grove, Oklahoma and create a section on education. About half this article would better be there anyway. The level of sourcing for this school, most of it from a hyper local paper and routine coverage, is just not enough to justify a free standing article when we have a much more staightforward way to cover the same topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing available, as with any other American high school. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lone Grove, Oklahoma per the recommendation of Johnpacklambert. Clearly there are sources out there that discuss it. The problem is that are from local sources and are made up of extremely routine coverage. Topics like them building a new gym aren't exactly notable subject material for the global audience of Wikipedia. That said, I think creating a section for it in the Lone Grove, Oklahoma article is totally fine compared to just straight deletion. Especially since the Lone Grove, Oklahoma article could use the content. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Lone Grove city article should have an education section. The problem with merging the article there is that the school district and the city are separate governing bodies with different boundaries. Compare the boundaries of the city here with the school district and its boundary map. The district boundary extends well beyond the municipal boundaries, both to the north and south, and there are certain parts of the city's boundaries east and west that are not in the district's boundary. While it is still my contention that the sourcing for the high school itself meets GNG, at the very least the school district that governs the school is definitely notable as an entity distinct from the city. Stedil (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what? As far as I know there's nothing that says a school can't be mentioned in a city article if that's where its located. Whatever the boundary of the school district it in is. Otherwise, I'd like to see a policy or guideline saying we can't do that, but I'm pretty sure there's articles about cities/towns/whatever all over the place that contain mentions of what schools are in those places. 13:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG and is sufficiently sourced to remain as a stand-alone article. Johnnie Bob (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears they have multiple state championships. Independent secondary sources should exist for them. I will try to find them when I get up tomorrow. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a source from The Oklahoman. The newspaper is based in Oklahoma City, and no sources consider this school as being in the Oklahoma City area. I'll try to find the third source, but the state championships make it unlikely that notability guidelines are not met. Per WP:AUD, we do not need sources from outside Oklahoma. Here is the source. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlitWays

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

Native advertising. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 18:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a lot of coverage, and I've never heard of it. Thanks. JayzBox (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article describes a start-up, supported by references to its funding announcements, etc., along with some bare name checks in articles about other firms. I am not seeing sufficient coverage of FlitWays / OnCabs to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:29, 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. Tone 06:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Miranda

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:ADMASQ scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I don't notice any significant coverage. -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 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. The article passes WP:EVENT as highlighted by participants in the discussion (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Conviasa Boeing 737 crash

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

This aviation incident article doesn't establish notability. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article doesn't have to establish notability. There are several sources in the article. I quickly found this that mentions how crash contributed to the airline being banned from the EU. This shows it was reported in the US. A loss of a 737 is not a minor incident, and I presume there is a lot more coverage in the Ecuadorean and Venezuelan. MB 03:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Within Wikiproject Aviation, a large airliner destroyed with loss of life is considered well past the threshold for inclusion. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article may be useful to journalists, bloggers, aviation enthusiasts. It does meet WP:EVENT. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a hull loss of a large aircraft with fatalities is notable even if it's not a passenger flight, see Atlas Air Flight 3591 and Delta Air Lines Flight 9570. Carguychris (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Calza

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

No effective reference for a BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. nearlyevil 665 18:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Maté

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

Fail of WP:GNG. Single reference provided is to a film review. WP:BEFORE doesn't show multiple secondary sources to attest for notability. nearlyevil 665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although several additional footnotes have been added to the article since the time of nomination, they still aren't good or notability-making ones. #1 is a news story about something else which happens to glancingly namecheck Aaron Maté's existence in the process of not being about Aaron Maté, which doesn't assist in making him notable. #2 tangentially verifies the existence of Maté's mother, without saying anything at all about Aaron to assist in making him notable. #3 is the film review mentioned in the nomination — which also just briefly mentions his name without being about him to any non-trivial degree, and thus doesn't singlehandedly make him notable all by itself. #4 is just a directory of his own contributions to a news outlet — but you don't make a journalist notable enough for Wikipedia by verifying the extent to which he's been the bylined author of media coverage about other things, you make a journalist notable enough for Wikipedia by verifying the extent to which he's been the subject of media coverage written by other people. #5 and #6 are both directly affiliated with the claim being made — the Izzy Award is not a notability-clinching journalism award that would pass WP:ANYBIO, but a student journalism award presented by a university journalism school, and the sources for it are that self-same university's own student newspaper and the self-published website of the award committee. But that's not how you turn any award into a notability claim — if general market media coverage about the award presentation is lacking, then an award is not a notability maker just because you can technically metareference the award to itself. So no, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more reliable sources to the article, including a direct link to the National Film Board of Canada's full-length documentary Discordia, and contemporaneous reports of his arrest during the Concordia University Netanyahu riot. It's my opinion that his notoriety from the Netanyahu incident (including being the lead subject in a documentary about the event), his significant contribution to Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine (as credited in the book) and his subsequent political reporting in the United States have made him a notable figure. The lorax (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not supported by sources in which Maté is doing the speaking or writing; it requires sources in which he is the subject that other people are speaking about in the third person. So among the sources that don't help: transcripts of radio interviews where he's the speaking guest and not the subject being spoken about; articles that briefly namecheck his existence in the process of being primarily about other things besides him; being mentioned in the acknowledgements/thanks section of a book that isn't about him; university student media; streaming copies of films that he happens to appear in, without any third party analysis about his appearance in the film to establish the notability of the film. Which basically wipes out all of the new sources you've added. Again: notability is not supported by verifying that he's done stuff, it's supported by showing independent third party analysis about the stuff he's done. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bearcat:, I've added additional sources which I think more explicitly establishes Maté's notability. I added a transcript of news segment referring to him and his arrest during the Netanyahu riot in the third person on CBC's The National, a college thesis paper analyzing his struggle over his Jewish identity on Concordia University's campus as seen in the film Discordia, and his most recent rise in influence, cited in Axios and MediaVillage.The lorax (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The National: Not a new source you've added since the last time I commented, but a source that I already addressed the last time I commented. It isn't coverage about Maté, but is simply a transcript of an interview in which Maté is doing the speaking.

Axios: Not coverage or analysis about Maté, but just briefly mentions his name in a very short blurb about something else.

MediaVillage: Not an actual reliable source media outlet, but explicitly describes itself in its own "about us" statement as a B2B marketing platform.

University student theses: do not help to establish notability at all.

We're not looking for just any web content you can find that happens to have his name present in it. We're looking for a certain specific caliber of coverage in which he is the subject of reportage and analysis, in a certain specific caliber of trusted media outlets and published books. And while you have used a few sources that satisfy the latter part of that equation (although most of the footnotes still don't), you've added no sources that satisfy the former part of the equation by being substantively about him. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Testifying to the United Nations would meet any reasonable "notability" requirement I would think. But in the case that it doesn't it seems this would meet your criteria of "him being the subject of reporting/analysis". https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/useful-idiots-taibbi-aaron-mate-russiagate-bombshells-1000646/. Unless you're referring to only biographical material or some sort of material chronicling his life story? Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The extent to which testifying to the United Nations constitutes a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which there has or hasn't been third-party journalism done about his testimony to establish that it was seen as a significant event by people other than his own public relations agent. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally believe Mate is notable for being a leader of the anti-Russiagate movement coming from the left. He is very commonly cited as such. The problem is that he has thus far not been the subject of significant coverage yet apparently. The argument for notability here would have to use the "loopholes" available to journalists at WP:JOURNALIST but I don't have the capacity right now to make that justification. Nweil (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person has been involved in multiple notable events. He was a major figure in the Concordia University Netanyahu riot (a significant event in Montreal history), a key subject in a major documentary (Discordia), has made widely recognized contributions in his reporting about Russiagate, is an Izzy Award winner (which I would argue is a major journalism award) and is widely cited by his peers i.e. Matt Taibbi.The lorax (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to source his win of an Izzy Award to the Izzy Awards' own self-published content about themselves, because independent media coverage of the Izzy Awards is nonexistent, then it isn't "major" enough to make its winners notable because they won it. Being a "major" figure in a riot is not a notability freebie just because it's possible to verify that he was there; it requires analysis of the significance of his role in it. And on and so forth: notability is not "did stuff", it's "received analytical coverage about the stuff he did", and none of the sources being shown here are analytical ones. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent media coverage of the Izzy is not nonexistent; see below. Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 23:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I included additional coverage from The Ithacan and the Ithaca Voice for Maté winning the Izzy Award, that should help satisfy notability requirements at least in that case. The lorax (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ithacan is the student newspaper of the university whose journalism school presents the Izzy Awards, so it isn't fully independent of the Izzy Awards for the purposes of making them a notability-securing award — and the Ithaca Voice is a hyperlocal "online-only nonprofit news site" (description copied directly from its own "about us" page on its own website!) based in the same small city where that university is located, so it's not really doing much more to help either since it's still just a local newspaper covering local news. If you want to make the Izzy Awards a notability claim that clinches Aaron Maté's inclusion in Wikipedia all by itself, you need to show that it gets broadly covered in sources on the New York Times/Los Angeles Times/Chicago Sun-Times/Atlanta Journal-Constitution tier of major daily newspapers, not just a university student newspaper and a community hyperlocal in the same small town. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, esp. #1. Testifying at the U.N. must bring some level of notability too. Wknight94 ^talk 12:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What sources in the article are verifying that he passes JOURNALIST #1? Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, esp. #1. Note (at least) references 17, 24,31, all of which demonstrate he is an important enough figure to have his opinion considered; the presence of even only his name shows the importance of his body of work. Also, respected enough to write an article for The Nation. Strong "keep." Although not "broadly" cited in major publications, the Izzy Award is cited by them on a PRN basis. The award seems to be significant enough to have been reported by NPR and NYT^[1]^[2] Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People get over GNG by being the subject that other people are writing about, not just by having his opinions soundbited in articles about subjects that aren't him. And neither of the citations you've offered here are notability-building coverage about the Izzy Awards — they're just glancing mentions of the Izzy Awards in coverage about David Sirota and Glenn Greenwald. Again, the notability test is not "the topic has had its name has been mentioned in the media" — it is "the topic has been the subject of substantive coverage about it in the media", and nobody has yet offered any sources that get either Aaron Maté or the Izzy Awards over that bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Even the sources cited acknowledge the rather fringe nature of Maté's work. For example, the Vanity Fair piece—quoted in the article for describing him as a "polite but dogged skeptic" who is notable for an interview he did—does so within the context of a full paragraph of commentators and bloggers "who were ignored for much of this stretch". The strongest argument for notability seems to be the documentary from 18 years ago, where he is one of three subjects. If that is significant enough, it might be added to the Concordia University Netanyahu riot itself, but the journalistic career of Maté doesn't seem to justify a standalone article. His two cited appearances—for about 90 and 180 seconds, respectively—on The Hill's morning TV and a smattering of one- or two-line references elsewhere do not seem to show that he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". The UN testimony is not a strong indicator in this case, either; the wording of the article makes it sound like a formal hearing or meeting of a UN body, but it was an Arria formula meeting. Accordingly, the only coverage of it seems to be from Maté himself on Grayzone plus a handful of other far-left sites. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re' "regarded as an important figure:" He is important enough to his peers to have his opinions widely cited. Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And where are the sources writing about him as a subject of coverage? Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why mainstream US media should decide what's on Wikipedia. He's been called in to speak for the UN for chrissakes, that shows that he's more notable than half of the journalists on wikipedia. The corporate media monopoly already has enough power, no need to insist that they should dictate wikipedia too. I'm even surprised about the suggestion, this is not the wikipedia I used to know and love. Iskube (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because firstly, if we exempted people from having to have media coverage, and instead allowed them to keep articles based on unreliable and primary and self-published sources, then we would have to keep an article about every single person who has a social networking profile on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or LinkedIn. And secondly, people have actually lied about themselves in their own marketing materials, in an attempt to get themselves included in Wikipedia on the basis of "passing" inclusion criteria that they didn't really pass — musicians claiming chart hits they didn't really have, writers claiming literary award nominations they never really got, and on and so forth — so the inclusion test for people is not the things he claims about himself in self-published sources, but requires independent verification in sources he didn't control. Notability, accordingly, is not measured by the things an article does or doesn't say, but by the depth and quality and reliability and independence of the sources that can or can't be cited to support the things it says. It requires independent analysis, not self-promotional claims, so it requires independent media coverage to verify that the notability claims are actually true. And no, this isn't different from the Wikipedia of yore, either — supporting notability with reliable sources has always been the rule, people just haven't always obeyed it. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, esp. #1. 198.167.198.158 (talk) 14:07, 23 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 Islam in the Arctic. (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic views on fasting in the polar regions

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

Written nearly entirely like an essay, no references to secondary sources for the absolute majority of the text. WP:TNT or integrate whatever can be salvaged into existing articles. nearlyevil 665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Islam in the Arctic as I proposed when this article was created. The creator took the merger template off. Mccapra (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mccapra but clean off the most text, having the major necessary part merged that serves the "question". Everything else seems off the table imo. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 22:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and will volunteer to do the merge if that’s the consensus. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the nominator I vote in favor of a merge. Your volunteering is much appreciated. nearlyevil 665 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Mccapra. Clearly an essay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:14, 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. Tone 06:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Maurin

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

Contested PROD removed for procedural reasons. Footballer that fails WP:GNG. Although the individual technically meets the presumption of notability set by WP:NFOOTY, there is no significant coverage of the individual. Additionally, as the individual has retired, they are unlikely to ever attain notability. Jay eyem (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is collegiate SIGCOV, local but front page of the L.A. Times - it appears he played in the collegiate championship. Mentioned numerous times throughout his Dallas Burn career in spite of his few minutes on the field, including [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] (do not mistake quantity of sources for quality of sources, but I did want to note them.) Super borderline. SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is way more than my WP:BEFORE search turned up, I have no idea how you found those sources. They appear to be behind a paywall or something, as I can only read the text. The fact that he was on a championship winning team seems like a fairly glaring omission for the article and wasn't even something I uncovered. I was able to find a box score that shows him substituted in during the championship game as well. I definitely think the sources that aren't the LA Times are trivial mentions and routine coverage, but I'm not sure the LA Times coverage is that significant. I agree that this seems like the most borderline of borderline cases. Jay eyem (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a simple Newspapers.com search combined with a bit of patience (the patience was mostly out of interest.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - cannot access the sources presented by SF but "SIGCOV [...] front page of the LA Times", combined with everything else and his time as a pro in the MLS is enough for me. Giant Snowman 20:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was the front page of the sports section. Didn't make it clear enough. But he was over the fold. SportingFlyer T·C 00:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One article that, despite the headline, from the snippets on Newspapers does not appear SIGCOV, and a bunch that definitely aren't, does not convince me that he meets GNG. Moreover, I couldn't find that article in the LA Times archives for that date; in fact, I can't find any of the headlines in the Newspapers.com preview there. This is the front page of the Sports section according to the archives. However, the strange email under the section masthead of the "Maurin" newspaper version indicates this was actually a local supplement to the LA Times, called "Inland Valley", which had a much much smaller circulation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a bit more feedback regarding sources presented. Any other thoughts from folks savvy with baseball? Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and participating!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This will never be the best sourced article, as only one of the sources I've brought to the table is a clear feature article, but there's enough there and it's varied to write somewhere between a stub and a start article. He was also discussed on mlssoccer.com, but clicking their archives redirects to the main website - nice work there, league (typically the league's journalism is independent from the team in the U.S. so would arguably count towards notability). I didn't vote earlier because I was effectively neutral, but after seeing this relisted (uh, it's not a baseball article) it doesn't make sense to me to delete an article for a (yes, marginal) top flight football player on the grounds they only had one feature article written specifically about them even though there's more than enough coverage of them to write an article. The UCLA media guide also says the foul he drew directly led to the winning goal in the NCAA tournament. But it's also a weak keep: essentially, this really could go either way, but I don't think redirecting this to the Dallas Burn player list benefits the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, I'm reluctant to consider the "Bruins' Maurin hopes to do Dallas" article as truly IRS SIGCOV since it's in the sports section of a hyper-local LA Times supplement. It's hard for me to give much more weight to a college-level profile that is only in-depth because it's in basically the town paper (think "local boy makes it big" -- they emphasize that he's an "area player"). JoelleJay (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered that and I still think this is a weak keep. The story is significant coverage, but the entire point of GNG's notability concern is to give us enough sourcing to write a reliable secondary independent article on him, and that's met here - he didn't get any feature articles for playing for the Burn, which is why he's at AfD in the first place, but there's more than enough there to write a reliable article.SportingFlyer T·C 14:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree there is enough material for an article -- my concern is that the bulk of it is essentially on the non- or less-notable parts of his career (as reflected by the lack of multiple RS and the constrained geographic scope). Is what he has enough to qualify for NCOLLATH? Because if not, the fact he had a brief, non-notable pro career shouldn't factor into the assessment of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reliable sources from California, Texas, and arguably mlssoccer.com. Not everyone who plays in MLS will necessarily qualify for an article, but that will be the exception rather than the rule, and while his career was brief, we can say enough about him (from reliable sources) that keeping the article is a better alternative than redirecting to the list of FC Dallas players (which I assume would be the alternative.) I've mentioned before it's borderline, I'm not expecting everyone to share my opinion. SportingFlyer T·C 10:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFootball, and no shortage of references that are suitable for writing an article. I've expanded the article a bit with text and some references. The project would be better served if people would spend a month improving the article, without debating about what part of the LA Times an article is in (it's pretty clear from going back and forth in Newspapers.com that it's from a local insert of the LA Times) - that article should also be added. Nfitz (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. passes NFOOTY and though GNG is a little marginal, there seems to be enough around to pass GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:19, 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. Tone 06:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loyd, Missouri

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

Non-GNIS source calls it a post office active from 1901-1904, where a Mr. Reagan did business in 1903. Topos show a single building with no name; GNIS entry is sourced to an old friend, the "New World War Chart - A Map of Missouri". Newspapers.com brings up a reference to something being "near Loyd" in 1903 and a statement about the appointment of a 4th-class postmaster in 1901. Does not appear in the volume of "How Missouri Counties Towns and Streams Were Named" that covers Bollinger County. Other coverage I found was just appearances in long lists of all post offices in the USA. Doesn't seem to be notable with what I was able to find. Hog Farm _Talk 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A post office is not the same as a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I observed at Chitwood, Missouri (AfD discussion) there are a lot of Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection entries yet to come. The difficulty with Ramsay is exemplified here. Ramsay's own cited source is doi:10.32469/10355/70281, a 1938 thesis about Bollinger county place names. But that doesn't mention Loyd at all, only having a cemetery by that name. Hog Farm points out that Ramsay probably should have cited the 1945 thesis by the same author, which supports only as much as the first line of the nomination here, and comes from oral history of one Ralph Dewitt, whoever that is, and a postal guide. I found Loyd in an index to the 1925 Rand McNally Premier Atlas of the World as "Loyd (Bollinger O 21)", but the note for the index is telling: "Places not on map are followed by county name and index of county in which it is located". The history books draw a blank, too. There's no Loyd in Ozark Pioneers (Arcadia Pub, 2001), for example. Uncle G (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://thelibrary.org/lochist/moser/bollinpl.html has less than what we have here. Uncle G (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Tone 06:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge in Islam

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

Unclear how this essaylike piece warrants a standalone article. If not deleted, could be well integrated into the Islam page. nearlyevil 665 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is highly notable as there are many books about it. For example, see Knowledge Triumphant: The Concept of Knowledge in Medieval Islam. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The topic is notable but this treatment of it is poor. It needs thorough sourcing in RIS rather than the Quran or it is just opinion or OR. Mccapra (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Right now purely WP:OR in Essay Style. Has some potential but currently definitely not ready for mainspace. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I reckon the topic being notable. I've personally discourses & works on it by the likes of Manazir Ahsan Gilani, Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, Rasheed Ahmad Jalandhari and various others. Topic has a merit. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 22:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I'm the nominator and I support a draftify for the text to be fundamentally rewritten. nearlyevil 665 12:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In what seems like an attempt to save the page from being sent to draftspace the author has copy pasted entire paragraphs from other Wikipedia articles, and potentially sources outside of Wikipedia as well (I haven't checked if all content comes from other wiki pages). Votes above might need a reevaluation. nearlyevil 665 18:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes now it’s just a gigantic ramble about nothing with loads of imported sources. As TheAafi says the topic is definitely notable but the article creator is getting into a mess. I still think draftify is the answer. If the creator can’t produce a decent article on this topic perhaps someone else will. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, I must remember Iqbal for saying "Cosmos and life are one, the world is one and same, The tale of old and new is merely false and lame. That ken is vision dim, In which the wise manʹs lore, And sight that Moses viewed, Keep apart and merge no more." ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 01:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 1. FC Saarbrücken season

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

A 3. Liga season should technically be able to have a season article written about it, but this one has been unsourced and failed WP:NOTSTATS for nine years. Sending to AfD since a PROD was removed. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - just because a topic can be notable does not mean that it is. Giant Snowman 21:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, the sources are in the template. Kingjeff (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no reason to believe it wouldn't pass GNG as it passes NSEASONS and the 3. Liga is a well-followed league, but it is unsourced, isn't complete and I don't have the endeavour to sort this article out. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this were a brand new article, I would strongly recommend sending it to draft given the fact that it is barely sourced and also incomplete. Unfortunately, it isn't new. Some of the Kicker articles are fairly lengthy so this topic may pass GNG but I would certainly agree that it shouldn't be in the main space at this moment in time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 06:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Namadi

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

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. nearlyevil 665 18:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify because it appears they do pass WP:POLITICIAN, being a "Deputy Governor of Jigawa State", which makes him equal (in perspective and such) to a US deputy state governor, aka the lieutenant governor. So WP:GNG is nulified due to him being presumed notable. However, the article's quality is extremely bad and very few sources. I suggest making this a draft and letting the creator and other editors work on it for at least a week, then afc to move it back to main space. The afc would give even more time to help improve the article. But this shouldn't be deleted since it actually passes the 2 Afd nomination reasons. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question for @Nearlyevil665:, would you be willing to explain more of your reasoning for the nomination? I am only asking because normally, an Afd nominator normally give slightly more than just listing "fail such and such policies". Elijahandskip (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? Listing which policies it fails is usually more than enough. When I look at the AfD logs for e.g. 1 May, I see complete nominations "Fails WP:GNG.", "Nothing notable about him, fails WP:GNG.", "Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. ", "Native advertising. Fails WP:NCORP. ", "Fails WP:BIO. No indication why she is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Puff piece.", "No indication of notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:ADMASQ", "No effective reference for a BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. ", "Does not meet criteria of WP:NPOL or WP:NACADEMIC.", "No significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO.", ... If you have an issue with one of the claims, then explain why and discuss it. But simply claiming that nominator should do more in their nomination than list the policies an article fails is just plain wrong. Fram (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do a personal attack on me by adding words 'to my mouth' that I never said. I never "claimed that nominator should do more in their nomination", I simply asked a question. I am allowed to ask questions and give my opinion behind it, but please, don't accuse me of stuff I never said. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deputy Governor of Jigawa State is a state-wide office. Hence passes WP:NPOL The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 08:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NPOL. Can be improved as an article. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debattama Saha

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

Single significant role, fails WP:NACTOR and sources don't meet WP:GNG criteria.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She acted in three movies out of which acted in major roles in Ishaaron Ishaaron Mein and Shaurya Aur Anokhi Ki Kahani. So passes WP:NACTOR for which the actress need at least two major roles. Kirtos67 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirtos67- The subject has ONLY ONE SIGNIFICANT ROLE which is at present in Shaurya Aur Anokhi Ki Kahani. Her role in Ishaaron Ishaaron Mein does not have any reliable sources to claim it to be of A MAJOR ROLE. Hence, the subject fails both WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG.

Plus the Wikipedian article of the subject has no in-depth resources which makes it a case of WP:TOOSOON. Therefore, this article on Debattama Saha is strongly recommended to be DELETED.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, including because sources added to the article help show that per WP:NACTOR, she has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows. Beccaynr (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Note to closing admin: I am referring to this version of the article diff, which has since been substantially changed by Aleyamma38. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC) (comment updated to reflect article Talk page discussion and consensus) Beccaynr (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear that she plays a major role in Shaurya Aur Anokhi Ki Kahani and Ishaaron Ishaaron Mein. Furius (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: As claimed by Beccaynr, yes I have substantially changed the article because Beccaynr had been doing a lot of FAN BASED EDITING in Debattama Saha which had led to article being WP:PUFFERY which is strictly against Wikipedian rules and regulations. Plus, I removed PINKVILLA which is an UNRELIABLE SOURCE according to WP:RELIABLE. I really appreciate that Beccaynr has improved the article but that does not meant he/she or any other editor is allowed to do FAN BASED EDITING which will make the Wikipedian article seem to be an ad-based article. Thanks--Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These issues are discussed at Talk:Debattama Saha. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this once just to see what folks think of the article in it's current state. Please keep arguments about "fans" and whatever off this page. This is just about if the article should be KEPT, DELETED, REDIRECTED or draftified, frankly.

keep it civil and chill on the unnecessary bolding please. LOL.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:06, 1 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 Flash enemies. Missvain (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murmur (DC Comics)

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

PRODed with "e coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.", prod removed with no meaningful rationale, article not improved. I will just add that the cited The DC Comics Encyclopedia is not a serious publication, it's a licenced (so not independent) picture book that contains no analysis, just plot summary and list of appearances and is likely less informative (pictures aside) than our articles (or fan wikias), just look at google images of this "encyclopedia". At best this can be SOFTDELETEd by being redirected to the List of DC Comics characters: M. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Readers wanting information about this character are unlikely to use an unhelpful title like "List of DC Comics characters: M". The natural title for the topic is the character's name, Murmur, and so we should stick with that. If we did want to consolidate the information then it would be more natural to group the Flash villains together, as here. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, I have no objection to redirecting this to List of Flash enemies if there is consensus this is a better target. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: M. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Flash enemies. There is already a section for the character there with a bio and room other relevant information, which is a better option than just the character list. Rhino131 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters : fails WP:GNG, better redirect to the List of DC Characters CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Flash enemies over the generic DC list, as Murmur is specific to Flash. There is some background on the character's creation in The Flash Companion (not available in preview), but I don't believe that's enough to justify a standalone article. I suspect there's some coverage of the television adaptation from reviews like this one. If someone wants to spend the effort improving the article, I could support keeping it, but as it currently stands readers would be better served by merging it with the list. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Andrew Davidson: or merge with List of minor DC Comics characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Flash enemies. A borderline case, there might be enough to pass GNG, but it's probably better served with the essential info in the list than as a stand alone. I'm usually nervous about generically named characters like this, but this does seem to be very much the one most likely to be searched for. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Flash enemies - The character is already included in that list, and there is no reliably sourced information in the article, so no need to merge. Searching for sources turns up a few hits in the usual "Top Ten" style lists on CBR and such, and a bit about the casting in Arrow, but that's about it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Sean Whitton / 02:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Springs in popular culture

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. Aside from that, the title fails MOS:USPLACE (should be Palm Springs, California), and the article is largely written as a catalog with a ridiculous load of external links. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability, delete per nom. Waxworker (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nomination fails in five important respects. 1. INPOPULARCULTURE talks about popular culture sections which tend to clutter location related articles – this listing was created in order to avoid such clutter. 2. Likewise, the listing complies with MOS:POPCULT because it avoids the "section within an article" problem. 3. IINFO/indiscriminate list does not apply because the much of the "allure" of Palm Springs stems from its PopCulture nature. The listing IS a discriminate list that serves to document that allure, without getting into detail. (E.g., readers don't need an explanation about each reference.) The fact that the listing is long shows its notability/significance as a topic. 3. USPLACE is not a valid reason for deletion – if the article name is a problem then it can be renamed. 4. "Ridiculous load of external links" is not a valid reason – the "external links" are the references that support each item. 5. Just because one list-article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maine) gets deleted does not justify deleting others. 6. I created [26] the list and my feelings would be hurt (not harmed) if it is deleted. – S. Rich (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03, Waxworker, and Rorshacma: – I'm not clear on how the list fails as an article. Our essay WP:IPCA recommends that a subarticle be created created in order to avoid "excessively long" IPC sections. This listing follows that suggestion. "Palm Springs" is in the title of some 100 of the items listed. Take Patencio, Francisco; Margaret Boynton. Stories and Legends of the Palm Springs Indians. LCCN 44018350. as an example. Chief Patencio is a noteworthy figure in Palm Springs history (one of the streets is named after him). His book title is spot-on in terms of the listing topic. But is there a reliable source that says "Patencio wrote a book about the Podunk Indians"? Actually no, but LISTN says "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." Patencio's book and the others contribute to the notability of the group. – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument. Your statement about WP:LISTN is not about the actual topic of this article, wich is Palm Springs, California, in popular culture. As it stands, there are no reliable references about this general topic, and I'd like you to prove or disprove that is notable. Either way, there is no salvageable content as is because the article is an indiscriminate list that is written like a catalog. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: The second paragraph of LISTN helps explain. E.g., there is "no present consensus for how to assess the notability...". In other words, the delete WP:!VOTEs are simply personal takes on the PS list and not based on accepted policy or guidance. Next, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Well, the PS list is certainly informational. E.g., it shows that Palm Springs has been the setting in a lot of popular culture.

But here's a possible solution – we have a List of films and television series set in Palm Springs, California. Is that article acceptable? If so we can retitle this article to List of books and stories set in Palm Springs, California and List of songs and music-related items set in Palm Springs, California. (It just seems to me that the present list is clear in its scope and avoids an awkward title.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There needs to be actual reliable sources covering the overall topic of Palm Springs in popular culture in order to pass WP:LISTN, and it does not appear there are. As such, it is just a list of trivia without decent sources. Just glancing through the sources included, it seems like the vast majority are simply the actual books/songs/movies themselves. Rorshacma (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A courtesy relisting - Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is WP:OR--Rusf10 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: – No OR was done to produce the list. E.g., none of the works were opened up and read or even scanned to determine if they talked about Palm Springs. Rather the items listed are supported by secondary sources like WorldCat, LCCN, or Google Books – these secondary sources provide descriptions which mention Palm Springs and thereby support inclusion in the listing. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, its still OR. There is no source discussing the topic. Doing a Google Books search and listing the results of it is OR. If you need a second reason to delete, the list also fails WP:LISTN since as I just mentioned there are no sources discussing the topic and the items in the list are not independently notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: Please take a look at List of books about Oxford or Bibliography of Los Angeles. You are saying that these two lists (and all the similar lists) are OR. Accordingly all of the Category:Bibliographies of countries or regions articles should be deleted. Few or none of these articles/lists have a "source" discussing the "topic", but that is not a valid reason to delete any of them. (Also you are misconstruing "Notable" – WP:NOTEWORTHY is the guidance.) WP:LISTCRITERIA tells us how to select items for inclusion in lists. "When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if any the following are true: ... Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" The Oxford and Los Angeles lists fulfill LISTCRITERIA, as does this list. – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're shifted to pushing a WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. The existence of the other articles are irrelevant. We are evaluating only one article in this discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rusf10, you make a good point. A few points in response: 1. I hope I'm not pushing ALLORNOTHING. Rather I hoped the comparison might change your mind. 2. When LaundryPizza03 opened this discussion they posted Maine in popular culture and the Rhode Island in popular culture as examples. I made a counter-ALLORNOTHING comment (#5) in response. 3. The link guides me to WP:LISTOUTCOMES, which says "Lists are likely to be kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." I (continue to) contend that PS in PopCulture meets these criteria.

In the meantime I ask you, Rorshacma, LaundryPizza03, Waxworker to consider my alternative articles/titles (above). Would those titles or List of books about Palm Springs or Bibliography of Palm Springs work? After all, those titles avoid the "in Pop Culture" stigma. But they would provide articles that are WP:USEFUL to WP:READERS. – S. Rich (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Two bad arguments don't make a good one. (although the nominator did cite an actual policy too) 2. WP:LISTOUTCOMES is not a guideline 3. Read WP:USEFUL next time before you refer to it (hint: It's part of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)--Rusf10 (talk) 03:41, 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. Daniel (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shuvam Banerjee

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:NPOL or WP:NACADEMIC. ... discospinster _talk 22:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since the subject fails NPOL, he must satisfy the general GNG criteria for which we need significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. As far I can see, there are no sources like that. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As usual, student unions are not WP:NPOL-passing political offices that guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia — but this article is extremely overdependent on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the organization's own self-published content about itself. raw tables of election results and pieces of his own bylined academic writing, with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. President of AISF is something that could plausibly be notable through WP:GNG, but for that we need multiple in-depth independent reliable sources and we don't appear to have any. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said. Lacks significent independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Source has been added.

1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/assembly-elections/west-bengal/turned-down-novartis-worked-on-covid-joined-bengals-poll-fight/articleshow/82235041.cms?from=mdr

2. https://thewire.in/politics/cpim-candidates-west-bengal-elections-aishe-ghosh Skylark007 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: President of All India Students' Federation can be considered as notable because of organizational pan india presence. News coverage for confirming the notability are enough, all of them has been reported by national media platforms. This thing should not be ignored. Besides there are several student organization leaders with the same stature having stable wikipedia pages and are being considered notable, considering the page for deletion is questionable and exclusive tdhole997 (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more just so folks can review the new sourcing. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:56, 1 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. Right now, a no-go. Let me know if you want me to draftify the content for future work. Tone 06:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Galluweger

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

WP:BEFORE done. At best this would appear to a part of Somali history with sparse documentation. The ({{Find sources AFD|title=House of Galluwegers}}) / (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) / (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) will only yield forks and mirrors of this article. As always, happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This article has two sources, one of which looks like an English language academic work and the other probably French. It is thus not unsourced. I do not know enough of Somali history to know if this dynasty was important or not, but there are enough blue links in the article for it not to be an orphan. If the allegation is that it is an unnecessary fork, please tell us what it should be merged back to. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contains two sources that aren't even refrenced and makes no mentions of House of Galluweger. One of them Virginia Luling, Virginia (2002). Somali Sultanate. is written to be from HAAN Publishing which it is not. I searched the name "House of Galluweger" on google and it looks to be mentioned 1 time in a online fictional romance novel Black Vampire Anthology. User Rashicy took this and then made a hoax page with it. Escorban-Han (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being in black vampire novels does not make this notable.PrisonerB (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect this is not a hoax in any way, but it fails WP:V and is irreparable as it stands. Would not oppose draftifying. Srnec (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this - Should it be merged, redirected, and/or draftified per User:Srnec and User:Peterkingiron?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:50, 1 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. Daniel (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Kolm

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

Very little press coverage to warrant encyclopedic inclusion. Looks as though it is a self promotion article and nothing more. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2015-11 ✗ G12

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - a search for sources basically just turns up these few Billboard articles. I don't have a strong sense of the extent to which Billboard publishes press releases, but the "exclusive," although I don't have access to it, sounds like it may be just that. The only other good source I see is the "business power players" list, which isn't nothing but can also be promotional depending on the publication. Even assuming both of those sources are on the up-and-up, I'm just not seeing enough here for notability. Combine that with creation by an SPA (and a press photo uploaded by a different SPA) and I'm landing in the delete camp. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to allow for discussion around User:Rhododendrites findings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:48, 1 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 choosing keep - please discuss merger or redirect on the article talk page. Missvain (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Productronica

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG through lack of reliable source coverage. Created by a single-purpose account. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:NEVENTS. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Messe München, the parent company. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 08:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the appropriate conclusion here may depend on the result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Messe_München. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to vote 'delete this spam', but to my surprise, a quick BEFORE gives us coverage like [27], [28], [29] and some more. Color me surprised but this event is notable. Did nobody bother clicking in the GScholar link here? Ping User:Kusma, User:SailingInABathTub, User:Naddruf... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check GScholar - did you find more than one source though (those three links all being from the same publisher)? SailingInABathTub (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SailingInABathTub, Lost my reply, twice. Emerald Publishing is reliable, there is coverage in at least three English-language journals. Not sure if the Russian-language coverage is reliable, but English is plenty enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm only relisting this a third time because it appears there is still some unresolved business regarding sourcing per User:Piotrus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent company. If anyone wants to split it back out with sources, they're more than welcome to. jp×g 07:07, 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) 21:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Westall

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

Never played above the third tier in England so appears to fail WP:NRU, the sources in the article apart from the Swindon Advertiser don't look to pass WP:GNG, and a source search brings up local sources like the Swindon Advertiser. Sending to AfD because there are a few sources which come up, I think they're too routine to demonstrate notability (coverage of seventh level sides in any sport is almost always routine.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incredibly detailed article for a semi-pro rugby player, but only the Swindon Advertiser article is anything close to SIGCOV. Fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG as all other coverage is just routine. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Courtesy relisting to allow for further community comment. Thank you for assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am also not seeing evidence of SIGCOV here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Rivas

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

Working musician, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Only independent music is self-published. Was redirected as part of an AfD discussion, and that might be the best course of action, but has recently been recreated a couple of times, and the AfD was back in 2013, so I thought a new discussion appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Cannot see anything that would be a pass of WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. nearlyevil 665 18:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am sorry if I am not formatting this right for the conversation. I am new and learning. I have updated the page in order to satisfy some of the WP:MUSICBIO. Would I need to include more reputable citations to help keep this page up? I appreciate any help. I hope to write about more reggae artists in the future, so I am thankful for the education on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggaewriter1970 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator and Spiderone. Thanks. JayzBox (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insyde (artist)

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

Article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICBIO. Sources are mostly from press distribution websites as seen on Yahoo News, references 12 is a press site, reference 13 is just passing mention. Nothing much on his athletic career. TheChronium (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Repost Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insyde. And probably created by a block evading sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seinudeen Marikar Isham Marikar

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

Had been deprod-ed by creator. Fails WP:BIO + WP:GNG, being a member of a Youth Parliament does not pass WP:NPOLITICIAN CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with nom, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 23:18, 1 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 SQL Server Integration Services. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk Copy Program

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

This exists, but it doesn't have the coverage required for its own article. Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge: Per nomination which is almost looking for a merge/redirect rather than a delete I might look at SQL Server Integration Services is a possible target but work would be needed on the target to avoid WP:SURPRISE. It would also need more work to confirm this is a suitable target that can take the change non-detrimentlly (either by myself who has no time currently and would need to research) or an SME. Would prefer not to do this myself.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think there is material to support a genuinely interesting article, but coverage there is: scores of results on Google Books for Bulk Copy Program sql server and a glance at one shows it has a whole chapter devoted to the utility. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) as suggested by Djm-leighpark - this technically meets GNG, but I think it is unlikely to receive the attention needed to ever have a worthwhile article. SSIS is really the successor technology to bcp, but bcp would fit in the history section. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SQL Server Integration Services, with which this content naturally fits. I don't see anything that justifies a standalone article. jp×g 23:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal police (Romania)

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

This topic is not notable (Does not meet WP:GNG). What the article describes is municipal police in general (anywhere in the world). The author of the article defended it by pointing to other similar articles (WP:OSE). Those articles probably also should be deleted, but need to be evaluated separately. For this to be notable, it would have to be shown that there are reliable secondary sources discussing the topic of "municipal police in Romania" in-depth. Rusf10 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:GNG and WP:NORG are both met. Googling brings up plenty of potential sources: a solid primary source and plenty of secondaries: [30], [31], [32], with more at Scholar - and that's without looking too hard. Overall, this is a disappointing nomination and I don't understand the nominator's rationale. The WP:OSE arguments cut both ways - I don't understand what the existence of municipal police forces in other countries has to do with whether we should have an article on the municipal police of this country. Furthermore, the burden of proof in an AfD discussion lies with the nominator, but the nominator appears to have tried to reverse this in the nomination. ninety:one 20:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the burden of proof in an AfD discussion lies with the nominator, but the nominator appears to have tried to reverse this in the nomination. Absolutely not true! This is a falsehood that is frequently repeated at AfD discussions. The burden of proof has always been with the person adding the content (ie. the article creator). See WP:UNSOURCED and WP:ONUS for more details.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article isn't unsourced anymore and has potential for further expansion. There might be a need for a WP:RM to change the article's title to "Local Police (Romania)". Super Ψ Dro 10:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question is not whether the article is great. Its whether sources exist, and there are plenty of sources about all police forces. Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly is a notable topic and clearly has the potential to be expanded with plenty of sourcing available. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ASGC Construction

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

Possible WP:PROMO article. The article has been practically refbombed apart with sources of contracts and donations. TheChronium (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Original citations were from reliable sources, and show ASGC's involvement in significant projects and investment in a notable UK company (I have added three further sources on the latter, while expanding the article and improving the citations). Paul W (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Following improvements by User:Paul W. Dormskirk (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per improvements made. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Last AfD closed only a couple of days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bayo_Ododo Fences&Windows 21:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bayo ododo

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

WP:OVERCITE. References to blogs, lyric websites and primary sources. Nothing to suggest notability. nearlyevil 665 15:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 15:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 15:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:G4; this exact article was deleted only yesterday; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayo Ododo Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My bad on missing that one. Definitely supporting a G4. nearlyevil 665 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and SALT - for the reasons cited by Spiderone above. Changing the capitalization of an article's title is a common tactic for someone who rejects community consensus on a deletion. SALT so it does not happen again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: CSD G4 plus salt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayo Ododo CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Arnold (American football)

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

Tagged with notability concerns since 2010 (I'm going through old articles), my source search for him didn't bring up as much as I had expected (mostly mentions in articles about Washington.) Happy to be wrong on this but he seems to fail WP:NCOLLATH/WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to pass GNG via "Huskies secure state's premier prep halfback" from Longview Daily News, and "Spotlight on Arnold in first drills" and "Huskies' Arnold ready to get down to business at hand" from The Spokesman-Review. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a GNG pass. In addition to the sources cited by Eagles247, he received SIGCOV in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. E.g., here. Cbl62 (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Eagles247 and Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Jaxxa

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

Fails WP:GNG. James Jaxxa had three shows listed (one was in a coffee shop, one in a gallery, and one in an emerging artist space). In 2004 "Jaxxa was a member of the Young Collectors Council at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation Board of trustees" but the citation doesn't state that. This article has a history of COI edits. I looked online for more sources and facts to add here, but did not finding anything. Jooojay (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He exists and has an art practice; here is a Seattle Weekly interview. However there is little other coverage. --- Possibly (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. I cannot find any reliable independent sources that shows significant coverage of the subject. The only coverage is an interview linked above. --Ashley yoursmile! 05:03, 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 redirect to The Peanuts Movie#Soundtack. Daniel (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Peanuts Movie (soundtrack)

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

This was part of a bundle nomination of animations soundtrack that fail WP:SIGCOV. Only coverage of album itself is either towards one song or are announcements, which don't establish independent notability for the topic. Article creator N Ø has stated in that discussion they have no problem deleting this. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to The Peanuts Movie#Soundtack, or possibly just Redirect because the necessary information is already there. This article for the soundtrack album is dependent on sources that are actually about the movie and its production, and the album has received little independent notice as a stand-alone entity. I don't think the track listing needs to be merged to the film article, though others may disagree. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Peanuts Movie#Soundtack Fails WP:NALBUM per Doomsdayer's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie de Leon

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

Assistant prof who has only some early career awards. Not convinced passes WP:NPROF. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an extremely high-citation field. I haven't finished running Scopus citation metrics yet but one of her coauthors is a 2020 PhD graduate whose top 5 papers (out of 15!) are already cited 299, 153, 96, 92, and 62 times. The "average professor" will certainly have orders of magnitude more credentials than that, and we don't even want articles on the average professor. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the Scopus metrics for Dr. de Leon and her 88 coauthors with more than 15 papers (which includes PhD students, techs, post-docs, and professors; if we were to restrict it to people who have held a faculty position all values would be much much higher).

Total citations: avg: 7854, median: 3008, de Leon: 2844.

Total papers: avg: 136, med: 69, dL: 47.

h-index: avg: 33, med: 23, dL: 21.

Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 831, med: 514, dL: 331. 2nd: avg: 497, med: 321, dL: 299. 3rd: avg: 388, med: 234, dL: 282. 4th: avg: 318, med: 187, dL: 261. 5th: avg: 271, med: 155, dL: 242. JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Borderline notable. Received a Sloan Research Fellowship in Physics (Source:[33]), which qualifies her for criteria 2 of WP:NACADEMIC. 15 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan Fellowship is early career, which is specifically excluded from meeting C2. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sloan Fellowships are given to 126 early career researchers, which does not satisfy NPROF#2. Her publications have racked up quite a few citations, with some articles being very well cited. However, on all of these publications she's a minor author, never last or even first author. Too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Middle coauthor on a paper with a large number of coauthors doesn't convince me of so much, and as JoelleJay points out, this is a very high citation field. Once you get past the massively coauthors papers, its down to 150 or so GS citations (again, in a very high citation field). So I think it's WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF C1, even if the subject has a solid start. No sign of other notability, in particular the early career awards do not meet WP:NPROF C2. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assistant Profs are hardly ever notable, the early career awards dont provide notability for WP:NPROF, her citations are high but not surprising given her field and as pointed out before, she has a lot of middle author publications, with her WP article not clearly demonstrating what *her* impact on the field really is, which is required by WP:NPROF#1. Basically this is WP:TOOSOON but down the line an article may well be warranted. --hroest 15:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and restore redirect. ✗plicit 00:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Burke

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

Fail of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and then restore prior redirect. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and county council isn't an inherently notable office under WP:NPOL in the first place, so he still wouldn't necessarily be notable enough for inclusion even if he had won the election — but this neither makes any claim that he would have had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, nor sources any credible reason to treat his candidacy as a special case of greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But this title had stood for 15 years as a stable redirect to the actual Irish TD Séamus Burke until it was converted into this new article about a different person earlier today — so the content about the candidate should certainly be deleted, but the original redirect should be retained. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept.

Not only is Mr.Burke a political candidate he is a award winning entreprauner. He holds a patent for his work on the sheep restrainer, an item which is commonplace across Irish farms. In addition to this I believe the article does not violate GNG. I will explain why here. Significant coverage: This person has been covered multiple times. He was mentioned in a TUI union document from 2016, He was also covered in a copy of the westmeath examiner. Also he has his bio page on his party website. Multiple other politicians have been mentioned with far less coverage. So I believe he fufills this criteria of the GNG. Reliable: Seamus Burke has been covered in multiple sources. The westmeath examiner is a trusted news agent and did details on all candidates, such as the aforementioned Seamus Burke. He was also mentioned briefly in a national irish times story. As such all sources on him are reliable Sources: According to the GNGs multiple sources are expected. As can be seen in the article multiple sources have been provided. The GNGs also state that these sources must be secondary. The westmeath examiner and rte.ie would be counted as secondary sources for these purposes. Independent of the subject: The sources provided are independent of the subject. While some are not, multiple are completly independent such as the Westmeath LEA candidate details website, the westmeath examiner article and rte.ies election results page. As I have explained here the article complies with the General notability guidleines. In addition to this being a award winning, patent holding entreprauner would warrent an article. I will be expanding the article within the coming days to make it more complient with the notability guidelines. FluffyMrSheep (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, TUI union documents and bio pages on his party website are not reliable or notability-supporting sources.

Secondly, even with the few sources that are actual media, GNG still doesn't just count the media hits and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number. GNG actually tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and discounts some kinds of media coverage as being worth much less than some other kinds of media coverage. For example, local coverage in the local newspaper of a person in the context of running for (but not winning) election to a local political office does not contribute toward making a person encyclopedically notable at all, especially for an office where even winning wouldn't necessarily have made him wikinotable per se.

Thirdly, holding a patent on something is also not an instant notability freebie that would automatically entitle a person to a Wikipedia article on that basis either. It would still be a question of the depth and range of sources he could show about him in the context of his career as an inventor, and does not automatically guarantee him an article just because the text has the word "patent" in it.

All in all, you're not actually understanding our rules. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and replace/restore redirect to Séamus Burke). As has been noted, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. In terms of the latter, being an unsuccessful local election candidate (<200 votes in Mullingar LEA) falls significantly short of the threshold. Even successful/sitting Irish county councillors do not automatically meet the threshold. In terms of the former, a WP:BEFORE barely returns the same low-level ROTM/passing-mention coverage we might expect for any local election candidate. (Suggestions that a passing-mention in RTÉ election coverage meets SIGCOV, suggests a misunderstanding of that guideline.) I am struggling to find a "kind" way to respond to the other potential claims, so will simply note that these things (like being one of millions of patent holders, or one of 10s/100s of thousands of YouTubers with >1000 subscribers) are not contributory to notability. Subject falls significantly below applicable thresholds. Guliolopez (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and restore previous redirect, per both arguments above. The subject at hand doesn't even meet ANYBIO, nor any SNG with a lower threshold for notability. See what Bearcat said above. NOTPROMO applies. 174.212.228.209 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and restore previous redirect. Spleodrach (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FluffyMrSheep has misunderstood the purpose of verification of references in ascertaining notability. It's not to determine whether the person existed, or actually did stand in a particular election, but whether their contribution is independently notable, so the reliability of sources is besides the point. Local newspapers have always listed and sometimes even given miniprofiles of local election candidates. That doesn't make them notable. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yavor Tarinski

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

I do not see any proof of notability in the article; there are only three references, and none of them is independent on the article subject. Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 1 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 It Wasn't Me. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rikrok

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

Though the subject was featured in a highly popular song, which fulfills one criterion for WP:MUSICBIO, he does not meet any other criteria, and clearly fails WP:GNG. The information on his life and career is taken from his own MySpace page. Otherwise, I could not find any third party source covering him in a significant way. Merely trivial mentions next to Shaggy in news articles about the song. Throast (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 17:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It Wasn't Me if we can't find more sources about Rikrok before this AfD ends. The subject was a featured artist on a song that went to #1 in at least eight countries including the U.S. and U.K. If nothing else, his name should be a redirect to the song he was associated with. Depending on the extent to which this article is improved during the AfD, I might change my recommendation to "keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree, but considering that he is actually known as "Rik Rok" (instead of "Rikrok"), the misspelled title is yet another reason for deleting this article in my opinion. One could create a new page called "Rik Rok" and make it a redirect but I'm not sure if that would be in line with WP policy. Throast (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions of the name (Rikrok, Rik Rok) would be appropriate as redirects. He is sometimes referred to in the media by the one-word version "Rikrok"; see DanceHallMag, Billboard, and New York Daily News, for example. Redirects are cheap. We don't even need to create a new redirect; Rik Rok already redirects to Rikrok, so if this AfD ends up as a redirect, we can just retarget Rik Rok. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was credited as "RikRok" (with no space) on every version of the single in every country, so it's a very likely search term and should be kept as a redirect, at least. Richard3120 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 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?} 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; subject seems to lack independent notability outside of this one song (which was a banger, but alas). jp×g 23:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FC Hjallese

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

7th division Danish football club which fails WP:GNG - they did get a couple mentions in the local newspaper (according to their own website, which has a picture clip of the announcement of their founding), and they do occasionally get covered in local media [34] but I can't find anything else that's not a match report. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunters FC

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, teams are required to meet WP:GNG. This club plays in the second national league and relies only on primary sources and databases for notability. nearlyevil 665 13:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 13:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:23, 1 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. Tone 06:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khukh Chononuud FC

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, teams are required to meet WP:GNG. This club plays in the second national league and relies only on primary sources and databases for notability. nearlyevil 665 13:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 13:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:23, 1 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. Tone 06:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenska Bistrica Werewolves

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

Non-notable amateur team with no media coverage. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - cannot find any significant coverage for either, and the Wikipedia articles in other languages do not have additional sources. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ludeke

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

I do not think this article on an Australian writer and historian meets WP:GNG or WP:WRITER. There is one footnote, to an article about the launch of one of his books. There are two other links, of which one is a deadlink and the other is to the subject's publishing company's website. The article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2009. I have not been able to find any coverage to add. Tacyarg (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:19, 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?} 13:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The author's books look to me like relatively light weight works, so that this should not be enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as "significant coverage" for the purposes of WP:GNG should require more than a single short article about a book launch, plus a dead link. Fails to meet any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. Meticulo (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and no reason to expect further discussion to lead to such a result. Editors supporting keeping the article point to coverage of the subject in reliable sources which exceeds any claim to notability that might arise merely from having a YouTube video "go viral". BD2412 T 03:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Nolke

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

Orphan article about a Canadian YouTuber who had a pandemic video go viral - article largely about that but includes a filmography that appears to comprise amateur videos and small roles; sources include blogs and IMDb. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC) — Wbcgqbvj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Wbcgqbv I’ve read WP:GNG and nothing explains why the subject is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Many reliable, secondary sources covered her (and not just her viral video.) I see no point on why you want this article deleted. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you could add those multiple, reliable sources on the subject other than the viral video. As it stands, I think this fails notability. See also Wikipedia:Notability (web). Wbcgqbvj (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbcgqbvj I did add the multiple, reliable sources on the subject. Look at the citations. This does page does qualify for notability.Rasalghul1711 (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that I'm unsure about this one given that the subject has appeared in national U.S. and Canadian media plus has over 900k YouTube subscribers, but doesn't seem to strictly satisfy WP:GNG. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve explained it to your self. This is an article about a Youtuber with almost a million subscribers who has appeared in multiple news channels. If this does not satisfy WP:GNG then no article in Wikipedia about a Youtuber satisfies WP:GNG Rasalghul1711 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, lacks sustained, independent coverage or grounds for a clear claim of notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently 13 links on the article: 4 to YouTube and Vimeo; 2 to IMDB; 2 to personal websites; 1 to subject's social media (plus two I removed); and two to news sites, one of which mentions an award while the other is entirely about a viral video. Not (yet) evidence of sustained coverage. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE, she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work and it has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, e.g. CTV News (October 2020), Mclean's (September 2020), Fast Company (April 2020), HuffPost (April 2020). In addition, her work is discussed in a non-trivial manner by Wired (August 2020), and The Gazette (December 2020). Some of her other work, including a local award nomination, has been mentioned by CBC (July 2020), other work has been discussed in an interview with ET Canada (November 2020), and she was interviewed by KQED 2 in March 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC) And after further research, this May 2020 Fast Company review and this 2016 WaPo article supports her WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is almost all about a single video. In one piece you have linked, she is mentioned as the person behind the video - in passing, in an article about how to use your slow-cooker to have chicken ready for supper with little work. This is not the stuff of WP:GNG, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify, it is not a single video, but currently a five-part series released from April 2020 through April 2021, which may in part help explain why coverage has been WP:SUSTAINED, even though this is not required for WP:CREATIVE notability; it also seems to help explain why this is not WP:BLP1E, because not only was she not a low-profile individual before this (as demonstrated by the Washington Post article), she has also not been low-profile since the release of the first video in her Pandemic series, because she continued to produce videos that continued to receive coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, which supports her WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Exactly, while many of her interviews and articles are in the pretext of her viral video. They go in detail about her other works also. If you read the articles instead of just seeing the headline you can see she does qualify for WP:Notability Rasalghul1711 (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb You've selectively picked on an article from the citation section even though there are multiple articles primarily about her.
http://hilahcooking.com/hhh024-interview-with-julie-nolke-feeling-peckish/ , https://imakealiving.simplecast.com/episodes/creating-a-youtube-sensation-with-julie-nolke-_MKK3Ni4 , https://imakealiving.simplecast.com/episodes/creating-a-youtube-sensation-with-julie-nolke-_MKK3Ni4 , https://www.macleans.ca/culture/julie-nolke-explained-pandemic-past-self/

This is the stuff of WP:GNG. Best regards Rasalghul1711 (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasts aren't reliable or notability-building sources, so neither "Hilah Cooking" nor "I Make a Living" are helping at all. Bearcat (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't the stuff of WP:GNG at all. GNG is absolutely not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who happens to surpass an arbitrary number" — it also tests the sources for their type, their depth and the context of what they're covering the person for, and does not just agnostically accept every possible "source" as contributing equally to the process of making a person notable.
Podcasts and YouTube videos, for example, are not support for notability: a source has to be a real media outlet, not just any web content that exists. Q&A interviews, in which she's doing the speaking in the first person, are not support for notability: they can be used to support stray facts after a person has already cleared GNG on third-party analytical coverage, but not as prima facie support for getting her over GNG in the first place. Sources that briefly namecheck her existence in the process of not being substantively about her, such as a source that briefly alludes to her work in the process of being fundamentally a review of a film she had nothing to do with or a recipe for chicken, aren't support for notability. Minor local awards, like the "Toronto Sketchfest", are not automatic notability passes: "notable because award-nominated" goes to top-level national awards like the Canadian Screen Awards, the Emmys or the Oscars, not just every single award that exists on earth. IMDb and the self-published websites of people she's worked with, verifying that roles were had but not independently analyzing the significance of said roles, are not support for notability. And on and so forth: notability is not just automatically supported or built by just every web page that can be found to have her name present in it.
And of the few sources left that actually survive all of those tests by being from real media outlets, written in the third person and substantively about her, all of them are covering her in the context of a single viral video — which just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has been shown to pass WP:NACTOR as of yet.
GNG is not "as soon as a person can show n>2 examples of their name being mentioned on the web, they automatically pass GNG and are thus exempted from actually having to pass the defined notability criteria for their specific occupation" — it requires a lot more than that, and this isn't surmounting that higher bar. Bearcat (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been revised since I worked on it, including with questionable sources added and/or restored, which may make an assessment of notability more challenging. However, the coverage of her and her work in the Pandemic series has been sustained over the past year, including in this source recently added to the article: McCleans (March 2021), and she has more than trivial coverage of her work in 2016 in The Washington Post. Some of her other work has also been independently covered, as noted in sources I added in my comment above, including Fast Company and ET Canada, even though the WP:CREATIVE guideline does not require this to support notability for an article. I also think that coverage from Wired and the Gazette, as well as KQED, support her WP:BASIC notability because she seems to have become a point of reference within popular culture, which is more than a passing mention, and also supports notability per WP:CREATIVE because she is known for originating a significant new concept. Beccaynr (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC) As an update, I have revised the article again. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am a fan of her work, it is too soon for her to meet WP:GNG. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Fails WP:GNG. freshacconci (✉) 15:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. I believe this YouTuber passes the GNG, and matches what is described at WP:CREATIVE - coverage is sustained and is not simply for one viral video. I am particularly convinced by the existence of the 2016 WaPo article, which demonstrates that this person was the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources long before the pandemic videos. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To add - in general, I am not a fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, since the essay is a little hard to interpret, but I think there is a common-sense notability argument to be made - if Wikipedia can sustain articles on every obscure footballer who ever played a game in any professional league anywhere in the world, it can sustain an article on this individual, who clearly meets the WP:GNG in a way many of those footballers do not. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WaPo article ("Why you can now quit your job to make Snapchat videos") is about Tastemade and only briefly mentions the subject's work (about two-thirds of the way in) - not sure that counts as sustained. And as you mention, there's the other-stuff-exists argument. To be clear, I think the subject is a rising star, but per JackFromWisconsin, it's too soon. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, the 2016 WaPo coverage is far more than a trivial mention, and includes, e.g. "Fans ask Nolke for pictures on the street — an odd feeling for an acting-school graduate who struggled during auditions to land traditional roles. But now, she finds herself dealing with a new kind of stardom." Also, 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) 19:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC) She also receives coverage in The Los Angeles Times in 2015, that is more limited but provides additional context. Beccaynr (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A claim of street recognition via the subject herself does not support notability, and neither does a couple of mentions several years ago followed by recent coverage about a viral video. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in our discussion at the Tastemade Talk page, The Washington Post has five paragraphs of coverage on the development of her career before and at Tastemade, the Los Angeles Times features her in its 3-paragraph lede, and Media in Canada, when reporting on a Tastemade expansion, includes information attributed to a Tastemade rep that only highlights a show that she and a co-star are in. This is sustained coverage from 2015 through 2019..., so from my view, WP:BASIC notability is supported by this coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media in Canada is an obscure site aimed at the media industry, not the general public, and that 2019 article gives only a brief mention of the subject in the context of a Tastemade project. The other articles are too brief and too long ago so all in all there isn't the "sustained coverage" in my view. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 18:53, 8 May 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?} 13:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep With the recent series of videos on the pandemic, and the previous Tastemade work, I do not think this can be discounted as WP:BLP1E. The sources are just barely there in my opinion, but I think it's good enough to support notability. And as an aside: it may be an unpopular opinion, but I think notoriety in podcasts and social media should not be ignored as sources; it's not the 1990s anymore and I don't go looking for the NY Times etc. to be the only source to tell me what's happening online. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is work as an extra supposed to go in a filmography list? That's how this one has been filled out. For example, I've watched Exquisite, which is freely available on Vimeo (NSFW!) and the subject, despite being credited as a named character, appears only in the background of one scene. Likewise, What We Do In The Shadows was work as an extra. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether credited roles should appear in the Filmography list sounds like a discussion for the article Talk page, where there are also questions posted about the tags you have added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's valid to address it here as filmography entries contribute to notability. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let me explain. No, YouTube subscribers and views of her videos can never amount to enough evidence of notability. However, GNG states that she must be a subject of the sources and they must be reliable, secondary and multiple in nature. Multiple meaning that you cant have a dozen sources with basically the same story and count that is intellectually independent. The subject must have in-depth coverage but because Wikipedia is so vague on what "in-depth" means then we are left here squabbling amongst ourselves over our own personal opinion of that that term means. In taking the totality of everything surrounding this young woman and her brief and young career I believe there is enough here to pass GNG, but I hope she continues and gains additional recognition making her notability without question. Good nomination, Good discussion, Excellent points all-around. --ARose Wolf 14:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons and reliable sources indicated above. Article is good enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it satisfies WP:CREATIVE, which appears intended for well-known or highly-influential people (i.e. "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"; "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"; "work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work"; "won significant critical attention"). This clearly lets in e.g. a famous artist who originated a new movement - but a self-published viral video? No. Is it funny and interesting? Yes. But the idea involves the well-used idea of time-travel and a major current event, rather than being a significant new concept. We're all rooting for Julie but in my view it's too soon. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wbcgqbvj, Beccaynr's reasoning is spot on that the article is good enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. I have explained enough. And I won't reply to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Could it perhaps go on the Draft space until unambiguously notable? Wbcgqbvj (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a WP:BLP1E, nothing shown up to pass WP:NACTOR CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's had a feature article in Mclean's (Canadian newsmagazine), Huffington Post (before it shut down in Canada), KQED (a US public television station) and on CTV.ca (national network), all of which can be seen using GNews. Her videos were also listed by the CBC in a top ten year end list. Most of these have come in the last month (Mclean's), but it's been over the last 6 months or so). As a tv/film actress, she's had bit parts, but her youtube has gathered enough media attention in Canada to make her notable. She's also had some traction in French, even in Europe: https://www.femina.ch/temps-libre/loisirs/25-idees-pour-se-remonter-le-moral-en-ce-moment, and a few mentions about her youtube modern/future self video being an inspiration for French creators (use the French Google Canada website) to see more. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd argue she is also "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", she's inspired French creators to emulate her present/future dialogue style in subsequent videos. Seems to pass the bar to me. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, Explaining the Pandemic to My Past Self has been nominated for a 2021 Webby Award (Viral, General Video (Video)). Beccaynr (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As per LizardJr8. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:58, 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. Tone 06:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regine De Clercq

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the current sources are significant coverage. WP:BEFORE does not turning up reliable, independent sources. Zero hits in Google News. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Being chair-in-office of the Global Forum on Migration and Development seems notable, but it does seem hard to find detailed sources... Furius (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: As per Furuis, being a chair-in-office of the Global Forum on Migration and Development is a notable position and can be counted towards notability. Purosinaloense T/K 18:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage by third party sources, therefor clearly fails GNG. Her position alone can not justify a stand-alone Wikipedia article because without any supplemental information, there is no substance to the article. Throast (talk) 21:12, 18 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) 21:44, 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?} 13:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm quite certain that chairing the Global Forum on Migration and Development would be a sufficient notability claim if the article could be sourced to enough evidence of reliable source coverage about her work in the role to get her over WP:GNG, but it is not such an "inherently" notable position that it should entitle her to keep an article that's based entirely on the self-published content of her own employers in lieu of any media attention being paid to her by journalists. Even "inherent" notability still isn't "person doesn't have to have any GNG-worthy reliable sourcing at all", it's "we know for a fact that the person has better GNG-worthy reliable sourcing than the article is actually using in its current form". Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 1 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 01:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taru Mateti

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NSPORT. The subject is clearly an amateur runner. Only passing mentions in RS, no substantial coverage anywhere. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not competing at the elite level of the sport and does not have significant independent coverage for general notability. SFB 22:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 23:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BASIC; all references are to running results. No secondary sources. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:48, 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 keep. Going with keep. Please discuss merger (if you wish) on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rubik's Cube in popular culture

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

Pop culture trivia. While its impact on art seems notable, I feel that could be merged into the main article for rubik's cube, and the rest of the page seems trivial and non-encyclopedic, with entries such as "In the third season of Law & Order, Detectives Briscoe (Jerry Orbach) and Logan (Chris Noth) arrest a man who is playing with a Rubik's Cube on a bench." Waxworker (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the point of Rubik's Cube in popular culture#Art the style of the article changes completely. It is as if there's a real article buried under all of the laundry lists above it. I wonder what the article would look like without the unsourced laundry lists. Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that it looks like Special:Permalink/1019462476#Rubik's Cube in popular culture, a remarkably different-looking article. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this was brought up 11 years ago at Talk:Rubik's Cube in popular culture#Why this should be focused on ART and at one point the article looked like Special:Permalink/376764809. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but obviously needs cleanup from the above and inline with WP:TRIVIA. In terms of appearances in TV and films, there's probably some entries that are more critical than others - for example, its appearance in Ready Player One is more plot-relevant than just a background object, but again, we should rely on sourcing to help back those up. --Masem (t) 18:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a non-crufty version as provided by Uncle G to Rubik's Cube. The current article can handle that much content without making it overwhelmingly large, and it can always be split out into its own article again (hopefully under a better title) should the weight of the section become too much. The current rendition of the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia, and I think refocusing it within the context of the main article is probably the best bet to keep it from devolving again. TTN (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't provide it. Other editors have already done this. I do agree that positioning this as a break-out sub-article of Rubik's Cube#1980s Cube craze is wrong. It's wrong for the article as it stands, let alone for the article without the laundry lists. Note that this article was a merger from Rubik's Cubism (c.f. User:SDRitchey777/RubikCubism) where quite a lot of the non-laundry-list content came from (see also Special:Diff/300998141 from the same author). Uncle G (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge combined article size is plenty smaller than max 50kb prosesize and a single article can cover area in a more nuanced way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, pretty much as has already been stated: The article needs cleanup, but there are instance of appearances in popular culture that are worth keeping, the article has content worth WP:PRESERVEing, and secondary sources for some of the entries can be found. Daranios (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need clear consensus over merge or keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the note AfD is not really the place to determine the keep-or-merge part (that would be a merge discussion). I'm inclined to think it works fine as a standalone with a trim (as Masem notes, there are perfectly valid entries added after Uncle G's linked version, and it's pretty likely a merged compromise-version would create an unbalanced article), but in AfD terms the question is "do we want to delete this or not?", and we clearly don't. Vaticidalprophet 13:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find more sources such as this and so it passes WP:LISTN and WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rubik's Cube: per Uncle G, a non-crufty version makes sense to merge CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and keep or merge per Uncle G's draft. Effectively WP:TNT those mess then replace with what Uncle G already did. Merge is also an option. Currently Rubik's Cube is missing 'in popular culture' section entirely. It would make sense to start one there and split the article as stand-alone only once it grows too large. The current laundy list, mostly unreferenced, is fancrufty trivia and should be pruned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 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. Ultimately, consensus is that this article is not suitable. However, several commenters seem to believe that improvement might be a possibility. If anyone is interested in trying, let me know and I will put the article into draft space for you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater diving in popular culture

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

Excessive pop culture trivia, lots of original research. While the article goes into detail in how creative liberties about diving in fiction creates misconceptions about it in real life, it's all uncited, and the article primary consists of a massive list of anything and everything diving has appeared in. This seems non-encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure original research. There are no sources about the general topic, with all references being from or about specific works. Dubious notability. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a list, so to be expected that it is a collection of information about specific works. Could you be more specific about your claim of pure original research · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it is the unwanted "popular culture" stuff from three articles (Special:Diff/873525191, Special:Diff/872965051, Special:Diff/873530301) plus some categories (Special:Diff/873107920) merged into one. Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much unwanted per se, but not relevant to the reasonable scope of those articles. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has Anthony Appleyard been notified? Much of the content is material he originally provided. Perhaps he would be prepared to put in the effort to find proper references, as he was always in favour of keeping the material in Wikipedia. Most of it is probably citeable but outside of my field of interest, and not relevant to the main articles on diving. I can see encyclopedic value in the topic in spite of the current content and lack of citation, so I guess I am voting a qualified Keep, but against a merge into any technical article on diving. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pbsouthwood: Would you perhaps like to explain why you are against a merge to underwater diving or the like? It would be somewhat relevant for the discussion currently going on below. Thanks either way! Daranios (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daranios: Underwater diving is a large article, densely packed with summary level content on the rather large and broad topic of underwater diving. It is a featured article, so should not have content added which is not appropriate for inclusion in a featured article, particularly not a large set of lists of details and links. Once an article on diving in popular culture is sufficiently developed, and a well structured and referenced summary can be written, that summary should be added to Underwater diving, as a section on popular culture, to expand the scope of the top level article.
  The current article on underwater diving in popular culture has potential to become something better in spite of its more obvious shortcomings. Deleting it would seem contrary to the aims of the encyclopedia.
  The scope of Underwater diving in popular culture is too broad for inclusion in any of the other major articles on aspects of underwater diving, and splitting out little bits of the content and merging them into the articles where each item has some relevance is also problematic, as many of the little bits would fit equally well or badly in more than one article, which would scatter them around and make them less accessible, less useful, and more work to maintain. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those parts which can be identified as original research., no problem, but WP:OR is not an excuse to delete a whole article because some of it is OR. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If an article on Wikipedia is bad, the solution is to improve, not delete. The problem is often finding someone who is willing to put in the work needed to improve, when deletion is the easy option.
Specific claims can be challenged and if no support is forthcoming, deleted. My estimate is that a large amount is probably citeable with some effort, as quite a lot is linked to articles which may have suitable sources. Identify those statements which are considered original research, so that they can be investigated.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: The massive deletion to page Frogman at diff [35] should be restored and discussed. Popular culture is important; "popular" stuff affects many people, and thereby is noteworthy, ref. the meaning of the word "popular". Often one man's trivia or cruft is another man's important relevant matter. In matter about a book or film, the book or film is accessible to the public and is the reference. The list of links in this article could be useful or interesting to many people. Wikipedia is a public information service. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First the material should be provided with proper in-line sourcing, correctly formatted, then we can discuss whether it should be restored, and why. Popular culture may be important, but if so it is important as popular culture. Evidence that that content is encyclopedic would also support retention of this article. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A citation on Wikipedia implies that the person making the citation has actually viewed the source, and is personally taking responsibility for the validity of the citation. A book or film may be technically accessible to the public, while remaining, in practice, inaccessible to some members of the public. This does not make the source inadmissible in general, but it does put the onus for proper citation on the person who wants the content to remain on Wikipedia, and has presumably seen the content in the source, as the buck cannot be passed to people who do not personally have the required access to correctly cite the source, whether or not they may have the interest or time. Proper citation means providing sufficient information that another person can unambiguously positively identify the publication cited, and where relevant, the part of the publication that is contains the cited information. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, Anthony Appleyard: this discussion is about the proposed deletion of the article Underwater diving in popular culture, which is also partly due to lack of proper referencing of those same statements. I pinged you as a courtesy in case you want to make a case in defence of the article, or possibly even to provide proper references for the content you originally posted, which might help persuade other editors that it should be kept. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: Since Underwater diving in popular culture is a list of links to books and movies, the reference to each line is the text of the book or or the action of the movie which that line links to and describes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Appleyard, It is not a list of links to books and movies, it is a list of links to Wikipedia articles about books and movies, and other statements about the content of books and movies.
In the case of links to Wikipedia articles, the blue internal link proves that the article exists on Wikipedia, which is sufficient. The annotation transcludes the short description of the linked article, which is content of the linked article, and therefore must be directly or indirectly cited in the linked article, following the rules for the lead paragraphs.
In the case of the statements about frogmen, they are statements about the content of books and movies, they are not internal links to Wikipedia articles, so those statements must be cited in each article in which the statements are made. They are not transcluded from other articles, the statements are made directly where they are displayed, and therefore must be explicitly and unambiguously cited to the external source there too, in one of the accepted formats for citation on Wikipedia, which does not include bare inline external links. This is standard practice on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not cite Wikipedia. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:50, 26 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?} 12:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another IPC drive-by which hasn't observed WP:BEFORE. Sources are easy to find such as Rapture of the Deep and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andrew. There is also a short treatment in Diving Pioneers p. 42, there's more about underwater diving in popular culture in the context of maritime archaelogy here and here, and there's many more secondary sources dealing with specific appearances of underwater diving in popular culture. Daranios (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unmanageable, indiscriminate list without any particular inclusion criteria. This is not something that can be solved through editing because it is inherently flawed. At best, this deserves to be a section in the main article with prose describing the usage of the topic in popular culture, if the sources exist. TTN (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: Sources do exist, as shown just above. That such a topic is neither unmanagable nor inherently flawed is shown by e.g. Tunnels in popular culture (I would say "tunnels" is a topic quite comparable in its broadness to "underwater diving"). How it can be managed is decribed in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. (That does not say anything about the question if a separate article or a section is better, I think we agree on that the current version could use improvement.) Daranios (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot seem to access some of the sources above, but I see nothing that justifies an article at this time. Contrary to popular belief, satisfying the bare minimum in what one would consider reliable sources and calling it a day doesn't mean an article is actually justified. It has to actually make sense as an article. I don't see anything that is going to shift this to a discussion on the topic's evolution in pop culture utilizing only pertinent examples. "Tunnels in popular culture" is an absolute hodgepodge mess that looks like it should be merged into a couple different articles, so I'm not sure what your goal was in showing that as an example of a successful popular culture article. TTN (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: "Tunnels in popular culture", because it is the example called out by Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Can you access the main source above, Rapture of the Deep? It has pages 97-105 dedicated first to the appearance of diving in film, television and advertisement in the 1950s and 1960s, and then analyzes the roots and expression of diving in culture and society. (Impact in culture and society is part of "in popular culture", right? That is, as far as I can see, not covered in Underwater diving.) Volumewise, that alone could make for a nice short article. Of course more than one source is needed, but they have been shown to exist, and the scope of the topic is much broader than what is in Rapture of the Deep, so plenty more to add. And I am sure that secondary sources can be found for many of the entries that are currently listed. Just have a look at Scuba Diving Tourism p. 15, a hit for the first entry I have tried to look, Sea Hunt. Actually, look at that, that book has a one-page-chapter on scuba diving in popular culture. Tada, WP:GNG's minimum requirement is fulfilled with those two alone. And we have already found more, so we can satisfy more than the bare minimum, as you have requested. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is severely outdated and just assumes the TV Tropes style of content is fine, so I don't really think it is a good resource at all in how to handle these articles. The manual of style linked in the essay advocates for actual meaningfully crafted prose based on discussion of the topic in popular culture. With the exception of the first section of the tunnels article, the article is clearly just trivia in prose form, so it fails to actually meet any criteria of what could be considered a meaningful pop culture article. For this article in particular, what has been advanced in terms of sources does not at this time justify a separate article. This topic is a content fork, so simply saying "the most basic needs of GNG have been satisfied" is not good enough for an article in this case. You've at best brought forth the building blocks for a section in the main article. There is currently nothing that justifies the current content, there is nothing to salvage from the current content, and there is no need to stub this down when it can simply be added to the main article. TTN (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: If you think the essay is outdated, why not work on updating it? As it is, it is current piece of Wikipedia lore that directly contradicts the opinion that the topic is unmanageable and inherently flawed. Anyway, it is an essay, so let's look back to Wikipedia policy. If you say ""the most basic needs of GNG have been satisfied" is not good enough for an article in this case", I assume that's your opinion, but that it is not grounded in policy. Or where would be the policy to the contrary? I think WP:GNG is the relevant policy here, so if its needs are met, the article can stay. And again, Rapture of the Deep alone can fulfill the volume requirement of WP:WHYN, while Scuba Diving Tourism fulfills the "not one single viewpoint" requirement. Now you say meeting these basic requirements is not good enough. But in this argumentation you have ignored that more secondary sources, which therefore go beyond "the most basic needs of GNG", have already been presented.

Again, I agree that what we currently have is lacking and needs sources. But when you say there is "nothing that justifies the current content", did you do a search on individual entries of the list, to see if there are secondary sources for them? If there were (as has just been shown for Sea Hunt), then that content would be justified, even though the sources are not yet there in the article. Daranios (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The essay reflects when there were so many hundreds (possibly even thousands) of these articles and ten times as many bloated sections. It appears we're now down to somewhere around 100 or less, and the prevalence of major pop culture sections has thankfully mostly died down. It no longer has relevance in most of its suggestions. This article is a content fork. It is something that should only be split out when properly sourced content overwhelms the parent article. You can use the same justification of just barely meeting GNG to go split out literally any section of any well sourced article if you really want, but that would be silly in practice if the content fits in the article already. Zero content in the article as of the time of the nomination should stick around, so that leaves a minor stub to build from the sources presented in this AfD (or at least any that talk about the actual topic). As the sourcing presented does not show massive potential for improvement, it's not something that can sustain an article at this time. Easiest thing is just to delete this and start fresh in the main article. TTN (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: Hmm, I disagree on so many levels that I don't have time to discuss them all now. I'd like to start with: Would you be willing to create such a section in the main article in case this one were deleted? If not, let's assume for a moment, noone else would be either. Then someone interested in the topic would have lost whatever the current article offers, despite its flaws, and gained nothing. I don't feel that would improve Wikipedia. Starting from the other side, you say its easiest to first delete, then create a new section. As the existence of this article is no hindrance whatsoever in creating such a section, I cannot follow you there. On the contrary I would say its existence is a slight help (if I'd do it, to get inspiration for what to do there, from your point of view, at least as a bad example). If a great section in a parent article were created, putting this article to shame, then this could be redirected after clarification in a merge discussion. That way round, there would be no loss for Wikipedia at any time, in case a section would look better than a whole article, as you suggest. That's also what the policy says: WP:ATD "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases.", and WP:NEXIST. Daranios (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this discussion exists and can be linked on the talk page of the main article, I don't really think it matters when it is created. As long as the sources here are recorded somewhere for future perusal and possible usage, the job is done. I'm looking at this from the perspective of it being an improperly created page that never should have been allowed to exist in the first place. WP:NODEADLINE is a two way road in terms of people rushing to create articles before they're ready and people looking to remove viable articles just because they're not up to snuff. If we were talking about a topic that had content worth salvaging, the argument that we should give it time to incubate would be valid, but this article as of the time of the nomination offers zero utility. It is just the same TV Tropes trvia bunk we've seen on these lists for the last 15-ish years. I'm honestly surprised it was actually created only a few years ago. Without confidence that this page has the potential for massive improvement, I think its existence is a negative blight on Wikipedia that encourages more pages like it to be created, so its deletion is a benefit. TTN (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TTN Can you support your personal opinions as expressed above with actual Wikipedia policy or guidance, as opposed to essays which are other peoples personal opinions on what Wikipedia should be? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be particularly interested to know of anything deprecating articles on the topic of specific categories of popular culture. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is Underwater diving in popular culture an improperly created page that never should have been allowed to exist in the first place? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the article content, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material, despite linking to the essay in the above discussion, pretty much entirely contradicts the essay. The content in the article as of the time of the nomination fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is a random smattering of loosely connected trivia points, and not a "section with well-written paragraphs that give a logically presented overview (often chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres" as called for by the guideline. There is nothing in the article worth salvaging. The argument of the how and when to split an article is mostly subjective, but Wikipedia:Content forking suggests it is acceptable when there is an issue of undue weight. This topic does not have that issue. We have a small selection of possible sources from which to build a section, and I am not a fan of stubbing articles down to just see them back here in two years when they're either still a stub or have bloated back out again. This is a topic that, if it is going to be explored on Wikipedia, belongs in the parent article until such a time where it has undue weight. I don't know if you made the article as a junk containment zone for your FA push or simply believe it to have potential, but the article was definitely never suitable. TTN (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater diving in popular culture is primarily a list. It is also an article where a more general treatment of the topic can be developed. The relevance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material is tenuous at best.
You specify The content in the article as of the time of the nomination fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we should be considering the content of the article as it currently stands - improvements during a deletion discussion are not only permitted, but recommended.
The transfer of content from Underwater diving was because it had potential elsewhere that it did not have there. The same point stands for all the other articles in which parts of it were found.
Your claim that the article was definitely never suitable remains unsupported by evidence or logical demonstration, and therefore expresses your personal opinion. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] I would also parenthetically mention that the content of the current article does not have a unique parent article, as implied above, as it was collected from several different articles on the general topic, but Underwater diving#In popular culture would be the appropriate place for a summary section once one has been developed. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made it without any claim of notability, completely contrary to how guidelines on how the topic says the content should be managed. That is absolutely the criteria for a poorly formed article that never should have existed. Given what is very respectable work from you on other areas of the general topic, I'm not sure why you're so adamant on defending this mess. Out of current remaining popular culture articles, Titanic in popular culture (still a little messy in some area but much closer to proper form) seems the closest example to what would be a properly formed version of one of these articles. There is a very good reason 90% of these things have been culled from Wikipedia over the years. TTN (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read this – You made it without any claim of notability, completely contrary to how guidelines on how the topic says the content should be managed. That is absolutely the criteria for a poorly formed article that never should have existed. – and am unable to parse what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify.
I, as you put it, defend this mess because I find the arguments for its deletion poorly expressed and uncompelling, and although it is a topic I am not particularly interested in, have not been convinced that deletion is an appropriate solution. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The deletion opinions of LaundryPizza03 and Abhishek0831996 as well as the nomination by Waxworker are based partially or exclusively on WP:OR. I hope I could show by adding secondary sources to the example of Sea Hunt, that this article cannot be purely original research. So far there has been no comment on the question by Peter Southwood what the original research claim actually refers to, making it unclear if these are opinions solely based on the current lack of citations (which is not really relevant according to WP:ARTN), or if there was any WP:BEFORE search done to substantiate this. (There were also 16 deletion nominations done by the nominator within 11 minutes, making a proper WP:BEFORE search highly doubtful.) I hope this is taken into account for the decision about this article. Daranios (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the deletion rationale for each article and looked into sources well before publishing all of the discussions in one go, as it was more efficient. WP:BEFORE has been met, and a few sources talking about the subject are not a justification for a massive list of anything and everything underwater diving has ever appeared in. Per TTN, it's unmanagable and the concept of the article as a whole is flawed, not only its contents. Waxworker (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Waxworker: Thanks for replying. Yet that sounds a lot like an opinion based on the current state of the article. In more search secondary sources have been found, which could be used to write a reasonably-sized section about the topic. For the example of Sea Hunt, a section supported by secondary sources exists now. The same principle could be applied to all entries: If there are secondary sources, these topics can stay, if not, they can be thrown out. In this way it would, as also Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content describes, be both manageable and limited. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead paragraph of Underwater diving in popular culture is a scope description. This directly refutes the claim Unmanageable, indiscriminate list without any particular inclusion criteria, by providing an explicit set of inclusion criteria appropriate to the topic, and though fairly broad in scope, is not indiscriminate. No evidence has been provided that it would be unmanageable, nor reasons why this may be the case. The statement appears more rhetorical than substantive.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists (or lists of lists) with ill-defined inclusion criteria that are absolutely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simply saying "this is a listing of [X] that feature [Y]" means you can include anything under the sun that has featured [Y] even tangentially. There is no end point. Whether notability for the overarching topic of "Underwater diving in popular culture" as a whole can be established from the sources provided in the AfD, the content of the article is still unsuitable. TTN (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel that the inclusion criteria should be tightened up, you are free to do so. This is a cooperative project. If something appears broken the appropriate response is to fix it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:IINFO. Lists of overly broad scope such as those of the form "[Subject] in [any media]" are indiscriminate, unmaintainable and not useful. Sandstein 07:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, What about lists of "Wikipedia articles about [subject] in [specified media]"? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pbsouthwood, they are indiscriminate. There are so many topics and so many works of popular culture, this would just generate a zillion-page worse version of TV Tropes. Sandstein 20:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Sandstein, Indiscriminate overstates the objection. There are three independent discriminators in Wikipedia articles about [subject] in [specified media]. The quoted format represents an outline list, or a closed set of index lists, or even a category , all of which are accepted as useful in principle, and complementary to each other. None of these conditions are unbounded in the real world, and there is no limitation preventing further discrimination to split such an article if it becomes actually unmanageable at some time. Wikipedia itself continues to grow, with no hard limit on size and number of articles, either on a topic or in general. Navigation within the encyclopedia as a whole, and within topics, is facilitated by such lists, which makes them useful to both readers and editors. Maintaining the encyclopedia is a lot of work, but it is one of the things Wikipedians do, and as time passes, tools are developed to reduce the workload. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Sandstein. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. The assertion by those !voting keep is that sources identified can yield a salvageable article. Let's put it in draft to test that theory. BD2412 T 19:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify - while the article as currently written is in danger of becoming an indiscriminate list with unclear criteria, I think that the discussion has shown there are sufficient sources to justify a prose-based, non-list article on this topic. The article should be kept and improved, or sent to draft space for improvement. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - personally, I don't think this will ever be in state which is not indiscriminate enough to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:55, 28 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. Tone 06:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Algeria

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

Doesn't seem to be independently notable as distinct from Microsoft itself, certainly not to WP:NCORP standards. "مايكروسوفت الجزائر" with quotes has no results, without only shows up results of Algerian (and MENA-region more broadly) media discussing Microsoft-the-American-corporation and its products, without care for its specific Algerian division. Also, have to love a "This article needs to be updated (December 2013)" tag. Vaticidalprophet 13:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 13:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 13:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.; no evidence this division is independently notable. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:52, 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?} 12:52, 1 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. Week keep is a keep. Tone 07:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Lalit

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

I think I am being bold for nominating this. While this seems to be a notable page, it doesn't qualify WP:AUTHOR. As per the criteria, her work should be significant or well-known. None of the books seem to have received significant attention from any reliable sources apart from their launch (launches/events can easily get attention in print). The one source that's indeed useful are the two print of Hindustan Times (which she has uploaded on her website and provided as a reference to). However, those are not independent either. The Femina article is an interview and hence not independent either. "Wish to pen a book? Make a splash with blogging". that has been cited thrice is an wire release. Concludingly, it fails WP:GNG. Also, it is created by a blocked user. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:00, 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?} 12:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, based on the inclusion of her stories in the official CBSE syllabus. If it were a book, that would have satisfied WP:NBOOK#4. That, combined with the (not entirely independent) press coverage, makes her sufficiently notable for inclusion. pburka (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per pburka, and WP:BASIC, because the 2011 Femina article appears to have some commentary woven into it; my !vote could be stronger if I was able to more fully assess the source, but there is also biographical information in what is available that could help expand the article. The 2012 Hindustan Times profile is in-depth coverage, the 2013 Hindustan Times coverage is about more than a book launch and discusses her as an author as well as her book, and the brief coverage in a 2015 Indo-Asian News Service article about blogging and becoming an author also appears to support her WP:SUSTAINED notability. Beccaynr (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Accaoui

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NBASKET. A WP:GNG search didn't bring up any significant coverage apart from routine college basketball blurbs. My Arabic search brought up only the Wikipedia article in that language. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails the notability guidelines. Has not won a championship in college, or competed in one of the leagues listed at WP:NBASKET. Certainly much better at basketball than I am, though not notable/good enough to have a Wikipedia article. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 01:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are routine coverage and/or statistics sites; fails GNG. I agree with Crossover1370 above, this player is better than I ever was but that doesn't make him notable for Wikipedia. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this subject fails to meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 17:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nawojczyn

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

No reliable sources (none in English, as well), does not seem to be notable. EpicPupper 21:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator clearly doesn't understand our policies such as WP:NGEO as well as WP:NOENG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete As it stands, this fails verification. The supposed source does not in fact appear to have been used, as all the information except maybe the coords was copied from the unsourced article on the Polish WP by Kotbot; my guess is that the coordinates came over from Polish WP later in the same way. Those coordinates are for an isolated house a short ways outside another town. Following the supposed reference link leads to a fairly generic page which does not contain information about this supposed place. I do not speak Polish, nor anything even roughly cognate, so I was unable to go further than this, but at the moment the only information is that either this is not a settlement at all, or that the information in the article is essentially wrong. If someone who does have Polish could check this out and update the article, that would be a huge help, but I'm not going to give a geostub a pass on procedural grounds when the most basic verification— is there anything there?— can be done in under 30 seconds with a decent internet connection. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
coordinates are for an isolated house - no. it is a group of buildings. In plwiki Nawojczyn is described as osada, which is a minor settlement. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mangoe, I asked for help on pl wiki by starting an AfD there pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:04:20:Nawojczyn. The name does appear in one or two poorly digitized Polish official listings of geographical names and such: [36], [37]. But I am not sure if meets WP:GEOLAND. It probably has some official recognition, but no history or significance to speak of. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NGEO no verifiable information whatsoever beyond maps and postal code (and weather today :-). Lembit Staan (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lembit Staan, Please take a look at the Polish AfD linked. Polish Wikipedians think this location is officially recognized and should meet NGEO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  from WP:NGEO: This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. plwiki has different rules (which is OK). On the other hand, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable - here we have a problem. How do we know if it is populated and legally recognized? It was already discussed that postal index is not an evidence neither of being populated not officially recognized, just the same as children of illegal immigrants can go to school her in California, but merely having student's card does not make them legal. Finally the wording "typically presumed to be" which is not the same as "are notable". "Presumed" means "if wikipedians were not so lazy, they would have found WP:GNG sources to establish notability". I say, not in his case. IMO the only one thing notable about it is its name :-) (and I expanded the article accordingly) Lembit Staan (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd normally say that this passes WP:GEOLAND. However, looking at Google Maps and Streetview, it does not appear to consist of more than a couple of houses and is not signposted or streetnamed in any way. I know that in Britain we do not usually accept articles on hamlets unless they have signposts and/or nameboards, so I don't think Poland should be any different. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NGEO - no verifiable information, only maps + postal code CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Necrothesp. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:37, 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) 23:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phone cashback

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

Seems to be some type of marketing scheme for cell phones. I find no evidence that it is widespread enough to have an article. A search reveals very few sources. Rusf10 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main rebate page covers the concept fairly thoroughly (and includes the consumer's perspective, which makes this article feel like a salesperson manual.) No sources elaborate on why a monthly, delayed cashback system is a truly distinct service- or why it need only apply to mobile phones. Aaaaaand I just looked at the article as it was originally made: a diff. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, independently notable and passes WP:GNG, many sources available.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ Tracy, Marc (2020-01-21). "The Former Journalist Who Is Bernie Sanders's Media Critic". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-05-19.
^ "He Broke The NSA Leaks Story, But Just Who Is Glenn Greenwald?". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-05-19.
^ Ed Monk (25 January 2008). "Avoid the sham 'cashback' mobile deals". thisismoney.co.uk. DMG Media. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
^ Robert Anderson (2 September 2019). "Best Mobile Phones Direct Phone Deals for March 2020: Compare Cashback Deals". PC Mag. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
^ Emma Lunn (9 February 2019). "How to compare deals on mobile phone contracts". Evening Standard. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
^ Susanne Norris (9 December 2020). "How to claim cashback". Good Housekeeping. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
^ Alice Marshall (13 March 2021). "Unmissable SIM only deal: unlimited data for an effective £6 a month". Techradar. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
^ ~~Alice Marshall~~ Somrata Sarkar (16 December 2020). "How do mobile phone cashback deals work? Our full guide". Tech Advisor. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:11, 17 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) 21:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, Lacks indepth sources, kind of WP:HOAX. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I don't believe this passes WP:GNG. References 2 and 5 that SailingInABathtub provided read like ads instead of articles, and would likely fail WP:GNG. They don't mention "mobile phone cashback" except in passing. References 3 and 4 don't talk about mobile phone cashback specifically, 3 just talks about comparing deals and mentions mobile phone cashback in passing, and 4 talks about claiming cashback in general, not mobile phone cashback. References 1 and 6 could be reliable sources, but the website for reference 1 has a homepage with a lot of clickbaity, Daily Mail-esque headlines, so I'm not too sure about its reliability. I was unable to find any sources that objectively talked about mobile phone cashback, only advertising, and some "Offer Details" pages on mobile phone stores. All in all, the 2 articles mentioned by SailingInABathtub wouldn't qualify as significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. HoneycrispApples (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one, without ads Mobile Phone Cashback Deals Explained SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing this source. I think this probably counts as a reliable source, per WP:RS, but I'm not sure if the three sources discussed here would count as "significant coverage". I know that local and regional coverage can still be significant, but the sources that we have here are essentially two news articles on mobile phone cashback, only one of which reports on something instead of explaining how mobile phone cashback works, and a blog post which also explains how phone cashback works. This could be enough to pass WP:GNG, but there's still something we need to address: Is the concept of "mobile phone cashback" significant enough to have its own Wikipedia page? As one editor already said, the main Rebate (marketing) article covers this fairly thoroughly,and mobile phone cashback is essentially just a rebate with some additional terms. Merging this article into the rebate one could violate WP:UNDUE as we'd be giving mobile phone cashback undue weight, which is why I'm still leaning towards deletion for now. HoneycrispApples (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources provided by SailingInABathTub. Article needs improvement and sources added. Maybe I will do that. Webmaster862 (talk) 05:26, 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?} 12:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect for now to Rebate (marketing) or a similar target) for largely the same reasons as HoneycrispApples. Many articles in this space are promotional churnalism. Sources that mention this concept are non-independent (e.g. the PCMag article cited above has directly on it "we may earn affiliate commissions from buying links on this page") and/or do so peripherally (trivial coverage). On the latter point: merely that a concept exists and is mentioned in articles does not make it a notable topic (especially given that the broader rebate topic is already covered); after all, we don't have an article on paying for a cell phone using a credit card, even though I'm sure it has the same level of "coverage" as rebates when purchasing cell phones. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:52, 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 01:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Association of Architects

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

Unsourced since 2006. WP:BEFORE reveals a decent number of search results, but they are almost all passing mentions. The best sources I could find from clicking on about 20 newspaper articles and books were this PR piece and this one paragraph in an encyclopedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article is only sourced to the subject's own website. We cannot hae such things on Wikipedia.Zelnhelmthegreat (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zelnhelmthegreat I feel that is an argument in bad faith, this is an official organization that accredits architects. There is no question about whether the organization exists or not. Clearly the existence of the organization is not OR, it is basically a government organization. The question is rather whether it is notable per WP:ORG. --hroest 21:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment we have articles about many other such organizations which are all quasi-government organizations and are all weak on sourcing. Point in case Ontario Association of Architects and Ordre des architectes du Québec. If they were private organizations we would probably delete them, but here they have quasi-government status since they regulate the profession and are probably notable due to that. --hroest 21:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists is not an argument to keep an article. We need to have adequate indepdent sourcing on this organization. There are huge numbers of articles in Wikipedia that do not meet our inclusion criteria, their presence is no argument to keep other such organizations having articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:38, 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?} 12:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 07:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article hasn’t been updated or sourced in 15 years and would otherwise be an easy call for deletion. Because it is affiliated with the provincial government, there is reason to reconsider. But I still support deletion for lack of verifiable information and notability. ABT021 (talk) 15:34, 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. ✗plicit 01:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhadram

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't notable Malayalam film. It has not received any significant coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:NFO Ashique2020 (talk) 02:43, 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 no consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Willoughby

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

Total fail of WP:PROF. Not seeing how the general notability or WP:NAUTHOR is met either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of women-related deletion discussions.Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of artists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of authors-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems like I've seen this at AfD before but I can find no record, wondering if it had a different variation of her name? Nevertheless, the subject of the article does not meet WP:NARTIST, WP:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She's certainly very accomplished for someone who only just completed her PhD. But it's another step from there to "requires an encyclopedia article", and it doesn't look like there's sufficient coverage to indicate quite the needed notability either as an artist or a scientist. (If she keeps up this clip we'll have the article in three years though...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: Along with a considerable amount evidence of notability by separate criteria, it has emerged that they are a co-author of a book reviewed by a notable paleontologist, see below. ~ cygnis insignis 08:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However the only mention of her in that review are the four words "wonderful illustrations by Emily Willoughby", and the title of her chapter. The review does cover the work of the other contributor's chapters, but it does not cover Willoughby's work in depth; therefore it is not SIGCOV. This is analogous to an artist being in a group exhibition and a review in an art magazine covering the work of four of the artists in an in-depth analysis, but only name checks another artist. That review would not cound towards notability. What is needed are in-depth reviews of her work. It is WP:TOOSOON, perhaps in a few years there will be enough to support an article. Netherzone (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Astonishing! … now do the reference to NPR. ~ cygnis insignis 16:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first mention by Darren Naish is second author in the citation, then stating, "So much media coverage and so much apparent interest was generated by this event that – so Kane and co-author Emily Willoughby realised – clear and comprehensive response was warranted.". I'm seeing at lot of downplaying of achievements here and fancy that one ip [accused of being a SPA] is probably not far wrong, there is a glass ceiling to inclusion. ~ cygnis insignis 16:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cygnis insignis, I truly hope you or the IP are not implying that I or any of the participants here are speaking of out sexism or bias. 75% of the biographic articles I have created are on women, and have also created articles on women's topics. Re: your SPA comment, if an anonymous editor has made only one edit ever (which was to this AfD), and the other editor made only total 4 edits (3 of which are on Willoughby), then they have "made few or no edits outside of this topic." Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am implying there is structural bias on wikipedia, it makes me tetchy. I am also the noting accusation of an ip being a SPA being made in the edit summary, pretty sure that is not okay but correct me if that sort of thing doesn't need to be discussed at the appropriate noticeboard. I'm not wishing to downplay the achievements of Netherzone, and happy to get meta somewhere else if they are concerned by my comments, but point out the civil thing on this page is addressing the substance of discussion and not make accusations as deflection. On that: one ip also supplied a link to NPR, after the insistence there is no evidence being placed under the noses of opposers, a request to discuss that has been ignored for a second time now with a claim to, what, credentials in unbiasness? ~ cygnis insignis 18:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No NPROF criteria met, and general coverage not sufficient to meet NARTIST or NAUTHOR. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps she's not notable as a scientist yet, but as an artist she certainly seems notable: Google Books: "Emily Willoughby" artist. Maybe her infobox should be returned to an artist infobox? 78.82.214.190 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC) — 78.82.214.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete. TOOSOON for NPROF. I don't see her work as a dinosaur illustrator (or artist) carrying her over the notability threshold.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with others that it's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. I'm not convinced passes WP:ARTIST so far. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the google results above the author is frequently cited for their works, which is 'art' based on a lot of science; Willoughby is regarded as a scientist and artist for these reconstructions and attempting to determine the subject's notability by the criteria of one or the other professions is misleading. Their works are cited at that google search on 'artist' in an extract "By the 21st century, digital art appeared and feathered dinosaurs and mammals were being reconstructed by various artists (e.g., Raven Amos, Karen Carr, Emily Willoughby, Carol Abraczinskas, and Luci BettiNash), Rebels, Scholars, Explorers: Women in Vertebrate Paleontology", I didn't have to dig any deeper than that. ~ cygnis insignis 07:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis a passing mention in a book is clearly not enough for WP:NARTIST. Per WP:GNG multiple independent sources are required with in-depth coverage. --hroest 15:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a 'passing mention', it strongly indicates notability in their opinion and that other sources in that google will support that. Notable also as a pioneer of digital paleo-art it seems. Is that source no good? ~ cygnis insignis 15:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis, it is a passing mention, to pass NARTIST we need multiple independent reviews of her work, a track record of exhibitions in notable galleries or museums, works held in verifiable museum collections, etc. A name check in a book or simply publishing illustrations in books (or self-published books) is not enough to meet the criteria. Netherzone (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Paleoart is any original artistic work that attempts to depict prehistoric life according to scientific evidence." The works here are said to be digital, but in any case they have been produced with the intention of being published in one form or another as scientific information. Having them 'exhibited' is not usually the purpose, the work is probably a file and printing instructions. If they satisfy the often stringent requirements of the publisher and their scientist colleagues that is the measure of their success, mentioning someone as an example of that is not done lightly. ~ cygnis insignis 16:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While getting one's art published is clearly a certain bar to pass, the notability guidelines for writing an encyclopedic article about a subject are higher than simply getting work published. As Netherzone mentions, multiple independent reviews are required with exhibitions in notable galleries etc. This is independent of whether it is digital or non-digital art or literature. We also do not write article about authors simply because they get published but because their work gets critically reviewed and discussed. See WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG for the guidelines. --hroest 17:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While I acknowledge the comment above, I don't see significant coverage about this person anywhere. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as an artist, she has certainly had an impact in recent years (and has been widely cited as such), which would be the case whether she was also a scientist or not. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be that almost no published sources talk about this "impact" as an artist.--- Possibly (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She fails WP:NPROF and her art does not pass WP:NARTIST yet. This article clearly may happen at some point but its just WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 15:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- PLEASE keep in mind that Wikipedia has a persistent problem with sexism and with undervaluing the contributions of female scientists. They remain underrepresented on Wiki.

Note that she was recently profiled on NPR here: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/414697070/brains-on

If NPR finds her noteworthy, then perhaps we should too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.25.58 (talk • contribs) — 212.200.25.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs)

A helpful link, but I expect it will be pointed out at WP:NARTIST that art cannot be viewed on the radio. ~ cygnis insignis 19:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone on the internet reckons the Willoughby's illustrations are "wonderful", but that blog may just be bias against the topic of the book: Kane, J., Willoughby, E. & Keesey, T. M. 2016. God’s Word or Human Reason? An Inside Perspective on Creationism. Inkwater Press, pp. 389. ISBN 2370000384812. ~ cygnis insignis 20:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I’m just not seeing a notable subject here under WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no notability here. The article was quite deceptively written; I have toned down some of its inflations of her accomplishments. Now, for notability, firstly, does she meet NPROF? Probably not seeing as the article says she just got her PhD in 2021. In fact, a little googling says she is still a PhD candidate, so it is goign to be hard to meet NPROF in a temporary postdoc position the same year you get your doctorate. What is the article's stated best research accomplishment? That she wrote two student papers that got awards from an organization that she now sits on the board of. Second, does she meet NARTIST? I do not see any shows, collections, reviews or other customary accomplishments, so no. Third, NAUTHOR? same story, although this is the area where she has perhaps the most professional accomplishment. Finally, GNG? Well, there would have to be significant independent coverage, rather than hyped statements of accomplishment cobbled together and supported by trivial coverage. So, no. --- Possibly (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think anyone is arguing that she has established herself as an influential scientist or author, but as an artist she has established herself as quite an influential figure in the paleoart community. The problem here is that paleoart is a niche field which rarely receives any kind of literary discussion like other forms of art, and Willoughby herself has been on the scene for less than a decade. Paleoart is a type of functional art, not necessarily something designed for exhibitions, collectors, or magazine critics. She received the fifth highest number of votes as an influence in David Orr's 2017 survey of paleoartists, higher than Charles Knight and James Gurney. And on the 2019 survey, she received the second highest number of votes, behind only Mark Witton.[38] Admittedly I'm not sure how Wikipedia would deal with a blog-hosted survey from a reliable source perspective, but the process appeared to be transparent, methodical, and protected against manipulation. Her art has been featured heavily in Mark Witton (2018)'s "The Paleoartist's Handbook" and she has a whole chapter in Steve White (2017)'s "Dinosaur Art II", two prominent and fairly successful books discussing modern paleoart, its current major figures, and its influence on pop culture. She seems to fit the check marks of WP:ARTIST. Also, I see no reason why she in particular is being excluded, the original proposal for deletion did not even mention NARTIST, which is by far the most relevant category here. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That survey obviously skews towards younger, amateur paleoartists, particularly the 2019 survey. I don't see how Joschua Knüppe or Willoughby are more influential than Gregory S Paul, which they both outrank by mentions in the 2019 survey, so I don't think it holds much weight. As for the books, having an entire chapter sounds like SIGCOV, as for Witton's Book, what does "featured heavily" mean. Is the work critically analysed in any respect? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things to keep in mind. One, most paleoartists are young, since it is a rapidly growing and niche genre. So the aforementioned artists may indeed be a personal influence for most paleoartists much more than classic paleoartists. Two, paleoart simply is not discussed by art critics, so relative notability has to be gleaned from art books such as DA and DAII. This problem is inherent to all paleoartists who have been working since ~2000, so once again I see no reason why specifically Willoughby's article is being nominated for deletion. In fact, if you sort through most of the post-dinosaur renaissance paleoartists on Paleoart, you will find that their sources are almost always surveys, art books, and news articles (akin to the Orr survey, DAII, and NPR talk with Willoughby). She is not an outlier in regards to paleoartist articles. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that there are other paleoartist who do not appear to merit wikipedia articles, I have marked Mark P. Witton for notability and I will nominate it for deletion in due course if more citations are not added. Both Charles Knight, James Gurney, and Gregory S. Paul pass WP:GNG. Joschua Knüppe does not appear to have a page. If there are other pages that aren’t up to snuff in this space please point them out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanboyphilosopher: A quick search has revealed a whole bunch, for now I’ve tagged Alex Ebel, Jan Sovák, Nobu Tamura, Sergey Krasovskiy, and Doug Henderson (artist) as not meeting out notability requirements. I’m going to keep looking, thank you for letting us know that "She is not an outlier in regards to paleoartist articles.” apparently we have a rotten genera. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Witton is probably one of the most influential paleoartists currently active, and even discounting that, his paleontological work has been popularized modern view on the morphology and behavior of azhdarchids and other pterosaurs (he basically wrote the most successful pterosaur book since 1991),[39] which show up in all sorts of independent media today. I was not meaning to mark paleoartists in general for deletion, I was simply meaning to note how paleoart must be considered by different guidelines and merits relative to exhibition art. The current guidelines are a bit biased towards the "art for the sake of art" form of the term, which would automatically (and in my opinion, unfairly) reject many influential scientific illustrators. By the standards used to evaluate paleoart, all of these artists would pass NOTARTIST with flying colors. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"By the standards used to evaluate paleoart, all of these artists would pass NOTARTIST with flying colors.” what standards are those exactly? I’ve just been through the "Modern (post–Dinosaur Renaissance) paleoartists” section and the vast majority of those featured do not pass WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Please specify what about paleoart makes it different from all other art. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to be very clear that we’re looking at >20 deletion nominations, this appears to be a serious problem that needs a serious remedy. Dismissing the issue by claiming prejudice in the art world is inappropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HEB that some of them, such as Nobu Tamura, are definitely not notable, but I think Mark Witton probably passes NAUTHOR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, Witton probably does pass NAUTHOR. When I google I see a number of book reviews that aren’t currently featured on their profile. In hindsight having waded through the swamp Witton is among the most notable people in this genera. More pages of concern are Andrey Atuchin, Wayne Barlowe, Davide Bonadonna, Kenneth Carpenter, Karen Carr, John Conway (palaeoartist), Ricardo Delgado (comics), Todd Marshall (artist), Raúl Martín (artist), Josef Moravec, Luis Rey, John Sibbick, Velizar Simeonovski, Michael Skrepnick, Danielle Dufault, Julio Lacerda, Michael Trcic, Brian Cooley (artist), and David Krentz. I presume there are more but thats about my limit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanboyphilosopher:, sigh, I'm reminded of things not to say at AfD. You might benefit from the wisdom of WP:BEANS. ~ cygnis insignis 16:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I regret even bringing up everyone else. I see absolutely no reason why Wikipedia's notability guidelines should be misused to delete the article of every scientific illustrator or paleoartist who has not formally been critiqued by independent sources. By any other standard these people are very influential in the scene. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are often critiqued by peers who are scientists, publishers wanting profit in a highly competitive market, and unlike most artists the very real potential of being demonstrably wrong, all that can be verified by different means, as you point out, and has already been provided in this discussion. ~ cygnis insignis 17:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fanboyphilosopher. Mr Butterbur (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I admit that there aren't a lot of sources here meeting notability guidelines, I think we should err on the side of inclusion in borderline cases like this. Anecdotally I can attest that Dr. Willoughby is considered a significant figure within the paleoart community, as has been mentioned above. While I haven't listened to the NPR profile of her or read Dinosaur Art II, they certainly sound like they qualify as independent reliable secondary sources based on what others have said here. Here's a profile of her in local news, if that helps. While most of the sources currently listed in this article don't meet GNG, at least those three seem like they do. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, no signs of sufficient notability per WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR or NPROF CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:18, 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. Tone 06:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Everall

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

nonnotable actress & producer with no lead role or known for any significant work. Sonofstar (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per rules doesn't meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. TryingToDo — Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 1 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) 15:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srini Kumar

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

Sources are either broken or non-existent. Page reads like a resume. Of the sources that are available, they are placed on oddly construed websites and not verifiable. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Dismiss. Not knowing about a topic is not the same as a topic not being notable. Also, notability does not expire. Furthermore, WP:INTROTODELETE says:

When to not use deletion process?

Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.

As notability is not at issue, nor is WP:POV, WP:OR, or WP:NOT at issue, there isn't a valid deletion reason. These are WP:SOFIXIT reasons.

Moreover, link rot is also not a deletion reason. Link rot should be addressed via WP:DEADREF.

These are issues for cleanup, not for deletion. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 08:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I totally disagree with you. None of the sources are verifiable, and there have been no additional sources found online to establish notability. Page reads like a resume. I'm going to let the AFD stand. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These aren't independent, reliable sources - WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm asking over at WT:N if link rot and loss of prominence over time are legitimate deletion reasons. I don't think they are. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 09:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should still be able to be located, archived or otherwise. If link rot was in fact a question, then the reliability of said source would also come into question. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Link rot doesn't really matter here, since there's other pathways to notability (the short answer is no, link rot shouldn't make someone non-notable: the question is whether he was ever notable in the first place.) The article, in its current state, is terrible, and likely fails WP:GNG on its face. However, I am finding book reviews for his book online - I'm not entirely sure if they're reliable sources or not - but there is a good argument he passes WP:NAUTHOR, but I will leave this for someone else to make (I honestly don't care, I was interested in the link rot discussion and got sucked in.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced and I can't find other sources with a simple Google search. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have so far not been able to determine if Srini Kumar satsifies my sense of notability, but as it stands, it would be no great loss to the encyclopedia if the current edition of the article were to be deleted, since it is not clear from it what his claims to notability are supposed to be or what the relationship is between the text of the article and the references provided. There is a bunch of stuff on SK, he seems to have been a visible figure in 1990s internet counterculture. Some links:
1. Amazon listing for first of his two sticker books
2. Interview with Will Hines of Spite magazine
3. SK answers 15 questions posed by Jeffrey Zeldman
4. Overview at Rediff magazine from which I learned his Unamerican ~~won one of the early~~ was nominated in the 'Weird' category for the 1999 Webby Awards

Pure nostalgia might lead me to dig further. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More non-WP:BASIC-level evidence of general visibility:
1. An odd story found on Jason Kottke's blog: apparently SK killed a kitten belonging to his business partner, which set the business back a bit in 2000: Kottke's first post and Kottke's second post, which has a broken link to SK's version of the account.
2. The incident seems to have pretty finished off the business: while he published a book the following year, Fuck Work: Do you believe in liberation?, unlike the sticker books, this seems to have disappeared without creating a ripple.
3. Somebody didn't like some unamerican.com content going down, so created a Perl module to simulate it, Unamerican::Truth
4. A thread on the Boingboing BBS from 2017 has some reminiscing on SK, including someone who says SK was a comparable influence on him to influential gay counterculture filmmaker Gregg Araki
5. Both Sticker Nation and Sticker Nation 2 were mentioned in Publishers' Weekly, although I could find only the earlier mention through the site's search.

My general feeling is that web content predating the waxing of SEO technnology is just less epistemically dangerous and more historically interesting than today's content, and so can be held to a more lenient verififability/sourcing standard. I doubt my opinion is all that widely held, but I welcome other perspectives. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"he seems to have been a visible figure in 1990s internet counterculture." How does that not indicate notability? Again, there is no standard I'm aware of that suggests notability is ever lost. Inarguably, he was notable at some point. Thus, he as a topic is notable. I don't know where this is ever up for debate. And frankly, WP has had a real problem with perspective bias in AFDs for a long time -- "if I haven't heard of it, it's not notable" is a DOA argument. - (sig added by Chalst: Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
- It's a clear claim of WP:SIGNIFICANCE. That doesn't tend to satisfy many AfD regulars alone, who want to see evidence of independent reliable coverage that can be used to build a substantial and verifiable article, and especially for WP:BLPs. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More sources:
1. https://www.evilmadscientist.com/2007/book-review-sticker-nation-by-srini-kumar/
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqW8BT0yJk8 Srini SXSW 2011 talk about TinyVox. There are plenty of sources out there on TinyVox.
3. https://boingboing.net/2007/03/21/big-book-of-unameric.html Another BoingBoing post about Kumar and Unamerican.com and his book Sticker Nation.
4. https://vvstaging.villagevoice.com/1998/03/17/the-end-of-the-beginning/
5. https://newspapers.bc.edu/?a=d&d=bcheights20001114.2.77&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN------- "Anarchy's Ad Agency", The Heights (Boston College).

Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, no verifiable, independent sources at all, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is overstrong: the sources we have found don't fit WP:BASIC, but there is clearly at least some loss of material on the subject visible to Google-depth research. It seems quite possible that there are sources out there that do fit BASIC, but which are in web archives or print fanzines. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't merely overstrong, it's patently false. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Village Voice article KeithTyler found (above, 11 May), meets WP:BASIC. Additionally, SK organised the first WEBZINE conference in 1998, which also attracted BASIC-level coverage of both SK and the event:
1. Return of the Killer Zines, R U Sirius, Wired, Oct 1998
2. Famous to 15 People, Michael van Leet, SF Weekly, 1998
3. 'Zine but not Heard? / The Faithful at Webzine '98 Say 'No Way', Josh Wilson, SF Gate, Nov 1998
4. There was further coverage of the event around the time reachable from the press section of WEBZINE 98, although the other coverage less clearly meets BASIC
5. Chapter One, Independent Publishing on the Internet: Webzine and Fifteen Megs of Fame by Ryan Junell, of Alternatives on media content, journalism, and regulation (ed. Gangadharan, De Cleen and Carpentier, 2007, Tartu University Press, Tartu, Estonia, ISBN 9789985405215) has a lot on the WEBZINE conference series and a little on SK.

While there is sometimes a question mark over the reliability of articles in student newspapers, the article in The Heights mentioned in the article and which we finally have the full text of, above, thanks again to Keith, seems to be decent, qualifying as a mixed primary and secondary source, and useful for sourcing the article. I think this also reaches BASIC standard. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the ample WP:BASIC-quality sourcing that has been found in the course of this AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure I'm convinced enough that this should be kept using WP:BASIC. Other thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:15, 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. Tone 06:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BWF World Superseries Champions from Indonesia

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

Medalists at the BWF Super Series Finals already covers all the champions and other medalists included. There is simply no need to make country oriented article for mentioning Winners of superseries finals. 🌌Zoglophie🌌 08:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 🌌Zoglophie🌌 08:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. 🌌Zoglophie🌌 08:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no need for a page specifically for Indonesia. SunDawn (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:25, 1 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 00:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Boys Quartet

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

Unsourced since 2010 and appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage. Having one song featured on a compilation album and another in a TV commercial does not establish notability either. Lennart97 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Axel Boisen [da; de] is worth an article, but the shortlived parody-quartet is not. Sam Sailor 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Google search does not turn up reliable sources that are independent of the subject and talk about the subject in depth. The only hits on Google are from self-published and user-generated sites such are Discogs, SoundCloud, and Spotify. --Ashley yoursmile! 17:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harron Walker

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

She appears to only contribute in several journals. Nothing is exceptional about her other than that. She does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Dixiku (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Argue that they meet the notability requirements under Wikipedia:Notability_(journalists) as a Staff writer for W Magazine, and formerly a staff writer at VICE under criteria 1. Added awards section with links to her 2019 PPFA Media Award. Author is an important voice in current Women's, Queer and Trans writing. Camofclay (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete staff writers are not inherently notable. Articles need to be based on sources about someone, not their own writing. This article is based on Walker's writing. A search for sources about him turned up no reliable, substnatial sources that provide indepth substantial coverage. Staff writers are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Private Lorry Water Suppliers

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

An (orphaned) article on people that drive water trucks to provide drinking water service in the city. I don't think this meets WP:GNG on its own, though I wonder if one or two of the references could be merged into Chennai MetroWater Supply and Sewage Board. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 04:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 1 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. Tone 06:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cbazaar

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of four links here, one is their own website, Hindu Businessline is a funding related news, Telegraph is a PR newswire and the last is a directory website. Only similar links appear on search as well and hence not helpful. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not meet WP:GNG, the main article author appears to be single-purpose account because it rarely contributed to any other articles and most of those edits were reverted (Special:Contributions/Sameerakshirsagar). Also, as evident from User talk:Sameerakshirsagar, other users compained about this user's promotional editing, disruptive editing. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maharana Pratap Engineering College

AfDs for this article:

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

A private, for-profit, tertiary educational institution that does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. The sources found during a WP:BEFORE do not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH as they consist of paid databases and primary sources. No inherent notability. VV 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. VV 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was speedy keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2014-07 ✓ speedy keep

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the reason for speedy keep last AFD was because the nom did not mention the reason for nomination. The issues mentioned above persisted even before. VV 04:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both NORG as well as GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it's a clear failure of the notability guidelines due to the utterly lacking existence of sourcing, good or otherwise, about it. Unless someone can come up with WP:THREE references. I highly doubt it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the one source and lack of anything demonstrating notability does not always mean an article belongs in the dustbin, this article being a single (grammatically questionable) paragraph does not inspire confidence. jp×g 07:12, 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. ✗plicit 00:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DART First State New Castle County bus routes

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

Wikipedia is not a local bus travel guide. No indication anywhere that these bus routes are notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all related:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Useful information, I feel deleting these lists would leave a gap in coverage on Wikipedia. Dough4872 10:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL. Ajf773 (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of significant coverage to show notability. SK2242 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment out of curiosity, do you plan to nominate every bus route list article for deletion on principle? Julius177 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only plan to nominate only those that are worthy of discussion. Out of curiosity are you going to participate in them by taking about the article in question and not of the nominator? Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:ALLORNOTHING--Rusf10 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Usefulness is irrelevant. What is equally as useful though would be placing a link to the bus schedule website within the main article about the bus system.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 ITF Women's World Tennis Tour – Antalya

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

Tournament is non-notable and does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines guidelines. Keroks (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-notable tournament which fails to meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - $15k tournaments are not notable as per the project guidelines. No evidence of WP:GNG either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NTENNIS as the lowest ITF tournament for it to be notable is $50k tournament which isn't a part of. HawkAussie (talk) 09:37, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 ITF Women's World Tennis Tour – Oeiras

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

Page is a non-notable tournament and does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines Keroks (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-notable tennis tournament and fails to meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - $15k tournaments are not notable as per the project guidelines; clear consensus for this. I see no reason for this tournament to be an exception. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NTENNIS as the lowest ITF tournament for it to be notable is $50k tournament which isn't a part of. HawkAussie (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AfD is not for clean up. Please improve and then we can renominate if you aren't able to find reliable secondary sources, etc. Missvain (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional medical examiners

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

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional medical examiners have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep The nomination provides no specifics or evidence. Here's an example of coverage per WP:LISTN from The Lancet. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, The discussion of forensic pathology in fiction is not the same as a list of fictional practitioners. The article you linked mentions very few of the characters by name, it tends to focus on the discussion of the practice as shown in the shows, not of the fictional characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Lancet is an excellent source but it's not the only one. Finding more clues is just a matter of looking. Looking for such evidence is the key skill of the investigator. For example, see The Suspicious Figure of the Female Forensic Pathologist Investigator in Crime Fiction. "it is through her ability to perform the procedures of her job ... that clues are located, the narrative of events reconstructed, and the criminal identified and apprehended." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. The article linked by Andrew Davidson provides a good example of how to write something about medical examiners in fiction—how they are depicted, trends in popularity over time, implications for the public's perception of the profession, and so on—and shows that we could do the same thing. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional medical examiners, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that is not a reason for deletion.

For the first point, "fictional medical examiners" is clearly delineated, and as there are many blue links in the list, it is something that does appear on Wikipedia and is therefore not trivial.

For the second, the fact that eight such lists were nominated within minutes makes it highly doubtful that the nominator did a proper WP:BEFORE search, which is part of the normal AfD process. As found by Andrew Davidson, the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.

As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself also has its uses. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while The Lancet article is just one, 1) it's hard to find a higher quality reliable source; The Lancet is one of the top 5 medical journals worldwide, and 2) we don't need multiple RS to demonstrate that a categorization is encyclopedic--that is, that "fictional medical examiners" are covered as an intersection in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced and I don't see any source here. Contains plenty of non-notable characters or characters from non-notable works, too inclusive. Category is enough, this is just fancruft list of trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTDUPE, the existence of the category demonstrates the validity of the equivalent list. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AfD is not for clean up. Please clean up/improve and if multiple reliable secondary sources can't be found feel free to renominate. Missvain (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional journalists

AfDs for this article:

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

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional journalists have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Here's a book on the subject. See also WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE and WP:CLN. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. Reading just a few pages of the book linked by Andrew Davidson amply proves that writing a prose article about journalism in fiction is perfectly feasible. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional journalists, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think, especially as this is a second nomination, that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that is not a reason for deletion.

For the first point, "fictional journalists" is clearly delineated, and as there are many blue links in the list, it is something that does appear on Wikipedia and is therefore not trivial.

For the second, the fact that eight such lists were nominated within minutes makes it highly doubtful that the nominator did a proper WP:BEFORE search, which is part of the normal AfD process. As found by Andrew Davidson, the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.

As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself also has its uses. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that Andrew Davidson was able to find a whole book on the subject demonstrates that this is an encyclopedic cross-categorization. Jclemens (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contains plenty of non-notable characters or characters from non-notable works, too inclusive. Category is enough, this is just fancruft list of trivia. The proper way to deal with such articles is to have a non-list Journalism in fiction, which may have a short subsection on the most notable fictional journalists, based on groupings in reliable sources. The book Andrew found suggests there is a potential to write something here, but the current list merits nothing but WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline. Instead it is an essay and so has " no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". The actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT, "poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 06:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional monarchs

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

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional monarchs have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There's some active editing of this page which is muddying the water. As the nomination is a cut-and-paste drive-by without any WP:BEFORE or specifics, there's no case to answer. There is obviously huge notability for fictional cases such as Hamlet or King Arthur and the nomination is blatantly vexatious in failing to address this. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Waxworker worth noting that List of fictional monarchs (fictional nations) has just been created as a split from this article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather surprised that anyone has managed to go through any education system, presumably in an English or German speaking country, without realising that fictional monarchs have had a cultural impact. I mean, didn't you get a passing acquaintance with the works of William Shakespeare? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there are definitely some notable fictional monarchs, I don't think having a few justifies a long list of original research pop culture trivia such as this. Waxworker (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions are about whether an article should exist or not. That is an argument for editing the article, not deleting it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. We do not lack for potential sources; a WP:BEFORE search of Google Scholar and Google Books for "fictional monarchs", "fictional kings", and "fictional queens" turns up plenty of sources (many of which I am admittedly unable to access). I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional monarchs, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that is not a reason for deletion.

For the first point, "fictional monarchs" is clearly delineated. There is quite a number of blue links in the list - both for fictional persons, and for real persons which have been given a fictional version - so we don‘t not just "have a few". And there's more if we take the List of fictional monarchs (fictional nations) into account (even so I am undecided if the split is a good idea or not). Fictional monarchs do appear on Wikipedia and so are not trivial. It's possible that some trimming is order, but that would not be a reason for deletion.

For the second point, as stated above, a WP:BEFORE search shows secondary sources on different groupings fictional monarchs, so the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.

As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself has its warrant. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. Jclemens (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, WP:KEEPPER. Please expand your rationale. TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger made a cogent argument that this is an encyclopedic topic here. I find it compelling. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, Thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contains plenty of non-notable characters or characters from non-notable works, too inclusive. Category is enough, this is just fancruft list of trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus Please feel free to expand your rationale to include a policy-based reason for deletion and/or discuss how the essays you've referenced without linking actually apply to this particular AfD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jclemens, Policy link? How about failing WP:LISTN? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I called for a speedy keep above but instead it was relisted even though were no delete !votes; tsk. For avoidance of doubt, let's be clear that my position is that we should keep this per policies such as WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Now that we have an actual delete !vote, let's consider its claim that "Category is enough...". This argument that we should delete the list because we have an equivalent category is contrary to our guideline WP:NOTDUPE which states "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 06:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarring and feathering in popular culture

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

Excessive pop culture trivia, largely uncited. The article doesn't explain how 'tarring and feathering' has impacted pop culture, and this list strikes me as a bit frivolous and non-encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. Contains no reliably sourced information about the actual topic: 2 are from or about the works in question, 2 are about tarring and feathering as an idiom. Unless you can prove that it meets WP:LISTN, but there may not be anything worth keeping anyway. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This amounts to every mention of "tar and feathering" that can be found. Some of these involve old popular songs that have had many, many, many versions. This really amounts to a random collection of trivia and is not really benefitical.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the topic is actually treated in secondary sources. It seems to me that all critizism so far is directe toward the current state of the article, which is not actually decisive for the question of deletion, and that noone has yet done a proper WP:BEFORE search. I ask the nominator and the deletion voters to have a look at e.g. these Google scholar hits. The sources vary widely in scope and length of treatment (and respective use of "popular culture"), but they should be way enough to fullfil the WP:GNG requirement of providing more than "a few sentences" worth of material, and therefore also of WP:LISTN. Here for example is a whole PhD thesis about the topic. Do you need me to provide more examples?

Of course the article currently is not in good shape, but again, that's not a question of deletion, because it is improvable!

As for what we have now "may not be anything worth keeping anyway" I did a random search for secondary sources on three entries that interested me and found for Edgar Allan Poe and "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether", a whole publication dedicated to the topic, Edgar Allan Poe's Tarred and Feathered Bodies: Imagining Race, Questioning Bondage, and Marking Humanity, and for the appearance in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn many and for Monkey Island at least some mentions. Daranios (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find a respectable source which demonstrates the potential of the topic – see The Journal of the Historical Society, for example. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Insofar as the current page reflects the common taste and practice, then this is a consequence of Wikipedia's demotic nature. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:57, 1 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'm being bold here and declaring no consensus. I suggest you discuss mergers and redirects on the appropriate talk pages as an alternative to deletion. Missvain (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy equipment modelling

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

I am unable to find any sources that back up the claims that this is a hobby. Rusf10 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an extensive list of articles and publications about the topic at Keepworld.co.uk/publications.php Miniature Construction World. It is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the only source you have, it does come even close to passing WP:GNG. A series of articles written by one man in an obscure magazine is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not one source; it's a collection of them which demonstrates that there is extensive professional coverage of this field. As the nay-sayers seem to have trouble reading what's put in front of them, let's list the periodicals:

Truck, Plant & Machinery Model World
Diecast Collector
Earthmovers
The Diecast Magazine
Classic Plant & Machinery
Machinery Movers
UK Plant Operators

Checking out these first of these – Truck, Plant & Machinery Model World Magazine – we see that it is "dedicated to the latest diecast reviews of construction, mining, lifting, heavy haulage and agricultural scale models." This shows that there's a substantial hobby which supports both model makers and a press. The author listing this bibliography is clearly an expert in this field who knows what he's talking about. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, And were you able to look inside any of those to verify that they are real magazines, with proper coverage, rather then some hoaxes or reprints of press releases? On a side note, it boggles my mind people still write this stuff in non-digitized format. I can see this being blogged about, but who would pay for a magazine on this in this day and age? If this is not a hoax, the world is a strange place... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've looked inside a sample issue and confirmed that it's typical of the modelling press. That issue was 72 pages – mostly reviews of particular models. For example, on page 20, it reviews a grand model of the Liebherr LTM 1750-9.1 Mobile Crane, "Shown in prototype form at the 2019 Bauma trade show, and released in February 2020, the Liebherr LTM 1750-9.1 is now available and what a cracking model it is, surely a candidate for Model of the Year 2020...". We see from this that there are trade shows and prizes and coverage – the usual structure of a significant hobby. I know what I'm talking about because I have taken the trouble to actually find and read such sources. The contrary arguments claiming that there is no coverage or that it is a hoax are ill-informed and so are correspondingly weak. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, The review of a model does not make the hobby of collecting its notable. WP:NOTINHERITED. Did you find any articles about the hobby itself? History of heavy equipment modeling hobby or Cultural significance of the heavy equipment modeling hobby will do quite nicely. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, elsewhere, Piotrus argues that academic sources are not necessary and that hobby press publishers such as Bellona and Osprey are adequate. Models of construction equipment are a comparatively uncontroversial topic and so the level of sourcing required is comparatively undemanding. So, the escalating demands made here are just game-playing and wikilawyering. I have demonstrated that there are numerous magazines covering this field in detail. Additional meta-analysis is not required to establish notability. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Nobody would ever expect you to change your vote. But please don't misinterpret my arguments. I am not saying we need academic sources, lesser quality ones, like trade journals and hobby magazines you found, will do. The issue is that neither of them seems to discuss the concept of "Heavy equipment modelling" in depth. What you have shown us are is that there are reviews of individual toy models. Interesting, but the existence of reviews for a series of toys doesn't make the concept of this series being notable. OR, SYNTH, etc. Please show which articles discuss the hobby of "heavy equipment modelling". No need for academic works, an article about the hobby's history, in one of those hobby magazines, will do. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to ignore Piotrus' bludgeoning but it sadly seems necessary to rebut this lest the closer take it seriously and discount my !vote. Piotrus' comment simply demonstrate lack of familiarity with the extensive sources. These don't just review models but report on the numerous shows at which these models are exhibited. They report on the competitions and prizes. They report on the collections and collectors and so explicitly provide "background on the collecting hobby". Then there are special features on scratch-building and other modelling techniques. All these aspects are quite standard for model builders. We have corresponding articles for the modelling of aircraft, commercial vehicles, railways, ships and more. Note that the corresponding articles about horses, robots have no sources at all but nobody cares because these topics are quite obvious and uncontroversial. There is no case for deletion and there are obvious alternatives per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. ... Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Bottom line, you still fail to demonstrate the topic received coverage. WP:ITEXISTS is sadly not enough. I am personally aware of a number of hobbies which are at least, if not more, popular, but I can't even write stubs for them as there are no sources for them. Which is while a while ago I wrote an academic article on hobby shops (for board games and like), so it can be used to expand our linked weak article: [40]. Perhaps you'd be kind to use it - COI makes it a bit more difficult for me to cite myself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have demonstrated ample coverage. Piotrus seems to be obsessing too much about the word hobby, which is not part of the topic's title. These models are not just made as a hobby but appear in a professional context too -- as promotion, executive toys, showpieces, &c. For an impressive display of this, see Equipment World in which a model of a Liebherr crane is picked up by a full size crane which is then picked up by an even bigger crane and so on to the 5th level! This nicely demonstrates the enormous spectrum and scale of equipment sizes. These "models" can weigh up to 650 kg and so are not just your average Dinky toy. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Nice argument, but it's all WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. We are still waiting for you to show us a single reliable source that makes the same argument - that this is a notable phenomenon. I would be very happy if we had sources to save this, but sadly, as long as we don't allow original research, many things which exist and which are even important to tens of thousands of people are not notable. Feel free to try to create Wikipedia:Notability (hobbies) guideline or such and get community consensus for declaring such concepts notable based on some supplementary criteria, such as the existence of trade magazines or fanzines. Shrug. It worked for sport biographies among others... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already produced numerous sources which are quite adequate to demonstrate the notability of the field. But as these are buried by the nominator's bludgeoning and ridiculous demands, I shall comment further in the relisting below. Suffice it to say here that the claims of OR and SYNTH are unsupported by logic or evidence. I have no special knowledge of this field and so all the details and sources I present are the result of studying the numerous sources which are out there covering this field. I am now quite well-informed because I have taken the time and trouble to read and understand these. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE gives some results but nothing which provide sufficient notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very niche hobby with no sources to back up its notability. If sources are found, it should still be draftified for failing WP:V unless someone actually uses those theoretical sources to improve this mess. PS. If this is kept, we need a better name, the only scholarly source to use this terms refers to software for modelling such equipment for CGI/design purposes. Overall, I can see this being briefly mentioned in some article on modelling hobby, as one of the many subfields of it. It does not warrant a stand alone article, which after all can only be expected to become another fan-list of related toys. What else is thee to say about this? Yes, such models exist, some people collect them, shrug. If nobody writes about the hobby - its history, significance, reception, cultural impact - then it's not a topic for an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scale model#Construction vehicles - An extremely niche subset of the modeling hobby, that really does not have enough coverage discussing it, specifically, enough to warrant it being split into an independent article. It is, however, already covered in the main article on the scale modeling hobby in the section on Construction vehicles, so I think redirecting there would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Rorshacma, My concern about redirecting is that as I noted the term is also used for software. Maybe convert into a disambig? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would work as well, so I would have no problem with it. Rorshacma (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what Andrew Davidson is saying, and what Piotrus has missed, is that the online version of the magazine is only the reviews, and a teaser for buying the print version. The notes against various issues point to what else is in the print version, the stuff that Andrew Davidson is referring to. That said, given that they are only available in print, I highly doubt that anyone in this discussion has read them to see how in depth they are. Personally I'm looking for things like Wagner 1968 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWagner1968 (help), which isn't a magazine for hobbyists, but an article about a hobby, in that case railway scale models, or Shapiro 1980 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFShapiro1980 (help) which is about automobile models. I haven't found anything that I can read in that vein myself. There is not even a mention of a hobby in Haddock 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHaddock2007 (help), for example.
The best that I have is Louis H. Hertz, a fairly widely used expert in the field from what I can tell, saying that there is not a discrete sub-topic here and that model car collecting encompasses everything, to a degree varying largely at the whim of the individual collector, from "ordinary or stock automobiles, racing cars ([…]), buses, trucks, specialized service vehicles (especially fire engines), military vehicles, including such equipment as self-propelled gun carriers and mobile rocket launchers ; construction equipment, including bulldozers and road rollers, tractors and related farm equipment; mobile showmen's engines, customized automobiles, hot rods, dragsters, the recently popular so-called "funny cars", early self-propelled road carriages, and so on." (Hertz 1970, p. 11).
- Wagner, Glenn (Nov 1968). "Scale Model Railroading". Boy's Life. Vol. 58, no. 11. pp. 39–40, 44–46. ISSN 0006-8608.
- Shapiro, William E., ed. (1980). "Automobile models". The New Book of Knowledge. Grolier. pp. 534–535. ISBN 9780717205110.
- Haddock, Keith (2007). The Earthmover Encyclopedia. MotorBooks International. ISBN 9781610592093.
- Hertz, Louis Heilbroner (1970). The Complete Book of Building and Collecting Model Automobiles. Crown Publishers. ISBN 9780517502259.
Uncle G (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G, My point is exactly that: the existence of a magazine for hobbyists is not enough to prove that the hobby is notable, whereas an article about a hobby would. Thank you for doing an independent source review. This makes me wonder if the topic of automobile model collecting should be separate from the article on automobile models. Well, first someone needs to expand the existing one, I guess... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G is mistaken. The sample magazines which are online seem to be complete. Their own source analysis is inadequate because it's based on North American sources whereas this activity seems to be mainly European. For example, Haddock's Earthmover Encyclopedia is explicitly incomplete and regional: "It is regrettable that many hundreds of European manufacturers ... as well as manufacturers on other continents ... had to be omitted due to space restrictions" Likewise the opinion of an American model railroader from the 1960s is not going to be any help with later European activity. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence It's quite interesting to see the spectacular models which have been exhibited in Europe. One of the big shows is Modelshow Europe which specifically focusses on this sort of model and has been held in Ede for about 25 years now. To grasp the scale of this activity, see coverage such as this. And, for another example of magazine print coverage which details the collectors, constructors and other demographics, see Equipment World: Construction scale models... This is from 2014 and so is more up-to-date than the irrelevant sources presented by Uncle G above. The topic here is clearly a substantial genre of model engineering and scale modeling just like aircraft, commercial vehicles, railways, ships and the rest. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think YouTube video by "CranesEtcTV" is a very reliable source - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, if you have to resort to YouTube to try and prove notability, then the topic probably just isn't notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Using YouTube is just like using Google Books to find sources – it's a common carrier, not a publisher; and it's part of Alphabet now too. The main difference is that what you get are videos rather than books and these are increasingly polished and professional now. What matters most is the person or people that use YouTube to publish their work. In this case, CranesEtcTV is an authority on the subject, as detailed by Equipment World, which is a professional publication written by authoritative experts too. The key point about these two sources is that they are accessible rather than being offline or behind a paywall. But it doesn't appear that GCB or Rusf10 have actually looked at them as they don't actually discuss their content. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, youtube is not the same thing as Google books. With a few exceptions, youtube videos are mostly WP:SPS, they're not reliable. Why is CranesEtcTV a authority on this subject? What reliable source cites them as an authority? Or are they just a self-proclaimed authority?--Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Equipment World cites them as a source. The Cranes Etc reviews in the press, on their website and YouTube channel are a clearly massive influence. Their YouTube channel has had over 200 million views. This AfD has just a handful of opinions and only 276 views. It's we here who are comparative nobodies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Scale model#Construction vehicles. Unlike other topics there, I can't see enough here to justify a {{main}} article. That section and this article are of almost the same size. If we have relevant information somewhere about software modelling, a WP:TWODABS DAB page might be justified; but I haven't found it. Narky Blert (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Independent sources do not support a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. Article has potential. WP:Not paper, and deletion shoukld not be preferred resolution. See WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. I do not sources showing this to be separately notable from scale modelling generally. Something that caught my eye here is that the article says that Chinese manufacturers "have been entering the market", couched as if this is something that is happening right now, but it says this as of 2012. There is no indication of new information being reported on this. I expect that if the field is notable, the status of new developments would be reported somewhere. Unless and until separate notability can be shown for this specific form of scale modeling, the title can be redirected to Scale model#Construction vehicles. BD2412 T 03:09, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Victory Bass

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

Article lacks quality references. I haven't found significant coverage in any reliable sources Subject might be better dealt with as part of the Gibson article? The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced. Only produced as a four string guitar? A BASS? Wow. The Gibson Victory itself doesn't have an article, hard to see what from this article could even be arguably merged to Gibson. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added bunch of new citations, including some from books. It appears this was not a popular model, so there is not too much info about it, but I still feel the page should be kept to make Wikipedia a good research resource. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:50, 18 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) 21:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Bloom

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

Disputed PROD. Written by the article's subject, who is a city councilmember in a community of under 1,000 people and has no other positions of note. The subject has no significant coverage beyond local newspapers and thus fails WP:NPOL. Sounder Bruce 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The borough council itself is not notable enough to have its own article; its individual memebers are even less so. The subject himself does not have any other sufficiently notable activities or significant, non-localised coverage; thus, a mention in the table at Houtzdale, Pennsylvania#Government is sufficient. W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 07:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:NPOL, that major local political figures who have received significant press coverage outside their specific region, clearly Bloom is not notable outside the city. SunDawn (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: If the Borough council and this area are not worthy of their own article, I would like to know why Bud George is allowed to remain, as that article has less information and very little citation. Also SunDawn that table has been made a point of contention in itself simply for being there, and if that table should remain, I would happily concede the argument for this page. In addition I would like to thank SounderBruce for finally taking a diplomatic approach to this issue. Zackmanb67 (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)zackmanb67[reply]

Bud George was a state legislator, which is not equivalent to a smalltown city councillor. Our rule is that state legislators are "inherently" notable, which means that they must have articles even if their current state of sourcing is inadequate (for one thing, the question of whether we have actually found and used all of the best sources that a person has is a very separate matter from whether good quality sources exist or not) — but municipal councillors are not inherently notable, which means that in order to make a person notable enough for inclusion here on the basis of having been a municipal councillor per se, you have to show a credible reason why they should be treated as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other municipal councillors. What you cannot do is say that a municipal councillor automatically has to have an article just because a state legislator has one — their notability claims aren't parallel with each other, so they don't have to be treated the same way. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zackmanb67. For AfD discussion it is not good to bring up discussions about other article, per WP:OTHERSTUFF as the argument should be about the article. Though in the case of Bud George as he has been in Pennsylvania House of Representatives he can fulfill The person has been elected or appointed to serve on a given country's legislative body or legislature on a national or subnational level., thus fulfilling the WP:NPOL criterion. SunDawn (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmanb67: You want to address me, not SunDawn. I have not said the area is not worthy of its own article, merely the council. And I have extensively explained to you over here why bringing up Bud George is of no use. W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 16:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for serving on smalltown municipal councils, the fact that some other person with an entirely different notability claim has an article is irrelevant per WP:WAX, and the depth of sourcing shown here (a mixture of primary sources and the routine local coverage that every municipal councillor everywhere is simply expected to have) is not enough to make this smalltown municipal councillor more special than other smalltown municipal councillors. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat I was simply confused by Wikipedia's policy as it does not clarify as deeply as you went. I viewed those policies of notability previous to creating the article, and took what it said as local notability. Thank you for explaining it further, My assumption was that the notability from sources reaching a regional audience was sufficient to be over local. I concede after having read Bearcat description that the article is not of notability. Zackmanb67 (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)zackmanb67[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 20:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small town politician that fails WP:NPOL. --Kbabej (talk) 15:18, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FC Kharaatsai

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, teams are required to meet WP:GNG. This club plays in the second national league and relies only on primary sources and databases for notability. nearlyevil 665 06:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do they not play in the Cup also? There are some sources, but nothing really in-depth. Govvy (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They do indeed play in the national cup - at least in 2019, losing 7-1 to Khoromkhon FC on June 10 according to the game report and http://www.rsssf.com/tablesm/mong2019.html#tsom Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:58, 18 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) 21:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Zamboanga

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

Denice Zamboanga does not meet mixed martial arts notability guidelines, and this draft does not establish general notability. The statements that she competes in the ONE Championship are unverified, and the ONE Championship does not appear to satisfy mixed martial arts notability.

This is one of three copies of the BLP, of which two are in draft space and this one in article space, probably in order to game the system. So this article cannot be moved to draft space when there already are two copies in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was denied in AfC but the creator moved it to the mainspace. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: do not draftily because there are two copies already in draft. The nom has it correct. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For reasons outlined above Mukedits (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. As an MMA fighter she is not close to being ranked in the world top 10 and has no top tier fights (her ranking in the ONEFC promotion is irrelevant). She fails WP:GNG since most of the references are either from ONEFC (so they're not independent) or from MMA databases (so the coverage is not significant) or could be considered passing mentions. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 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 closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarshan Kapoor

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

Notability unclear. Doesn't pass per h-index from Google Scholar. Doesn't hold a distinguished professorship as per WP:NACADEMIC#5. No clear indication of a pass of WP:NACADEMIC#1. No multiple secondary reliable sources for a pass of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 06:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it seems there is an argument due to him being editor of Peace & Change per WP:NPROF#8 even though he was only co-editor in chief, but its close enough for me. Taken with all the other work he did, I think he passes the bar. Obviously the "[under construction]" part of the article needs to be fixed. --hroest 17:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would it be fair to say that Peace & Change is not necessarily a "major, well-established academic journal in their subject area" as per WP:NPROF#8? I cannot seem to find it as the Scimago Journal & Country Rank website to determine its citation score. Could someone else take a look? This is important as #8 would not apply if this is not a major academic journal. All I found is this link which shows that the most cited article in the journal had 116 citations, which is not impressive at all. nearlyevil 665 17:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment according to this entry in the "The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume 4" it is one of three notable journals in the field of peace research. This is not my field, so I may be mistaken but there are sources supporting that this is a notable journal in the field. I think the argument is weak based on #8 alone, but it is there and there is additional evidence to support NPROF notability. --hroest 19:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for the source. I'm not fully convinced by it, though. I am unable to find any reputable journal ranking trackers that would indicate any significance for the Peace & Change journal. I'm not sure being mentioned in "The Encyclopedia of Christianity" (is this supposed to be an authoritative publication itself to the point of being used as a basis for establishing journal notability?) qualifies as a pass of WP:NPROF. I'd love to hear what other users have to say, particularly those with experience in academia. nearlyevil 665 19:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing the technical aspects of the deletion criteria, I am unaware how a possible "contrarian view" may be received, that: (A1) it may not be appropriate to judge Prof. Kapoor exclusively on his career's 'esteem ranking' in a hierarchy of elite academia. (A2) It is significant that his career is held in high esteem and admired and affirmed by his fellows in the trenches, as it were. Also, evidently, by the elite in the field (see below). (A3) I am suspicious of a merit/elite standard as determined exclusively by peer popularity, e.g., some people who are mediocre at their game in chief may be quite good in politicking a following, while others are the opposite. (A4) Very important: Stanford University's King Inst. obviously thinks Prof. Kapoor worthy at his game in chief. Is Wikipedia taking the position that here the Stanford folks don't know who's who or what's what? (B1) His book today is a sought-after item on Amazon. (B2) His book covers a subject well-chosen and, in my humble opinion, likely to grow in importance as the passing of time increases the quality of vantage point and perspective from which to judge past events. To it Prof. Kapoor brings insight and special skills. (C1) I do not know Prof. Kapoor personally, nor do I have special interests in his situation. (C2) I do have a strong interest in the article's content, which I think very significant. I conjecture that the readership of Wikipedia would be enriched by it. Elfelix (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to be passing NPROF. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 07:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR By searching it for Sudarshan Kapur, 54 results. Elfelix (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears subjective notable to me. See this and this. I'm sure there'd be good coverage in Hindi language as well. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 02:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DarkerRsa

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

Non-notable musician with a WP:OVERCITE for references. Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. nearlyevil 665 06:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable musician, fails WP:GNG all sources are WP:PRIMARY, no chart placings. -Xclusivzik (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per WP:CSD#G11 as WP:SPAM, spam-only account blocked (see User talk:SibusisoDeCreator). – Athaenara ✉ 08:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:Pixy (group). BD2412 T 01:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pixy (group)

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

Fails WP:BAND. No charting releases, no awards. Nothing other than routine coverage, lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to established notability. ✗plicit 01:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 01:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 01:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 01:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 01:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-04 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Explicit, non notable group. No charting singles or album. No awards or nominations EN-Jungwon 16:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: multiple sources are provided in the article and a simple search by "PIXY" OR "픽시" brings multiples sources covering this group.talk@TRANSviada 16:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Draft until artist passes WP:NMG, as the article shows potential and they appear to be releasing their first EP in a couple of weeks which may chart on Gaon. Abdotorg (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The subject currently fails WP:NMUSIC, the article could be incubated in the draftspace and developed there. As Abdotorg suggests, the group may be notable if their subsequent releases chart, in which case it can be moved back to the mainspace. --Ashley yoursmile! 17:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This could be a decent enough article, if someone were willing to dredge up and incoporate some sources that brought it up to GNG. jp×g 07:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, currently fails WP:NMUSIC - alt would be to draftify CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:55, 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. Tone 06:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Integrated Management and Technology, Varanasi

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

A private, for-profit, tertiary educational institution that does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. The sources found during a WP:BEFORE do not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH as they consist of paid databases and primary sources. No inherent notability. VV 15:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. VV 15:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 15:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. VV 15:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 15:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-03 ITS Engineering College ✗ delete

Logs: 2011-04 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking this over, it is a "private educational institute." So the notability guidelines in WP:NORG apply to the article. Given that, there are zero references in the article and the only thing out there from what I can find is passing, trivial mentions in school directories. So as a topic it clearly fails the standards for notability. That said, I'm more then happy to change my vote to keep if someone can find WP:THREE good, usable references. Since it's possible I just missed them. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:52, 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. Going with no consensus. Feel free to speedy renominate if you wish. Missvain (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenbrook, Lake County, California

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

As the article admits, and Hoberg's book relates, this was an early resort in the area, which appears to have faded away by WW II or earlier. There's a single house now, and what appears to be something that was intended to be a retail building of some sort, so freshly constructed when the Google car came by two years back that the stickers were still on the windows. But it clearly is not a settlement, nor was it, and while it had a 4th class PO for a while, that was supplanted by Cobb overf a century ago. GHits for the resort are very slim, so not likely notable. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was expandable from Hoberg. Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A resort is not a settlement that meets GEOLAND, so it needs to hit GNG. A single source is not sufficient for GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a good thing that there were also sources already in the article when Hoberg was added to them, and further sources added after Hoberg, then. ☺ All that I pointed out was that it was expandable, which makes this a lot better than some of these "unincorporated communities" where we've found it difficult to impossible to even determine what they even really are. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much in newspapers.com - the telegraph line reached there in 1874 and a reference to the Silas Broadwell mentioned in our article being "of Glenbrook". Will need to search further in other places. Hog Farm _Talk 02:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia serves as a gazetteer, where an article for a small place like Glenbrook may be little more than the name and location. This article gives much more. The primary source for Kelsey Creek (Big Valley) notes its role as a historical stage stop, and also mentions it several times as a modern location. Two of the sources for Bottle Rock Power Plant similarly name it as a modern location. An early 20th century advertisement when G.W.R. Tredway was the proprietor called it "one of the most charming resports in the State. Fine scenery, hunting and fishing; excellent table." There may well be more material if we account for name changes. Tantarelli Springs was a site with natural fumarole activity in 1980, located at Glenn Brook off Bottle Rock Road in the Cobb Mountain Area. This may be in the present Mandala Springs resort, which claims origins as Glenbrook Resort. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 07:14, 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 Kent Cricket Board. Missvain (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shammi Iqbal

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kent Cricket Board 8 LA games, but just for a cricket board side. I'm seeing a couple of match reports, but no significant coverage. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD, but would be nice for List of Kent Cricket Board List A players to be set up. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kent Cricket Board 8 LA games as per above. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have now created List of Kent Cricket Board List A players so can be redirected there if the outcome is to redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or delete, per Rugbyfan. GNG is not met. JoelleJay (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dieter: Der Film#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter: Der Film (soundtrack)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For this article, there's nothing to find, not even an Allmusic review. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the movie article. --Kuatrero (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dieter: Der Film. I forgot to vote on this one after making a comment long ago. This soundtrack article offers nothing but a track list and some trivia about who is on it, with no indication of notability for the album as a whole on any of its individual songs. A simple redirect to the parent film will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dieter: Der Film. Kolma8 (talk) 16:31, 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 merge to California High-Speed Rail. czar 02:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chowchilla Wye

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

This structure does not exist yet, in fact it is not even under construction or fully funded yet. Unclear if it will be. In terms of the sourcing, the closest thing to significant coverage is reference 6 (Fresno Bee) but this is an item that could be incorporated into the main high speed rail article Nweil (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSignificant coverage is also given in reference 1: "Bullet train has 4 route options around one California town as foes plan court appeal". being (currently) unfunded and (currently) not under construction has no bearing on the validity of discussing the subject: see Mid-Pacific Railroad, North–South Rail Link, etc. Article describes an unusual structure on the line, such as the Oakland Wye, Keddie Wye, Pacheco Pass Tunnels, etc. -MJ (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I want to second-motion for this article to be merged and redirected with the California High-Speed Rail under the 'Route and stations' heading. Citations are perfectly reliable, but it just doesn't seem worthy to have it's own dedicated page. Thanks. JayzBox (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Agreed that there is significant coverage already. The article that this is proposed to be merged into is already rather long (100,000 bytes) so I think it is better to keep this information as a seperate page. NemesisAT (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about an unbuilt piece of infrastructure on the unbuilt track of an non-existent railway, sourced by passing mentions in local newspapers and news sources. No redirect, because what would it redirect FROM? --Calton | Talk 00:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into California High-Speed Rail. Not only has it not been built, but they haven't even finished deciding if they want to build it. Obviously, this will have an article the second the shovel hits the ground (or, indeed, the second the pen hits the paper) but for now it's kind of a meme. jp×g 06:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge into California High-Speed Rail. WP:TOO SOON, it can get recreated later if it ends up being built but currently it doesn't have enough notability to warrant it's own article. Suonii180 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into California High-Speed Rail. Hasn't been constructed, yet. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into California High-Speed Rail per Suonii180 and JayzBox. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 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 redirect to Cartoon Planet. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space Ghost's Musical Bar-B-Que

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For these two Space Ghost albums, only coverage (as usual for these type for soundtracks) is Allmusic rev, not enough for WP:GNG. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cartoon Planet. Trivialist (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Cartoon Planet. Note that this nomination encompasses two different albums: Space Ghost's Musical Bar-B-Que and Space Ghost's Surf & Turf -- a crucial distinction missed in the nominator's mass copy/pasted AfDs. Unlike the previous voter, I don't think there is anything worth merging because these album articles only consist of track lists, and the songs did not get any reliable coverage individually or as a group. The Bar-B-Que album got a very brief and introductory AllMusic review, but that is all I can find for either of them. The album titles are possible search terms, and searchers can be sent to the article for the affiliated show. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashley yoursmile! 05:48, 1 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. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Powers, West Virginia

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

Not sure that this is a notable location. Appears on the 1906 topo as what appears to be a single building, but the name is gone by the 1924 one. Not in a 1945 directory of WV place names, which has Power in Brooke County, but not a Power or Powers in Wood Co. County history book has two mentions of "powers", but both as the normal noun form. Found a single reference in a family history book that looks a bit marginal as to reliability that someone was born at Powers in 1829, but I didn't turn up anything else unequivocally relatable to this place. If someone can turn up significant coverage proving that this was a notable community in 1829 or so, I'm willing to withdraw this, but I didn't find anything. Hog Farm _Talk 05:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in Leavengood's Arcadia history book Wood County, West Virginia. United States Geological Survey Bulletin issue 216 page 75 clears it up, though. Bing Maps has a Mount Olive Ridge Road almost to the map pin, and the USGS bulletin says that Mount Olive Church was "A prominent church situated on a high ridge near Powers post-office.". Both the church and the post office seem to be otherwise lost to history, and this one-sentence article is a definite falsehood. Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, doesn't meet GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; another geostub based solely on GNIS entry. Two editors quite skilled with these have failed to turn anything up. Additionally, I've looked up the coordinates on several USGS maps; the 1906 1:62500 quadrangle for Belleville, WV shows a "Powers" next to a couple of houses; the 1924, 1960, and 1994 1:24000 quadrangles for same show nothing whatsoever. I think this one's a meme. jp×g 06:44, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hog Farm _Talk 04:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sistranser Bach

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

Article claims this is a small river, but I can't verify its existence. Article also claims it has "excellent water quality". Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete The German WP article is nearly identical, except it leaves off the water supply part and has a picture of a tiny creek in what looks to be a culvert. I can't see how this is notable. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 06:40, 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. Tone 06:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dean G Smith

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

Article has been refused from AfC, and previously speedied. Refs are pretty much all primary sources. No good sources showing GNG met. Several linked pages are similarly dubious creations by this same user, it appears there may be a COI/PROMO issue going on. JamesG5 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable subject. Delete per nom.nearlyevil 665 18:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Google search does not turn up any reliable sources that are independent of the subject and talk about the subject in depth. All sources used in the article are self-published and user-generated sites or retailers and fail to establish notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cunard's work is once again excellent, and is directly speaking to the heart of the deletion rationale provided. In 10 days, his comments and sources were not analysed or refuted, therefore I have no choice to close this discussion as if they are default accepted as meeting GNG/RS etc. On that basis, there is no alternative way for me to close this discussion than a keep/ncs close, and given the fragmented nature of the discussion, I believe no consensus is best. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur)

AfDs for this article:

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

Supposed BLP with no BLP references. First eight references are anything but. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. 3 socks in the last Afd and it was corrupt. References have not been improved for a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as a strong WP:PROMO exercise. KidAd • SPEAK 23:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited last month at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur). Notability is not transitory. See Notability is not temporary 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What has notability got to do with it, when there is no references to prove it is a BLP. Not one BLP reference is present. scope_creep^Talk 22:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last AfD was gamed by two sockfarms (Brandon Lapin SPI and some related to SpareSeiko SPI). I wouldn't consider it as a precedent. MarioGom (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: As the closer of the last AfD, I would agree that this should be considered anew and independently from the last AfD due to the large number of now-blocked socks that were in that AfD. Of course, that does not preclude an editor from repeating the same arguments if they still find them to be valid. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous AfD was closed with a very clear consensus of Keep. Even if you discard Lapin's votes, you still had several other Keep votes, and good solid arguments for notability, wothout a single Delete vote. This is a clear, deliberate, bad-faith violation of WP:BEFORE, you cannot claim that there is no evidence for notability when the prior AfD cited multiple reasons for notability.
As I pointed out in the previous AfD If the article itself is factually correct, then the subject must be notable. Former Vice President at Microsoft, President of MSNBC.com, Chairman and CEO of World Online, Chairman and CEO of Interoute Communications, etc. Look, even if he was a figurehead (and I see no reason to assume this), simply holding those roles should have generated significant reliable sources about the subject. And I see that at least one of those companies, World Online, appears to have been involved in some sort of controversy around the time of the dot-com bust, which ought to have generated even more coverage and thus more RS. In addition to the sources already cited, it may be worth looking through the relevant articles on those other companies to see if they contain further good sources that mention Mr. Kinsella. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperion35: See this: If the article itself is factually correct, then the subject must be notable How does that even make sense. It is absurd and contentious and mostly meaningless. Please do not post up anywhere again. It is meaningless. scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to strike and rephrase that remark in a civil manner? I apologize if the meaning was unclear, but what I was trying to say is that if this individual has held those positions, if the basic biographic details are correct, then the subject almost certainly passes GNG. You are welcome to disagree with my assertion, and I would welcome a civil discussion of how to interpret GNG in the context of Mr. Kinsella's accomplishments, and compare sources, etc. What you are not welcome to do is to tell me, or any other editor, please do not post up anywhere again. I will AGF and consider that you may be having a bad day, but this behavior is not acceptable. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperion35: Sorry if it a bit harsh. It is a bit harsh. In any article, there need to be some kind of standout information that makes the person special somehow. A person doing their day job, doesn't automatically make them notable, even if they are a president of very large company. There is subtle distinction there. In this category, of being president, then there is probably at least 3 million people in the US who are presidents of some company, and a minority of the say 5-10% are presidentd of large to very large companies, so that 10% as an example, is 30,000. That alone is huge figure, when but combined with population of the earth, we are global encyclopedia, and everybody is equal, it probably close to 3 million mark, as an example, who are presidents of sizable organisation. It could NGO's, a goverment organisation, a quango, a gangster organisation, so it a very very large category. So doing their day job, doesn't automatically make them notable. There is more too it. scope_creep^Talk 21:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why it matters what the companies are. MSNBC.com I don't think needs much explanation. World Online was a major European ISP covering 16 countries and millions of customers, but more important for the purposes of our article, it appears to have been involved in some scandals related to the turn of the century dot-com bubble and bust. The Wikipedia article on that company mentions alleged insider trading, but doesn't seem to have much sourcing either. Kinsella then went on to head Interoute, Europe's largest cloud service provider, before it was eventually sold for several billion dollars or euros. So my point is simply given being in charge of such large and highly notable companies, and especially given a possible scandal at one of them, I find it difficult to believe that there are not sufficient sources out there. Bear in mind that some of this occurred 20 years ago at a time when many online news sources were born and died, so it may require searching for offline sources as well. To be clear, I am saying more than just a vague "there must be sources", but a more specific claim that there are good reasons to assume that these sources must exist. This was discussed in the previous AfD, I was not the only one to make this point. Nobody appeared to have objected to this assertion at that time. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperion35: Where is the reference to support the article. Does WP:V and WP:BIO not matter? scope_creep^Talk 21:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Saying that somebody is notable because they were VP or CEO of a company is not a policy-based argument. Plenty of high up corporate executives are not notable. This article appears to be built upon a WP:CITEBOMB to make the subject appear at a glance to be notable, but these sources do not cover the subject of this Wiki article in the level of depth that is required for GNG. I wonder if the people who said keep in the first nom looked closely at the sources or were fooled by the sheer number of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Dudley, Brier (1999-04-23). "CEO going for the green locally - MSNBC chief backs environmentalists". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.
The article notes: "Kinsella is identified only as a "programmer" on public-disclosure reports, but nationally he's known for developing Time Warner's Pathfinder Internet site, leading Microsoft's news venture with NBC and founding the Internet Content Coalition to self-regulate online publishers. A former newspaper reporter and editor at the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner and San Jose Mercury News, Kinsella has authored several books, including an analysis of the media's handling of the AIDS crisis."
Scott, Mark (2015-06-09). "European Cloud Companies Play Up Privacy Credentials". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.
The article notes: "James Kinsella is an unlikely champion for European technology. The 55-year-old American is a former Microsoft executive who previously ran MSNBC.com, the news website. Yet Mr. Kinsella, who has spent the last 15 years in Europe, is now backing Europe’s efforts to enforce its tough data privacy rules across the region — and potentially further afield."

"Kinsella, James 1959-". Encyclopedia.com. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

The entry notes: "James Kinsella is a celebrated media mogul, having earned a name for himself as the chairman of major media corporations such as Time Warner and MSNBC.com. He has held senior positions at other technology and media organizations such as World Online and Interoute." Sources from the entry:

Sources

Journalism Quarterly, autumn, 1990, James K. Hertog, review of Covering the Plague, pp. 623-624.

Journal of Health, Politics, Policy, and Law, spring, 1991, David C. Colby, review of Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media, pp. 176-181.

Library Journal, February 1, 1990, James E. Van Buskirk, review of Covering the Plague, p. 91.

Los Angeles Times Book Review, April 8, 1990, p. 5.

Nature, August 9, 1990, Don C. Des, review of Covering the Plague, p. 521.

New York Times Book Review, May 6, 1990, H. Jack Geiger, review of Covering the Plague, p. 23.

Publishers Weekly, January 19, 1990, Genevieve Stuttaford, review of Covering the Plague, pp. 92-93.

Washington Post Journalism Review, July-August 1990, Timothy Cook, review of Covering the Plague, p. 39.

Book reviews:
1. Lichter, S. Robert (1990-03-26). "Did quiet press help spread AIDS?". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.
  The book review notes: "It is the argument of James Kinsella's flawed but fascinating book Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media that ignorance and prejudice prevented the mainstream media from covering the AIDS epidemic more 'promptly, vigorously, and forthrightly.'"
2. Clifford, Jane (1990-04-13). "AIDS -- the news that wasn't fit to print?". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.
  The book review notes: "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media, by James Kinsella. Rutgers University Press: 299 pages; $22.95. THE AIDS crisis may be the best-ever situation to apply the old adage: Hindsight is 20/20. ... The book is a sobering account of how this country and its people approached AIDS. It's part in-depth report, part editorial -- in every chapter."
3. Shaw, David (1990-05-27). "A critical look at the media's record on AIDS coverage". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.
  The book review notes: "Kinsella, former editorial-page editor at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, provides a detailed, damning account of media insensitivity, indifference and ignorance, of media squeamishness and sensationalism throughout the early months and years of the AIDS epidemic."
4. Geiger, H. Jack (1990-05-06). "In Short; Nonfiction". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.
  The book review notes: "The early years of the epidemic are much more clearly understood now than they were then. But the book is replete with egregious overstatements, like the claim that no one is writing, even today, about preventable tragedies afflicting the poor, minorities and the homeless."
5. Michal-Johnson, P. (Winter 1991). "A tale of intrigue". Journal of Communication. 41 (1): 155. ISSN 0021-9916.
  The abstract notes, "Reviews the book `Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media,' by James Kinsella."
6. Van Buskirk, James E. (1990-02-01). "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media (Book)". Library Journal. Vol. 115, no. 2. p. 91.
  The abstract notes, "Reviews the book "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media," by James Kinsella."
7. "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.
  This is a book review.
8. Weinberg, Steve (1990-04-29). "AIDS and the news media: the personal connection". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10 – via Newspapers.com.
  The book review notes: "Unlike many media critics, James Kinsella understands that what gets reported and what gets ignored or twisted are almost always functions of individual journalists — not of a conspiracy by the newslords."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James Kinsella to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cunard's work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SNP Trade Union Group

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

Article fails WP:RS, in fact there are no sources for this article when nominated. It also fails WP:GNG Angryskies (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Structural component of the SNP;^[1] possibly second largest membership organisation in Scotland.^[2] Easily passes the GNG.^[3]^[4]^[5] AfD is not clean up.

References

^ Mitchell, James; Bennie, Lynn; Johns, Rob. The Scottish National Party: Transition to Power. OUP Oxford. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-19-958000-2.
^ "Chris Stephens: Trade union value in SNP future". www.scotsman.com. 14 November 2014.
^ "SNP trade union group backs Tie LGBTI+ Scottish education campaign". Source. 12 October 2015.
^ "SNP trade unionists in push for party to adopt total fracking ban". HeraldScotland. 29 July 2015.
^ Belser, Eva Maria; Fang-Bär, Alexandra; Massüger, Nina; Pillai, Rekha Oleschak. States Falling Apart?: Secessionist and Autonomy Movements in Europe. Stämpfli Verlag. p. 153. ISBN 978-3-7272-5913-5.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would appear to be notable enough, as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not cite any references to demonstrate it's notability. The article can be draftified if necessary for improvements. --RaviC (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @RaviC: It doesn't matter whether the sources demonstrating notability are cited in the article itself. See WP:ARTN. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article in the The Scotsman is an opinion piece, it's not clear to me that the 5-person Source News is a reliable source, and I only see passing mentions in the books The Scottish National Party: Transition to Power and States Falling Apart?: Secessionist and Autonomy Movements in Europe; I wouldn't count those towards WP:GNG/WP:ORGCRIT. The article from The Herald is significant coverage and a reliable source that should count towards GNG/ORGCRIT. Are there others though? I could only find passing mentions elsewhere. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ MarkH21: I stand corrected regarding the use of sources in the article. I'd also note your analysis seems to prove a lack of RS coverage for this group. --RaviC (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More sourcing.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Landin, Conrad (31 July 2019). "SNP union group 'does nothing to support workers'". Morning Star.
^ "SNP trade unionists in call for rent controls after 'tidal wave' of evictions". The National. 29 June 2020.
^ Savage, Michael (6 May 2015). "Workers abandon traditional allegiance and switch to SNP". The Times.
^ "In Scotland, trade unionists are already leaving Labour behind". Financial Times. 18 May 2015.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 06:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources (some of which I found on my own search prior to checking prior AfD comments, lol!) I'll incorporate them into the article if it's closed to keep. jp×g 04:20, 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 no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khans of Sahiwal

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

Non-notable family, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Seems like a good topic and interested users may develop this into a better one in the drafspace. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify It seems there is coverage, with a 4minute search found two references, so there is more out there. scope_creep^Talk 18:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 06:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. These seem to me like credible sources, and I don't know how much more coverage you can ask for about something that happened in the 1500s. jp×g 03:18, 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 redirect to Rugrats. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rugrats Holiday Classics

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

This topic only has an Allmusic rev and listing on retailers which aren't reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugrats. Unlike some other Rugrats albums, this one does not have an affiliated movie or special episode and appears to be simply compiled from various regular episodes. Therefore the album needs to stand on its own, and except for a very brief and introductory AllMusic review and sporadic fan chatter, it has received no reliable notice as a stand-alone entity. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rugrats Fails WP:NALBUM per Doomsdayer's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After 2 weeks I conclude the delete arguments are stronger than the sole keep vote which says little about how the sources provided satisfy gng, whereas the delete votes provide a much more comprehensive assessment. Fenix down (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Puskás

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

A similar case to recently deleted Balázs Banai. There is a weak presumption of notability from his 1 minute of professional football 10 years ago. His career since then has been played at lower levels and he is currently playing two tiers below professional level, so no immediate likelihood of building on his 1 minute.

Google searches and a Hungarian source search came back with some relevant hits, but no clear significant coverage. I found Radio7 and NB3 each had a small transfer announcement about him. I also found that BAON had a couple of match reports which mention him in passing here and here.

No sign of a WP:GNG pass. Clear consensus that a weak WP:NFOOTBALL pass several years ago is insufficient when GNG is not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, and good enough coverage to pass GNG IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst NB3 may appear to provide some significant coverage of his career. In my opinion, it's little more than just a prose version of the stats from his HLSZ or MLSZ profile page. It doesn't really add any extra content or analysis so it's debatable as to whether it's significant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage on the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 06:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard McCord

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

I don't think this article on a professor of creative writing meets WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:WRITER. It has been tagged with notability concerns since 2009. There is only one footnote, which is to the subject's own website. The awards appear to be local except for the Fulbright Program and the Woodrow Wilson, both of which have a very large number of awardees. Tacyarg (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of his collected papers are held by Washington State University (link in the article); it looks like additional collected papers are held by U Delaware [41]. That's at least an indication that these libraries think he's notable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added 6 reviews of 3 books to the article. While one review is very brief, and two are in smaller/regional publications, I think it's enough for a weak pass of WP:NAUTHOR. The libraries holding his collected papers bring me to a solid keep. Comment that he was active before the internet era, and I'm confident that additional reviews exist (but are hard to find online). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Russ. --hroest 17:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - following newer sources that have been added by Russ Woodroofe, passes WP:NAUTHOR. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Charli XCX live performances

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NTOURS this is a summarization of many other articles - the tours already have their own articles, both headlines, and support. The TV performances also included in the articles of the songs she performed. Henceforth, the information on this page is covered/duplicated elsewhere and doesn't meet the notability standard for inclusion like this. Some information here is backed by Twitter and Youtube sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not required, not notable, it's WP:NOTDIR Acous mana 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments given at the prior AFD, which I don't see addressed or refuted here. I see no change in circumstances, and the nomination is basically just complaining that this is doing what a list of articles is supposed to do, summarize and present together a group of related articles. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf I will address them just for you. The first argument is regarding "blue links", which leads to WP:INHERIT. No its not summarazing anything,all this information can be found in the tour articles or the songs due to the performances, looks like a grocery list. Moreover, it duplicates information already on other articles. Its just Fancruft for th sake of it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, again you're missing that the whole point of a list such as this is so you don't need to look in a dozen different articles to get an overview or key info on each entry. It's justifiable either per WP:LISTPURP or as a WP:SPLIT from the main article's tour section. INHERIT has no relevance here. postdlf (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect into another article about Charli XCX's tours, or the artist article herself. List is too small as she as not as big or lasted as long in the scene as Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga. Do keep its history in case there are more notable performances to add later on, however. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say it aligns with the "navigation" section in WP:LISTPURP. The number of headlining and supporting tours is significant and most lead to articles; it's not like there's only two tours listed. I believe this is a helpful list for someone unfamiliar with the artist's touring activities. Heartfox (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryon Cook

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

Non-notable American football player. Hasn't played in the NFL or any other leagues mentioned in WP:NGRIDIRON. Natg 19 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON Suonii180 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not qualify under WP:NGRIDIRON. Moreover, his Division III collegiate career (summarized here - 27 catches for 400 yards in his best season) doesn't include the types of accomplishments that qualify under WP:NCOLLATH. Finally, my searches did not turn up WP:SIGCOV of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Looks like the discussion ran out of steam. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Jones (musician)

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

BLP of a musician that is stitched together from liner notes, tour notices and passing mentions. There does not appear to be in depth coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources so notability is not established. Redirecting to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers might be possible as it seems this is what he is best known for. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article lists 14 references - one of which is an interview with just Phil Jones in Rolling Stone Magazine. Hardly a "passing mention". Not only that, but he is clearly a well known and reputable musician having credits with Roy Orbison, Tom Petty and Del Shannon among a few. As anyone can see from the references, he gets more than a passing mention. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaaaastonbury88 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

credits, interviews etc. aren’t sufficient to support a biography article. Are there three reliable independent sources that discuss him in depth? Mccapra (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes there are. The first 3 references on his page provide 3 reliable independent sources that discuss him in depth... ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that’s an interview with him, an extremely brief passing mention, and an offline source. Mccapra (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources indicated above are either interviews or trivial mentions, and do not establish notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/drummer-phil-jones-interview-tom-petty-bob-dylan-1130122/
^ https://ultimateclassicrock.com/tom-petty-full-moon-fever/
^ King, Kelly, The Perfect Gig, Drumhead Magazine, October 2016

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 06:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How long is this going to go on for- it is pretty clear that no one can prove it should be taken down. Cheers Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers will relist it at our discretion to encourage further discussion. Two !votes doesn't equal consensus. Missvain (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bakare Mubarak

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO- being the tallest male model from a certain region is not grounds for notability (see WP:NOTGUINNESS). MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with MrsSnoozyTurtle and their decision to AFD this article was the best route. My rationale mirrors that of noms, at best this is bare notability. Celestina007 (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Also agreed. The shortest such model, or the shortest model who is also male, or who is also female, and then the tallest female model, etc. would need their own articles if this were the standard of notability. Quicklibrary (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article failed to satisfy WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 14:06, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Clement's (cocktail)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The recipe is on a few websites and nothing else, no reliable source coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 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 Megaprime. Titanic prime is not included in this nomination. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantic prime

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

No significant coverage. The origin of the term is a 1992 paper in the Journal of Recreational Mathematics, and it got included in a glossary in the website PrimePages and a one-sentence mention in MathWorld. In other places, sometimes prime numbers are described with the adjective "gigantic", but in the general sense of being very large rather than some specific threshold. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mathematical or other lasting significance to this arbitrary cutoff. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significance shown that warrants a stand-alone article. Heart ^(talk) 05:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no meaningful coverage in sources, and no basis to hope for anything substantial or encyclopedic to say about the topic in the future. Basically it's just an old neologism for a nonnotable concept. (I have also prodded the sister article Titanic prime.) --JBL (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. As a standalone article probably fails notability. But it is sort of interesting to see (1) that it's feasible to identify for sure the smallest prime in this interval, and (2) about how far it is from the cutoff, which can make the prime number theorem concrete in readers' minds. I wonder if there's anywhere that content might be merged? Unfortunately in a longer article people will probably never see it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Titanic prime, a more notable term coined by the same person. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Megaprime. Both gigantic prime and titanic prime seem to have fallen into disuse once the GIMPS project started to find million digit primes, but megaprime, the term for these, does seem to have seen sustained use since then. The use before 2000 of both 'gigantic prime' and 'titanic prime' was slight enough, and the principled mathematical interest as David Eppstein notes is not there, that I don't think either justifies a Wikipedia article. If we decide to do without a standalone article for this concept, 'titanic prime' should be next. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gigantic primes are much closer connected to titanic primes than to megaprimes in etymology, history, size and prime searching. And gigantic primes are a form of titanic primes but not of megaprimes. There is still interest in titanic and gigantic primes among people who search special types and patterns of primes. For example, the prime septuplet record, meaning 7 large primes as closely together as possible, was increased from 527 to 1002 digits this year [42] even though it looks hundreds of times harder than a small improvement would have been. The announcement said First titanic septuplet. I have broken the prime septuplet record several times but a titanic septuplet is far beyond my resources. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I do not find the idea that Titanic prime is a notable concept persuasive. In MathSciNet, searching for "titanic" produces three relevant publications: the original Yates paper, a collection of papers in recreational math that reprinted the Yates paper (but the reviewer didn't think it was worth commenting on), and one other paper from a year or two after the Yates paper. That's a really extreme failure to catch on outside of the tiny circle of people who do large-prime computations recreationally. (The article Megaprime is superficially better, but when one starts looking at where all those footnotes actually lead, one discovers that it suffers from the same problem. For contrast, compare with Largest known prime number, a definitely notable thing.) --JBL (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar finds more: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22titanic+primes%22. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The usage definitely was a thing, but with the passage of time I do not think it supports an independent article. If I restrict your search to articles after 2000 that have at least one citation, I only find the term appearing in description of older literature and, in one case, a history section. I think it makes much more sense to document these two usages in the history section of Megaprime, a term that does see ongoing usage. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both titanic prime and gigantic prime to megaprime. The concepts are neither notable nor relevant; they are already mentioned in the article megaprime, and a mention is all they deserve. Tercer (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to megaprime. The term never had widespread adoption within mathematics; it's not just an arbitrary cutoff, but an arbitrary cutoff that failed to resonate with people. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about Mersenne primes and Generalized Fermat primes as redirect candidates ? As a prime number classification, it attracts more interest to me. --SilverMatsu (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the lead text on this page seems to indicate that the title of this page is ambiguous. Also is it possible to move the Largest known prime number to this page?--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to megaprime, along with titanic prime; there isn't really a good reason for these to have separate articles, and if there is, they can be split back out. jp×g 06:23, 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. Tone 07:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Test Arena

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

Non-notable basketball arena. No in-depth coverage about the place, just a single interview with the owner about the place, which does not qualify as sources as it is not independent. Google News searches only turns up matches that are done in the place. SunDawn (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no evidence that the arena has hosted a Professional sports team, or a semi-pro or amateur team in the top division of a country, or a world championship. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:52, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment X'nter

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

Non-notable shopping mall in Jakarta. Did not pass WP:NCORP. The only news article about the place is about its shutdown. Searches on Google turns up mirrors to this Wikipedia article. SunDawn (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 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. Tone 07:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Imam Hayat

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

Subject fails NPOL. Does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG; ignoring the coverage of his organisation. All the coverage are on his organisation except for one which is on his father which does not mention him. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not a single significant coverage! - Owais ^Talk 01:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on Google News on his Bengali name সৈয়দ ইমাম হায়াত founds 0 results. A regular search on his name found out nothing notable. His organization is notable, but not himself. SunDawn (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Imam Hayat and his organisation is notable and there are many news on regular search in bengali in google of his organisation.Sciencelover1998 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imam Hayat's organisation is active in Bangladesh and there are some reliable sources of activities of him in google bengali search.Shafa2020 (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:SunDawn (His organization is notable, but not himself). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: এটা দেখুন। - Owais ^Talk 20:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed drink supplies

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

Not a notable topic, we already have an article on mixed drinks. Do we really need an article to explain that you must put alcohol and a mixer into some type of drinkware to make a mixed drink? Rusf10 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced collection of links to other wiki articles. I could point to WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and probably others. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks sources. Kaspadoo (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Yang

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could find only primary sources, fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News search finds 0 hits for her exact name. Searches turn up her name, but most of the search result is a mirror of the Wikipedia article. Not notable enough for inclusion. SunDawn (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. I'm seeing no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Google search turns up nothing to indicate that the subject is notable to warrant a standalone article. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:05, 1 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 National Premier Soccer League teams. Missvain (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electric City Shock SC

AfDs for this article:

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

What are we to do with these NPSL teams with all of these sports nobility tags? There's a very small amount coverage of this team, see this article when they were launched, and this five-sentence blurb about their first season, but the local newspaper doesn't even cover their home games, and the majority of the results which come up appear to be from a local softball team. I thought this would be a good source but it mentions their attendance of "about 100" in spite of "next to no advertising." Other web searches brought up no WP:GNG qualifying coverage, just non-independent web sites from the league or other teams in the league. Note: I did not see a previous AfD had been withdrawn, but that AfD did not discuss the near complete lack of available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 00:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails WP:GNG even if all we have is coverage for a local WP:AUDience, they're not notable. Note: They have never played for the national cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams (which can be expanded with additional information, and put in a proper table form) as possible search term, but due to ongoing lack of coverage does not appear independently notable. Giant Snowman 09:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who edited/tried to clean up this page (it used to be WAY worse), I lean Delete but only if this same standard is held with other teams. I'm not sure how teams like FC Málaga City New York, Cedar Stars Rush, or Ozark FC among others have pages if this one gets taken down. I think many editors believe once a team joins the NPSL or USL2 it automatically makes them notable, so I think there needs to be a clear correction on that like SportingFlyer alluded too. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working my way thru pages which have sports notability tags on them, but don't mind taking a look at those as well. I do find it odd that there's nothing really available in terms of reliable secondary media to improve these pages. SportingFlyer T·C 15:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams - plausible search term and per WP:ATD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know why we are so quick to jump the gun and create these NPSL and USL2 sides; they rarely stand on their own in terms of notability, usually only garnering routine coverage from local sports media. Usually WP:FOOTYN suggests that only teams that have played in the U.S. Open Cup are presumed to have met notability criteria. As this team has not done that, I have no issue with its deletion. And given the lack of traffic to this page, I don't think a redirect is necessary. I'd say just move it to draft space if need be. Jay eyem (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A fourth tier team that's been around for only seven years and has never qualified for the playoffs in any of them? I'm sure that someday this will pass GNG, but I don't think it does now. jp×g 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added some references. Article should be improved, not redirected. Nfitz (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the "Neighbor News", which is a hyper-local story about a local soccer player, I did see the two other sources from the same newspaper you added to the article, but didn't think they rose to the level of WP:GNG (especially since I couldn't find consistent, ongoing coverage of their matches.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current consensus would suggest redirect is the path that causes least harm, but Nfitz has added sources that could indicate GNG and this is worthy of further consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:03, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lanser Bach

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

This is an unsourced article. It is not clear to me what this actually is. Is it a river? (according to the article it is, but I don't believe it) Is it a brook? Or just a drainage ditch? (as it appears in the photo) Whatever it is, it does not appear to be notable since I cannot find any sources. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete There is a German WP article but it says even less than the English article; there are also a couple of other commons pictures, which show a very small creek running through a field: one could easily stand straddling it. Bach would generally translate to "brook" or "creek", so at this point this seems to be a rather minor stream. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 06:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero news results and two book results which seem like passing mentions ("Weil der Lanser Bach wegen seiner Wasserbringung für die beiden Badeanstalten als Vorfluter praktisch ausschied , blieb nur die Entscheidung zwischen der zweiten und dritten Möglichkeit über . Und nun galt es für die Gemeinde ..." → "Because the Lanser Bach was practically ruled out as a receiving water for the two bathing establishments because of its water supply, only the decision between the second and third option remained. And now it was true for the congregation ..."). Nothing to phone home about. jp×g 03:26, 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.

[1] Tracy, Marc (2020-01-21). "The Former Journalist Who Is Bernie Sanders's Media Critic". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-05-19.

[2] "He Broke The NSA Leaks Story, But Just Who Is Glenn Greenwald?". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-05-19.

[3] Ed Monk (25 January 2008). "Avoid the sham 'cashback' mobile deals". thisismoney.co.uk. DMG Media. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

[4] Robert Anderson (2 September 2019). "Best Mobile Phones Direct Phone Deals for March 2020: Compare Cashback Deals". PC Mag. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

[5] Emma Lunn (9 February 2019). "How to compare deals on mobile phone contracts". Evening Standard. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

[6] Susanne Norris (9 December 2020). "How to claim cashback". Good Housekeeping. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

[7] Alice Marshall (13 March 2021). "Unmissable SIM only deal: unlimited data for an effective £6 a month". Techradar. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

[8] ~~Alice Marshall~~ Somrata Sarkar (16 December 2020). "How do mobile phone cashback deals work? Our full guide". Tech Advisor. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

[9] Mitchell, James; Bennie, Lynn; Johns, Rob. The Scottish National Party: Transition to Power. OUP Oxford. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-19-958000-2.

[10] "Chris Stephens: Trade union value in SNP future". www.scotsman.com. 14 November 2014.

[11] "SNP trade union group backs Tie LGBTI+ Scottish education campaign". Source. 12 October 2015.

[12] "SNP trade unionists in push for party to adopt total fracking ban". HeraldScotland. 29 July 2015.

[13] Belser, Eva Maria; Fang-Bär, Alexandra; Massüger, Nina; Pillai, Rekha Oleschak. States Falling Apart?: Secessionist and Autonomy Movements in Europe. Stämpfli Verlag. p. 153. ISBN 978-3-7272-5913-5.

[14] Landin, Conrad (31 July 2019). "SNP union group 'does nothing to support workers'". Morning Star.

[15] "SNP trade unionists in call for rent controls after 'tidal wave' of evictions". The National. 29 June 2020.

[16] Savage, Michael (6 May 2015). "Workers abandon traditional allegiance and switch to SNP". The Times.

[17] "In Scotland, trade unionists are already leaving Labour behind". Financial Times. 18 May 2015.

[18] ttps://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/drummer-phil-jones-interview-tom-petty-bob-dylan-1130122/

[19] ttps://ultimateclassicrock.com/tom-petty-full-moon-fever/

[20] King, Kelly, The Perfect Gig, Drumhead Magazine, October 2016

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]