Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 07	May 09 >

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. I read Vaticidalprophet's contribution with interest, despite being in the minority on sheer numbers. However, despite the notability guideline backing, I find Missvain's contribution the most persuasive, even in context of VP's submission. No prejudice to recreation if GNG-appropriate sourcing is provided. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Brødreskift

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this, he was on several notable bands and is still written about in books and sites like https://www.orbitarock.com/efemerides-rock/erik-brodreskift-murio-octubre-4-de-1999.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BANDMEMBER States that being in a notable band isn't enough to show individual notability. Sources must show that he also has notability outside of the bands he played in and the sources I found all talked about him in relation to the bands. Suonii180 (talk) 09:35, 28 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)} 16:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles per WP:MUSICBIO#6. WP:BANDMEMBER refers to non-notable members of individual notable groups. (AfD article quote of the day: As a tribute, Nargaroth wrote the song "Erik, May You Rape the Angels" for him.) Vaticidalprophet 05:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:MUSICBIO, no sufficient sources to show notability, WP:BANDMEMBER is only if notable outside the band which he was clearly not CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going with CommanderWaterford on this one. I know the bands he was in - but, the sourcing sucks on all the other language Wikipedia's about the subject - even in Norwegian. While the bands he played in are notable, he clearly is not. I can't even find obituaries in Norwegian. And these small fry, metal zines, etc, that I found aren't enough to establish his notability. General notability guidelines override bandmember, music bio, etc. Missvain (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is inherited from the bands. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, per nominator. Cinadon36 05:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Ingole

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. BLP with profile references. scope_creep^Talk 18:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. My search hasn't shown any sources that would cover the subject in detail. Less Unless (talk) 19:56, 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) 01:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Granicus (company)

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

Digital agency. Generic. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 18:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-09 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. I'm actually going with a delete here. She founded a few notable companies - so the merger is debatable. Missvain (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Maier

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

Fails WP:BIO. No indication why she is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Puff piece. scope_creep^Talk 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Match.com. Not independently notable. KidAd • SPEAK 22:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 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 Draftify. You'll find it at Draft:St. Andrew's Place Missvain (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrew's Place

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

Fails WP:NBUILDING. No indication of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Userfy. This is a student assignment, according to the creator's talk page, so I won't go too far into the problems, but in short this article has next to no independent sourcing, and the tone is not encyclopedic. The St. Andrew's United Church might be notable, but someone would have to find independent sourcing for it. Getwilson13 your teacher should grade you the same whether or not your article is in published article space. It's hard to get articles published here; even seasoned Wikipedia editors sometimes have trouble getting their articles published.--- Possibly (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment GNG-qualifying sources about the development exist. This is a National Post article, and this story was picked up nationally in Canada, and there's a Globe and Mail source in the article too. It's probably notable enough, but the article needs major cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to allow chance for improvement. It's true that the sourcing here isn't adequate, but it's also true that better sources do exist as pointed out by SportingFlyer — and as a former resident of Sudbury, I can attest that there is more significance than the article is actually demonstrating as written: it was one of the first key projects in the city's 1960s urban renewal plan to deuglify its downtown core, designed and planned and built with the idea of rethinking the entire concept of what a church could be, as it incorporates mixed-use retail and housing and community space into a church. That's a model you still don't see a lot of, even today — even in the age of the megachurch, there are still very few other churches in North America offering and operating on-site rental housing, making St. Andrews Place relatively unique. The article could do a better job of communicating and sourcing that fact than it currently is, so creator should certainly be given a chance to improve it. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is clear consensus to delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sink Salad

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

Phenomenon that has no claim to notability. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. — Goszei (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ Delete per nom. Article has no references nor categories, and is a stub. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not one of the Project:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, my bad. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did wonder whether I should have pointed out also that Project:deletion policy does not support deleting stubs simply because they are uncategorized. Please find a policy-based rationale that the closing administrator can hang xyr hat from. Uncle G (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - As a compromise solution, I can categorize the article and gradually expand it with more sources. Egyptian jew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        More sources? It currently has none. If you can find sources to satisfy WP:GNG, that's precisely what's needed here, and what's lacking. Cats etc. are nice-to-haves, once (if) notability has been established. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made me chuckle, so thanks to the creator for that. Love the optimistic "The phrase has yet to appear in the OED" at the end; also the initial caps in the title: it's not just sink salad, but Sink Salad! :) On a more serious note, delete as non-notable neologism, possibly joke/hoax. (BTW, there is something called 'kitchen sink salad', which this might be a riff of, and which also makes finding any sources - assuming any exist, which I doubt - tricky.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any significant coverage of this phenomenon to demonstrate that it warrants an article on Wikipedia. Seems to border on being WP:ONEDAY Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, obvious fail of WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added categories and am working on the references. Note that there is no Wikipedia page for gunt even though a Google images search pulls up 3.7 million results. I would point out that by contrast, the Sink Salad article is at least acceptable to a family audience. It is somewhat out of touch with the times to insist on absolutely zero articles that deal with informal subject matter that is too crude for Harvard academics and college-educated journalists to engage with. Some of these issues are very real concepts for billions of working people, many of whom may not necessarily come from the same demographic as your average editor who is working on the Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptian jew (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are saying that the decision from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunt applies here, because this is an unsourced folk-written slang dictionary entry, too. Uncle G (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have restored the WP:A11 tag which was removed inappropriately Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Generally accepted concept in certain cultures and communities. Some even have a single word for it. — Mr Bulmer (talk)
- Please can you share some reliable sources to back this up? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DoubleGrazing. EpicPupper 21:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've heard this term used abundantly. On a related note, "Kitchen Sink Salad" is used also as an actual recipe. A quick google shows a plethora of yummy recipes you can try out - albeit that the names derives from the expression "everything but the kitchen sink" in reference to the vast range of salad contents, rather than the horrible gunk you get in your sink drain! Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like something made up one day. Article has no references whatsoever. JIP | Talk 18:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DoubleGrazing. Amusing: rather. Hoax: absolutely. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:50, 2 May 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 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search results get swamped with all kinds of recipes for "kitchen sink salads" (i.e. All The Ingredients salads), but even after I went to some effort to exclude everything, one by one, that could throw up false positives (it's an interesting search term :p) there are only the faintest indications of use - a few photo captions, basically. This is not nearly enough of a thing for an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources that show notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:55, 4 May 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 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable WP:SOURCES to demonstrate that article meets WP:GNG. Johnnie Bob (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism with no independent sources seemingly discussing the usage of the phrase. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP. A search turned up plenty of mentions of "Kitchen Sink Salad" (as in "Contains everything but the..."), but precisely one mention of "Sink salad" in the article's sense - and that was in distinctly non-WP:RS Urban Dictionary. Narky Blert (talk) 10:13, 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. WP:SNOW keep with numerous reliable sources shown and no evidence of WP:BEFORE performed. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casey's Contraptions

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

Removed a bunch of puffy reviews, doesn't appear to stand on its own. Happy to be wrong, or merge into Amazing Alex (which also isn't great). Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No doubt, someone did a terrible, sloppy job at writing this article. But despite their poor efforts, the sourcing is there to meet the WP:GNG. All sources usable per WP:VG/S.

I'll also note that the nominator removed a ton of reliably sourced commentary right before the nomination. It was done on the grounds of "puffery", which is legit as far as content/prose goes, but not legit as far as notability goes. Bad call there. Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Metacritic lists plenty of reviews, including at least seven from reliable sources. This is quite enough for an article. IceWelder [✉] 00:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. As per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:14, 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) 01:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Domínguez Urbano-Taylor

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC as there is nothing but a brief mention in any reliable source. Even the Spanish version of this article contains no sources. Rusf10 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found only 1 mention in a book. That's far from meeting notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only 1 mention in this book. Couldn't find any other sources other than a mention in what looks like a Spanish translation of the same book. These aren't enough to meet WP:GNG. HoneycrispApples (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LaLa Ri

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

The performer is not notable enough on their own. The majority of the content in the page is about their performance on Drag Race (Wikipedia is not a Drag Race fansite). If this page is allowed, then every other contestant can have one. --78.148.25.46 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page--discussion with other editors has ensued there as well. Article was originally as a redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13) where she was a contestant. I have not yet formed an opinion of my own on the article at this time, except to note that it if consensus is that she fails notability, then restoring the original redirect seems like the proper course. --Finngall ^talk 20:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 20:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 20:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13). Most of the content is only relevant to the show and it is already included in the season 13's page. (LaLa Ri's placement and titles on the show and personal information (real name, year of birth, hometown) are all present in RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13). The only non-Drag Race content is: A) a cited self-description ("I’m a showgirl. I love to dance. I love to entertain. I have a little sex appeal...") which is hardly encyclopaedic. B) a mention of her single (not notable, as it didn't chart or got much critics' coverage). Wikipedia is not a fan site. --78.148.25.46 (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13). Not enough notability outside show to indicate they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13) - no indication of notability outside the show. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 08:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wcohen2003 should be informed. While not the original creator of the article, he is the one who took it from Redirect to a full article.Naraht (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Naraht, it appears they have been. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect serves a purpose, so just redirect until notability clearly established. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13) - notability is not inherited from the parent show. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:24, 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) 01:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Tugume

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

Article about a news anchor that fails WP:BASIC. Reference 1 is practically blank, ref 2 is a gossip website. Fails WP:SIGCOV. TheChronium (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Lack of coverage from reliable sources. Alan Islas (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom, totally fails WP:SIGCOV --Whiteguru (talk) 10:19, 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) 01:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Lydon

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

Fails WP:ENT and no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR with multiple roles in notable British television shows. KidAd • SPEAK 23:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." They are not significant roles. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KidAd: The most episodes that she was in are 3 episodes in a show and it doesn't matter in that case that the shows are notable. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Roles do not appear to be significant, and the article includes no information not found on an IMDb page. Would be willing to reconsider if there was any indication of significant coverage. AP1787 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A look around finds zero amount of significant coverage (or any coverage) in multiple (or one) reliable sources. Simply fails WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mickey Mouse (comic strip)#1930s. Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Missvain (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Blot

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All I see in sources - including cited ones like the The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History - are mentions in passing, generally in plot summaries of more notable shorts and like; I couldn't even find a single sentence, not to mention a paragraph about him anywhere. Even the modern clickbait sites like CBR don't have much: press-release like [6] and tiny WP:INTERVIEW [7]. The best I found is this which compares him to Thanos, but I don't think that's enough. Let's discuss - maybe someone can dig up something else, but please, let's avoid plot summaries and illustrated children books this time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 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} 03:44, 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} 03:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate section of Mickey Mouse (comic strip). It's covered in some detail there, and could be expanded with coverage from [The Comic Book Book], which devoted almost a whole chapter to the story and its uncredited artist. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Argento Surfer, Right. I was a bit surprised we don't have an article on the Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot. That particular story/comic strip may be notable (I am not 100% sure but it does appear to have some coverage out there). If this article were to be created, it would make for an even better redirect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Argento Surfer and nominator. I did find this io9 source that ranked him in a list of best genre villain roles in 2017 or something, but other only coverage is mentions in coverage primarily about series and shorts. Disappointing as he's an interesting villain. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I have found two separate sources, although I need them to be looked at to see if they are reliable. This one and this one specifically. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- CBR.com is not reliable, and cartoonresearch.com looks like a self-published blog posting screenshots and text snippets of material it doesn't own. Neither establish notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - CBR is considered generally reliable for comic information (not that I would agree with assessment if we re-evaluated consensus today). Argento Surfer (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Argento Surfer, I brought CBR a while ago at RSN, and their lists, at the very least, are considered low quality, see here. As for their more general articles, I'd call them reliable, but many of them have very little non-plot summary - they do vary, however, I've seen some that are quite solid, and some that are pure clickbait that might as well be script generated. I did actually find and link that particular CBR article in my op, and I do think it is the best coverage we have - and it is just not enough, all it has outside plot summary is a few sentences about said comparison. That said, this source is a 'good start' - but if this is all, then we don't have enough to save this. As for the other source, even before looking at the publisher (blog?), it is about the Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot strip which as I mentioned above may be notable on its own - but we should not conflate the two entities (the character and the strip where said character debuted and which includes a mention of the character in the name). "Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot" =/= "Phantom Blot". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we had a formal discussion on it, I think the case of CBR would be too nuanced to form a clear consensus. The quality since their sale has fallen dramatically, but some columns (like Brian Cronin's stuff) is still solid. Other stuff is accurate but sometimes it's borderline indiscriminate in their effort to hit their "5 times (and 5 times not)" quota. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can either be expanded with further sources, or it can be reworked and renamed/moved into Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot as suggested by other editors. Either way, both outcomes are in the spirit of WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There is no established consensus that CBR is unreliable (or reliable). There is however, consensus that its sister site, Screen Rant which operates in a very similar manner or format as CBR following its acquisition by the same parent company in 2016, is "marginally reliable" following a RfC which received substantial participation. In other words Screen Rant (which is more film/TV/video game focused) is reliable enough for entertainment-related topics such as fictional characters, but inappropriate for use in BLP articles, and I imagine a consensus for CBR (which is more comics focused) would be the same in the event that it is also subjected to a RfC. Haleth (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Haleth, The idea of rewriting this into Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot (under the assumption that comic is notable, which is possible but has not been proven yet here) would make some sense - if there was any usable content in the article. But it's 99.9% plot summary fancruft, and Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot is mentioned in a single sentence. There is nothing to rescue here, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Topic of the character lacks sources necessary to meet WP:GNG. If the comic itself is actually notable, the content in the article on the comic does not amount to much, so I don't think it'd be proper to simply rework the topic as it stands. It's basically a TNT case with maybe justification for a light merge of a paragraph should anyone find sufficient sourcing for the comic to meet GNG. TTN (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from what's said above, notice that there are articles about the character in 18 other language Wikipedias including major languages like French and Italian. These appear to be substantial and have sources in those languages too. As the character goes back over 70 years and Disney has been a big deal in many countries, there is clearly international notability. It would be absurd to delete the character in its mother tongue. Our policies such as WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ ~~Undecided~~ per Andrew Davidson. I've looked for sources and maybe found some, but Google won't let me see enough of it to determine how deep they are: Comics through Time: A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas (2014), The Comic-book Book (1974), The Slings & Arrows Comic Guide (2003), Dizionoir del fumetto (2008), The TOON Treasury of Classic Children's Comics (2009) and Riverside Quarterly, Volume 5, Issue 2 - Volume 6, Issue 2 (1971). Also (minor I guess) mentions in reviews of Epic Mickey from Eurogamer Benelux and Inside Gamer. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexis Jazz, If you cannot look inside, then we are dealing with nothing but WP:GOOGLEHITS I am afraid. In fact, I can see page 407 of your first source, and it is clearly a mention in passing, and crucually, not of the character, but of the comic strip they appear in "...the first substantive fulllength Mickey-themed comic book, 1941's Mickey Mouse vs. the Phantom Blot from George Delacorte's... ...". This also reminds us that GOOGLEHITS is particularly bad in cases where the subject's name is also a part of something else (in this case, the strip). Most if not all of your google-hits finds are likely relevant to the topic of the comic strip - which is not what we are discussing here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, those books really do exists. What little Google does show me indicates those sources are possibly usable. Sources don't have to be publicly accessible to be used on Wikipedia. For that first result, I figured that there might be more on page 408 which is unavailable. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alexis Jazz, I never said the books don't exist. What I said is that there is no evidence the sources cited contain WP:SIGCOV and we cannot assume this is the case. Per WP:BURDEN, you have to find clear evidence of such coverage. In either case I was able to access page 408 and it does not seem to discuss the character (or the comic strip) at all: [8]. I don't see what would make you think that the next page would do so, particularly given that while the comic strip may be notable, there is nothing here to suggest the source discussed the character. Please avoid confusing those two entities, and note that this AfD is not about the comic strip (which does not have the article yet but as I noted myself may be notable), but the fictional character (which does and is not). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Piotrus, I never knew you could do that! That will come in handy in the future. I've checked all Wikipedia articles in other languages and only found two possibly interesting links, both on frwiki: DuckTales: The Members of FOWL, Explained and DuckTales Turns Phantom Blot Into Disney's... Thanos?!, both from CBR.com. Is CBR a RS? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Alexis Jazz, I am glad you found my linking to GBooks usesful (I assume that's what you are referring to). You may also want to re-read the discussion above - I already linked the CBR source in my opening post. Likewise, the reliability of CBR has also been touched upon by several editors above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Piotrus, yes, that's I meant. Handy to access off-limits pages. Though I suspect it won't always work, I remember times when a Google Books result linked directly to a page number that was off-limits. I appear to have overlooked part of the discussion. [9] wasn't mentioned before. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect — I see no evidence this meets WP:Notability. Existence in other Wikipedias is only evidence that most of them are also hard at work dealing with fancruft. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep or more likely Redirect to Mickey Mouse (comic strip)#1930s or Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot if that's notable and an article is created for it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mickey Mouse (comic strip)#1930s. I can certainly see the potential of an article on the actual comic of Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot, but as mentioned above, there is really not much useful in this article currently that could be used in such a rework. While the current article looks like it has a number of references, most of them do not appear to be from reliable sources. Redirecting to the correct section of the article on the Mickey Mouse comics would currently be the most appropriate target, and if an article on the Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot comic itself is developed, the redirect can be changed accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mickey Mouse (comic strip): should/could be expanded over there CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a notable character for having been one of Mickey Mouse's main adversaries for many decades. JIP | Talk 20:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- JIP, WP:ITSNOTABLE. Do you even have a source that he was "one of Mickey Mouse's main adversaries for many decades"? (And even if it is the case, which part of GNG would that even meet?) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article needs to be improved with the addition of more sources, but the character has been discussed in many places, as he is Mickey's second most famous enemy beside Pete. Ever since he was introduced in 1939 the character has appeared in 845 stories, including famous ones, and new stories about him are produced every year. In some countries with a strong tradition of Disney comics he has long been part of popular culture: for example, in this scene from one of the highest-grossing movies in Italy, a character casually addresses another character who is a thief by saying "Senti, Macchia Nera" ("Listen, Phantom Blot"). Anyway, in case he is going to be redirected it would be better to redirect him to Mickey Mouse universe#The Phantom Blot rather than Mickey Mouse (comic strip), since only 4 stories out of 845 are part of said strip. --Newblackwhite (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of media appearances without reliable sources to provide necessary context are worthless in establishing notability. It doesn't matter if the character has appeared in ten thousand pieces of media. If for some reason nobody has critically talked about the character itself, it simply isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. There are plenty of other places on the internet to catalogue such information. TTN (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, I only mentioned that number to give a little context, but the main reason I think the character deserves an article is that he has been discussed in many sources. When I have more free time I plan to locate these sources and improve the article, assuming it won't have been deleted by then. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newblackwhite, "he has been discussed in many sources"? Which sources? Could you link them? Some people seem to confuse mentions of a strip he appears in (that is also named after him) with the fictional character; those are not the same entities. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly thinking of newspaper articles which talk about the character, but as I said it may be a while before I can find the time to collect them and review them one by one. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newblackwhite, If you find any, please link them, nobody was able to find anything outside the two articles on CBR; everything else discusses the comic strip, not the character. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons cited above. Kaspadoo (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaspadoo, WP:KEEPPER... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renown Coaches

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies and organisations. No independent refs containing significant coverage and none found in searches. SK2242 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 30 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, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an advertisement, and fails to establish why this company is notable.TH1980 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like this comment was intended for another AFD; most of the article is a history section and list of routes and doesn't look at all like an advertisement. Peter James (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No one has put forth any sources to show that this passes WP:NCORP--Rusf10 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a lot of these references are dead. References supplied do not give WP:SIGCOV - they are all departmental notices, etc. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:23, 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 03:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vettri

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

Non notable future film, fails WP:NFF as production wasn't notable. Should be deleted or moved to draft until release and then notability can be determined.

PROD removed by anonymous IP address. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Also WP:TOOSOON. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:A900:12DD:9976:A459 (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NFF. Kolma8 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article creator may be a sockpuppet of a blocked user per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Romil.Choudary--if confirmed, article is subject to speedy deletion per WP:G5. --Finngall ^talk 00:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as sockpuppetry has been confirmed. --Finngall ^talk 02:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Omar (digital media personality)

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

Nothing on the face of this article lends confidence that the subject is encyclopedically notable. Managing editors and "consultants" usually are not. BD2412 T 17:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This personality meets the notability criteria due to the work position. I believe it should remain and get developed. It was already voted to keep by another admin. --Emna (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "already voted to keep by another admin", but if you're referring the PROD being rolled back, that was me and I'm not an admin, and rolling back a PROD just means that more thought is appropriate, not that it should be kept. And as you see below that, after analysis, I think that it ought to be deleted. Herostratus (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So let's analyze... The first reference, which is Glamour Girl Blog (I'll talk about the source presently) says
- FilFan.com is the leading entertainment website in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region and Egypt. Launched in 2004, the Arabic language entertainment news portal offers in-depth coverage of movie and television news along with more than 100 events a year including: music festivals, movie premieres, and exclusive interviews with the most popular superstars in the MENA region. The site is among the most creditable outlets in Egypt bringing in 1.5 million unique monthly visitors and 6-8 million page views a month. So who is behind the booming media outlet? 23-year-old Mohamed Omar, the youngest Editor-in-Chief in Egypt...

Which if true makes him look pretty notable. And then, it goes on to describe and interview him, which is a good start toward having a meaty article. But I don't think it's a OK source... It's a one-person blog by an Amber Dover, who doesn't have an article here or much internet presence. She says she has a Master's in Media Studies from the New School, but so what. On the other hand, it's a good blog with a professional look. She's not a rando PJ Girl I guess. But then she says there was an article about her published by NPR, but I can't find any evidence of that, so... There's no fact checking and I just can't trust her to not be taking the " 1.5 million unique monthly visitors and 6-8 million page views a month" from Mohamed Omar himself and not checking. So I'd reject that source.

- - Perhaps the source changed, but I don't think she said anything about NPR. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then we have HuffPost. Good meaty article. Howeverrrr.... It's by a "contributor". A contributor is any random person who sends an article to HuffPost that they like. They do get paid (high two figures is my guess), but they're not professional writers and I doubt their stuff gets fact-checked, at least with any rigor. So, at best "better source needed" if not rejected outright.

So, but I mean, that's two sources saying he is/was the managing editor of FilFan.com, and at least one other says so too, so that gives me growing confidence that that part, at least is true.

But does that mean much? FilFan looks to be a legit website... This web analysis site (whoever they are) says it is #1 website in Egypt for "Social Sciences" (I guess that includes entertainment news/gossip), which is good, but only #119 for Egyptian websites overall. Is that low? It sounds low to me. #21,784 worldwide. Do we want to have articles where the main notability was being Managing Editor at the world's #21,784 website? Since that's a lot more than one person over time, we're talking 100,000 articles... oof.

Source #3 is a press release, and I can't read #4 but it ref's a minor fact.

Let's see... he was a speaker at Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem seminar... that source says he was managing editor of FilFan, past tense. Anyway, that's nothing, and I'm not finding lots of good sources... the top refs are just bare listings, address and so on... His other jobs are not notable. It's just not enough. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @ Herostratus, nailed it with the explanation! QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 10:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject of this article does not meet the criteria listed at WP:AUTHOR, which is the applicable notability guideline for editors, journalists, and other creative professionals, such as this person (a digital media personality). Furthermore, per Wikipedia:HuffPo on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page, "editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources." So, the HuffPost article cited in the WP article in question is not considered a reliable source. - tucoxn\^talk 03:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EAFF U-18 Youth Tournament

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

The sub-article 2015 EAFF U-18 Youth Tournament is currently up for deletion but I also think that the parent article should be considered. I'm not seeing enough coverage of the matches from sources that are actually independent of the EAFF to show that WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT are met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete any season articles too. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, which isn't a surprise as it's an under-18s tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, completely unsourced article. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donner Pass Derby

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

Reno has now folded, and while this definitely was a thing, it didn't receive enough GNG-qualifying coverage for a stand-alone article (apart from mere mentions in match reports.) Probably best merged to the Reno article? SportingFlyer T·C 15:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. It appears the clubs tried - and failed - to manufacture a rivalry/derby. Giant Snowman 15:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT. Govvy (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, this should be a sentence or two in the articles for both clubs involved, not enough coverage for a WP:NRIVALRY pass Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Missvain (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naseel Voici

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

There is clear consensus that articles written by the subject do not count as evidence of notability for that person themselves. Despite the plethora of sources cited, none of them actually show significant coverage of Voici. My WP:BEFORE didn't show anything that would indicate a WP:GNG pass.

This autobiography doesn't seem to pass any of the 4 criteria at WP:NJOURNALIST either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An autobiography that is clearly promotional, and I also could not find any independent reliable sources on the subject. Aspening (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, WP:BEFORE does not show significant claim, fails WP:NJOURNALIST CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above, he does fail all of WP:NJOURNALIST. What a shame also, since the article cites two RS (Not including the one he works at), with one being based in another country. But all four parts of WP:NJOURNALIST are failed, so 0 notability on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There were two ways this could be probably notable. One by qualifying WP:BASIC or WP:GNG by having substantial coverage about him finding and running the media outlets that he has. Second by having any noteworthy stories or work as a journalist. None of those are happening. Hence delete. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not found any significant coverage about the subject. For me it's a clear WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST fail. Less Unless (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and the obvious COI issues are problematic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not found any significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. Powerful Karma (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:48, 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 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 01:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rati Raut

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

The only source [10] was brought to light by me, when I added it into Bhumihar article. Besides this no source exist as google search can easily tell. Its clearly a non notable topic. Other citations have no mention of the person himself. Just put to expand the size anyhow. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Going with deletes here. I did my due diligence - even a search on newspapers.com - and found nothing.

If someone magically finds expansive coverage about the subject we can always undelete or rewrite it. Missvain (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunbar High School (Dunbar, West Virginia)

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

Does not look notable. I found no reliable sources, and the article does not include any as well. EpicPupper 20:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 20:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 20:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Online sources are hard to find, since this school closed in 1991. However, a GNews search has a few non-trivial hits with the Charleston Gazette. A cursory Google Books search shows two obvious hits. There may be enough to satisfy GNG, as is the case for most established U.S. high schools. Failing notability for a stand-alone article, the school has two obvious merge possibilities, it successor South Charleston High School and its school district Kanawha County Schools. • Gene93k (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can tell from the article itself and a WP:BEFORE there just isn't the in-depth, independent sourcing available for the school to be notable. The two Charleston Gazette articles mentioned by the person above are obituaries of people who went to high school there. Which clearly aren't non-trivial as claimed. Same goes for the supposedly non-trivial book sources. Which are nothing but name drops and a brief mention of how many stories the school has and that the building is made out of bricks. I'd love to know how what building material the school is made out of isn't trivial. I don't think merging it to somewhere else is a good idea either, because there's no point in merging un(or badly)-referenced material. Otherwise, it just down grades the quality of the merge target. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's very difficult for a high school in the US not to garner sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and thus pass WP:NSCHOOL. When searching I was drowned in coverage of their sports teams, but a brief look during their first year of operation found [11] and [12]. Per WP:NEXIST it's highly likely there are sufficient sources out there to write an article. ----Pontificalibus 09:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call two local news stories that are only a couple paragraphs long and about people in their sports team and a pageant "sufficient coverage." Local stories about high school pageants are inherently WP:MILL. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter whether the coverage is local or not, GNG makes no such stipulation. It also doesn't matter that I wasn't able to find sufficient coverage in the brief period of time I spent searching. What matters, and what I am asserting, is that a sufficient depth of coverage exists to enable us to write an article per WP:WHYN.---Pontificalibus 04:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD does and that's we use for the notability of organizations. Not to mention, WP:SNG says "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article." So it's not a hardline rule that something is automatically kept if it passes [WP:GNG]] in every single case anyway. Also, if you didn't find sufficient coverage yourself how do you know it exists then? You shouldn't make assertions about things that you haven't verified yourself to be accurate representations of the facts. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sourcing available, as with any other American high school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the "plenty of sourcing" that you say is available so it can be added to the article once this closes if it's kept? --Adamant1 (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?} 17:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 15:12, 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 redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network. Missvain (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GMA News Live

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

Another stubbish article (following precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABS-CBN News Advisory). Unsourced since December 2009 and no attempts to improve. Better delete or redirect to an appropriate article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Short news brief title that no regular person would ever care about because it's a news brief. Nate • (chatter) 21:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network: Barely found anything about the newscast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Astig.
Redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network - Fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. Abrilando232 (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Boom

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

Youth volleyball team which fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG, sourced mostly to the organisation's own website. Also fails WP:PROMO and will need to be rewritten if this is somehow kept. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced or primary sources only; the only other thing I could find was [13] in the Minnesota Sportsman-Recorder, which is a decent story but does not get them to a WP:GNG. If more sources are found, it still would need a tone rewrite. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ICarly (2021 TV series)

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

ICarly and ICarly (2021 TV series) are not separate series, so we do not need an article for this. Bradford (Talk) 14:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bradford (Talk) 14:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The show is suppose to be different from the original series. It was described in every sources, "it won't focus on the title character doing a webshow but her life in the 20s." kpgamingz (rant me) 15:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A revival is like: The Mafia Dolls, and El man es Germán. The fact that now the plot focuses on something else, does not mean that they will be different series. Bradford (Talk) 15:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - A silly argument: it's absolutely a different series – it doesn't even have the same cast. Bottom line: Not every "revival" should be treated as a continuation of the original series (in fact, I'd argue that none of them should as they all have massive true "production breaks" in between). But, regardless, this is not a direct continuation of the original series, which is good because it side-steps the incredibly contentious issue as to whether this would be "season 6", "season 7" or "season 8" of the original – and, luckily, no WP:RS describe it as such anyway. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The original series was completed 8 years ago. Other than the name and some of the cast this is a new and different series with different premise and different story to tell. It is cleaner to just keep the original article showing a completed original series and this one is a spin-off. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cast changes, different premise and format, different transmission format, and it would undoubtedly bloat the original series article. It's appropriate to keep them both separate as-is for now; if they pretty much share stuff, then we can determine a merger down the line. Nate • (chatter) 17:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't really tell if this is a new season or a new series. The article for IGoodbye, the series finale for ICarly, claims that this is a new season. There seems to be conflicting messages from sources which seem to be referring to this as both, while others just use the term "revival". I think we oughtta get a consensus on this.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 00:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a pressing issue to determine today. We can easily wait to see a few episodes before it can be decided to be a reboot or a restart. The Wikipedia servers won't break down because we have two different iCarly articles in the meantime. Nate • (chatter) 04:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and with no deletion rationale given, I considered prefixing 'speedy'. There is no indication for deletion here. At worst, there may be one for merging, which is conducted in a different forum -- and there doesn't even seem to be that. Vaticidalprophet 05:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems substantially different enough to warrant its own article from what we know, and most reboots I've seen of this nature are formatted similarly, with seperate pages (eg. Animaniacs) AxoIotI (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The series is covered by many reliable sources, so it definitely doesn't belong at AfD, either keep or merge(with the older TV series under the same name). I would go with keep for now, and then go for consensus whether to merge or not. QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 08:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Astro City characters. ✗plicit 13:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samaritan (comics)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The single source in the article that provides any real world context is a trivial mention from a review that only mentions the character in a single sentence. Any other coverage seems limited to trivial mentions in relation to the series' writer and passing mentions in garbage listicles. TTN (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Astro City characters unless there's potential confusion with some other comic character/title. 20:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Astro City characters. No evidence of meeting GNG for stand-alone articles, redirecting is the best solution outside outright deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus mju iii 150

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

Unsourced since March 2007 already sets alarm bells off. My WP:Before didn't bring up much of anything. Coin945 (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No indication of notability, does not pass WP:GNG--Rusf10 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly formatted and unreferenced catalogue entry, even if the device was notable this could use a WP:TNT before being rewritten from scratch. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Bond

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

Seems like an ad for the company Q-Bond. Giving credit on their hubris for sneaking this ad onto Wikipedia for the past 14 years, but I think it's time we investigate further. Coin945 (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Q-Bond is actually a registered trademark, per an image search for packaging of the glue, so this article cannot contain anything but marketing fluff. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe the Q-bond product described here is the same product as the Q-Bond glue brand mentioned above, but it ultimately doesn't matter - neither have any real coverage of any kind that would indicate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 23:51, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assen Alexov

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

No WP:FPL appearances in Soccerway or Tribuna as neither Regionalliga Süd (1994–2012) nor Swiss Challenge League are listed as fully professional leagues, so I'm not seeing a WP:NFOOTBALL pass. Only passing mentions in German media such as Verlagshaus and Sued Kurier. Bulgarian searches return almost nothing about him. I can't see how Alexov would pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cover. Missvain (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cover (military)

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

This article (which has been unsourced since March 2007) is basically talking about anything that can be used to cover someone in the context of a military combat. It reads as a hodgepodge of information and I can't see a notable article underneath. Coin945 (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The content isn't bad, it just needs to go back to general disambiguation of "cover" and maybe bits to general articles on tactics and headgear. (I don't remember why I thought splitting it out made sense in the first place.) Stan (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with cover, as this doesn't add much. Ungulates (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Mowbray

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

Searches did not yield any significant coverage and no indication within the article itself that Mowbray passes WP:GNG. The best I could find in sources independent of Mowbray was a Soccerway page, one mention in ABC and a TWG mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Hoboken

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

WP:GNG, WP:NBAND failure due to lack of availability of proper coverage. Graywalls (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 11:13, 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. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkissore Dutt

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

No indication of Notability. References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG DJRSD (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of the article concerns a major fraud perpetrated against India's largest bank. The fraud perpetrated by Rajkissore Dutt is in the same order of magnitude as the Nagarwala case, both in terms of amount and impact on the bank. Secondly, if the Nagarwala case is notable enough to merit its own article, then the Rajkissore Dutt case also deserves its own article on Wikipedia, because both involve the same bank and both are frauds of huge amounts.

Thirdly, the references cited are obviously published, reliable and secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Both The Hindu and The Times of India are major Indian newspapers in the English language.^[1]^[2]

Fourthly, the references are not just passing mentions. This reference cites a book published in 1904, which dedicates a separate chapter to the story of Rajkissore Dutt. The book is now archived on the Internet Archive.^[3]^[4] This reference cites a book published in 1881, which dedicates a separate paragraph to the case of Rajkissore Dutt and is now archived on Project Gutenberg.^[5]

Considering all the above, we cannot arrive at any outcome other than Keep.Andbridge (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per findings by Andbridge. Plentry references in Google Books that are non-trivial [14]. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andbridge. Meets notability. Citations need reformatting. I'll try to fix. Peter303x (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Moto Sakura Castle. Missvain (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motosakura Castle

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

Duplicate of Moto Sakura Castle Robby (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge They do seem to be the same castle but the articles have different information so better to merge any useful information and create a redirect. Suonii180 (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Mccapra (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect --MChew (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Robby, you should have just boldly merged it, or put on wp:Merge tags calling for someone else to perform the merge. Does not require review by multiple AFD editors. wp:ITSACASTLE argues for "Keep"ing at least one version of article. --Doncram (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the merge procedure as suggested.Robby (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 06:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Zafari

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

Fail of WP:GNG. Non-notable businessman as per WP:BEFORE. nearlyevil 665 06:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Fail of WP:GNG" is a curious rationale for deletion, given the sources present in the article at the time of nomination. They are:

"Profiles: Richard Jones, Reza Zafari". Los Angeles Business Journal. June 25, 2007. Retrieved 8 May 2021.
Garmhausen, Steve (January 22, 2021). "Reza Zafari: Small Caps and Aggressive Goals". Barron's. Retrieved 8 May 2021.
Miller, Matt (April 19, 2019). "Jones Zafari Group: The 'Virtual Family Office' Comes of Age". Barron's. Retrieved 8 May 2021.
Cohen, Jordan (24 September 2010). "Pomona Welcomes 3 New Members to the Board of Trustees". The Student Life. Retrieved 8 May 2021.

The Student Life is reliable per WP:RSSM but a little borderline for notability purposes, but the others certainly count. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:19, 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. czar 06:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicollecting

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (websites) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PRODed 10 years ago by User:Noq, for the same reason, deprodded by creator, little improvement since: [15], website died few years back and is not likely to become more notable. All it has going for it is that it was cited by a few media sources a few times during it's short lifespan. Far cry from what is required to be notable, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Of the refs provided, ref 3 is derived from ref 2 - Refs 1 and 2 are both from around launch and likely derived from a press release. ref 4 is the sites own about page. noq (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's tragic that so much apparent effort was put into the wiki, and then it died. Other than some brief mentions in some books that don't add significant coverage, I found no other sources than those already mentioned. Hence this fails notability thresholds. Without a good redirect target, delete seems the only alternative. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Meets criteria since it has been on NYT bestsellers list. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon Rising

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

Article does not meet WP:NBOOK notability guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tim LaHaye. I couldn't find any reviews in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, curious that, although some books in this series are well represented in libraries worldwide (over 1600 libraries, over 1000 libraries, and over 800 libraries), and two have been bestsellers (as referenced in the article) there is a dearth of reviews ie. only the one referenced in the article and a couple of miniscule Library Journal mentions here, and here, also found a Entertainment Weekly review of the 1st book here, but not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 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. Closing early because the only comments in favour of keeping have been made by sockpuppets. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Williams (artist)

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

This came to my attention as an IP from the Yukon added him to the List of Canadian Artists. As I looked at the edit history, it became clear this is a likely autobio.

I then looked at notability and found that he is in the permanent collection of the Yukon Arts Centre. So far so good. However, the next sources found were about a dispute he had with the Yukon Arts Centre, leading to him being convicted twice for making threats against the centre.

The only real claim to notability here stems from the permanent collection and the subsequent threats and court case. This makes it look like quite a negative page. Since we are not here to bring down the reputation of individuals we write about, I propose deletion. --- Possibly (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Williams (calligrapher) (AfD discussion) was deleted in 2009. In part because of the nominator here, this is not a substantially identical article. Uncle G (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks UncleG. I noticed both ke*p votes in that AfD are from an SPA with two edits. --- Possibly (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion I can't find any independent substantial in-depth coverage of this artist that would justify having an article.Valueyou (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability claim strikes me as borderline. I don't think the non-arts coverage should be a factor. Curiocurio (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User Bembo Bold, who has been confirmed as a sockpuppet but is not yet blocked, has been editing the page extensively for the past week or so. --- Possibly (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And... they're blocked.--- Possibly (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it still a BLP1E case when they carry a grudge for a decade? Drmies (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin there has been a lot of time-consuming sockpuppetry to the article and this AfD, by accounts and multiple IPs. Suggest salting the article title, as the particular sock that is pushing it is quite persistent. --- Possibly (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. I am sure the artist had made some art pieces, but it is not notable enough for inclusions. Lots of sock activity around here. SunDawn (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet relevant notability criteria (as others have stated above). Suggest merging any notable content to another article, like Yukon Arts Centre for example – there is some usable information in the references, but none of it makes the subject of the article notable. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to India's Citizen Squad. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muntazir Ahmad

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

Non-notable subject with only primary sources as references. No multiple reliable secondary sources online. nearlyevil 665 14:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two significant coverages as in [16] and [17], both are local news papers and not seem independent and reliable. Other references has trivial mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC. Chirota (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have read news about Muntazir Ahmad. I am busy in a my job for now. next weekend I will do more research and if I found more reliable resources, I will add in this article.

I have watched the show India's Citizen Squad on discovery channel and also on discovery app [18] . I loved the show and the performance of Muntazir, Pallavi and Sonu. I searched google for their names and got some news for Muntazir so I thought he should be included on Wikipedia as he is the first person for his state(Jammu and Kashmir, India) to be selected for a reality show on Discovery Channel.

I am new to Wikipedia so I request you to suggest me what to do next.

If you think this article should be deleted please proceed.

My personal opinion is to include him on Wikipedia rest is on the community. Ermunu (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to India's Citizen Squad, clearly does not meet WP:GNG, but a redirect to the reality show is harmless. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Home Energy Resources Unit

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

After a flurry of press releases, nothing happened. There are only five articles from the past 12 months about this, all PR or directories. 125 unique Google hits, and no ongoing coverage. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete as should have been done the first time around. At best, the things is WP:TOOSOON: it's not a completely crackpot idea (my county burns their trash and generates electricity from it) but right now it's an unproven device whose "notability" is powered by press releases. It reminds me of the days when MHD was going to be how we got our power; well that didn't pan out. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Kounelis

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

As per WP:BASIC. The article says he was popular, yet I can't find any sources. Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a single source. Not Notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermunu (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search brought up nothing about this person. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find significant coverage on the subject, only a mention here and here. I don't believe he passes notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 20:29, 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) 02:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagi-P Software

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

delete:I searched through Google News and there was no news about this company.--Googol19980904 (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single pointer in WP:VG/SE search results, and only 3 passing mentions in magazines backed up in the Internet Archive. This is for neither "P-Nagi Software" nor "P-Nagi Soft" (which is the apparent actual name). IceWelder [✉] 10:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single source added in this article. Ermunu (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a suitable redirect target (well, two): NS-Tower or NS-Shaft (games created by this company. However, both articles have issues of their own). Pavlor (talk) 11:13, 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.

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[3] [3]

[4] [4]

[5] [5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]