Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 07	April 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. ✗plicit 03:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Cornforth

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

After noticing it had been flagged for notability concerns, I did a WP:BEFORE search which revealed the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them & do not satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL & as a businessman he doesn’t satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps this is WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has existed for less than a day, but fine. Per WP:NPOL, "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office. As the chair of a major party at the state-wide level, this individual meets WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's never actually held office so the keep argument's flawed there, fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and per WP:POLOUTCOMES: Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons. An example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Nehring (2nd nomination), which resulted in the deletion of a California GOP Chair. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete State political party chairs are not default notable. We have deleted articles on people who lead political parties in a state with over 25 times the population of Idaho. As I have said elsewhere, some people who hold this postion are notable, but default notability is limited to elected officials and holders of appointed government positions, not political party functionaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL Devoke water 21:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He needs to hold office in Government and not in party for NPOL or be very popular locally - which he seems not to be. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Javier Hernandez (comics). ✗plicit 03:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Comic Book Radio

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Javier Hernandez (comics): Barely found anything about the show. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Javier Hernandez. I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Alliance (UK)

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. Party does not pass GNG or related policies, particularly around political parties. Unknown group with no notability prior to 2021 Scottish Parliament election, so I have suspicion that the article has been thrown up to provide publicity for on-going election campaign, and is possibly breaking BLOG, UNDUE, NOTNEWS and others. No notable election results to date. No notable election campaigns. Sources only prove the party exists, not that they are notable. Content of article does not diffuse my concerns. doktorb _words^deeds 23:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 23:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 23:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 23:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only coverage I could find that wasn't a passing mention of a candidate they're standing is the non-independent local Northern Scot source. Everything in the article is a primary source asserting existence, other than a source about Utton which doesn't mention the party. So GNG is not met. — Bilorv (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough independent coverage. Jdcooper (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only coverage is passing reference to it standing, which doesn't really cover notability, and all the sources seem to be from the party itself? Unless something more substantial comes up, yeah, not a gazetteer for political parties. BitterGiant (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG per editors above. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick search for sources, I agree. The article as it stands is sourced (except for the one part that is background and not about this subject) only to people talking about themselves, and being able to claim whatever they like, and other sources to be found are the same. There is no evidence that anyone independent of the subject with a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy has said anything about this subject. A politician resigned. All of the rest could be a complete fiction made up and put on a WWW site for all that we know. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Not enough independent coverage available, fails GNG. Setreis (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons see my erudite colleagues. Is it snowing? -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 14:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for the time being) - the party is contesting elections in the UK, keep until 6th May 2021. If they fail to win any elected representatives perhaps Merge with an article of Libertarian parties. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This violates WP:CRYSTAL. If the topic later becomes notable then there is no prejudice against recreation. — Bilorv (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not Wikipedia's job to advertise undocumented political parties. This is an encyclopaedia, not a hosting service. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This party is NOT an "undocumented political party" - it is registered as a political party by the Electoral Commission. There are plenty of political parties that were one-off parties - see Natural Law Party for instance - with entries on Wikipedia ... and before I am accused of being biased, I am not a supporter of Freedom Alliance, I just believe that this party should have the same level of coverage on Wikipedia as many other parties of a similar nature - to single this party out would make this appear to be a "witch-hunt" against this party! Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you give an example of a party with a similar amount of reliable, independent source coverage to this one that has an article? — Bilorv (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, but it is undocumented, as I pointed out earlier. You want to show otherwise? Produce good documentation from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that aren't the people concerned themselves. So far, there's none at all. Have you even tried to find any? You do not mention doing so. The amount of such documentation that exists in the world is our guide to how much there should be in Wikipedia. And we don't care when the elections are. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not an advertising billboard nor a free WWW host. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Charming ... well if you want to create a lot of broken links, go for it ... Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Another editor I won't name has made these kinds of arguments in AfDs before. "People will be frustrated by red links," "the gaps in election articles will frustrate people wanting to know more," etc. The broken links argument has never washed with me. If a party is not very notable, as evidenced by getting say 100 or 200 votes in an election, then even without getting into WP:SYNTH we can conclude that even fewer people will be looking at Wikipedia for that party's manifesto. If Freedom Alliance have any importance or notability, let that be proven, either now or through the elections next month, and then the article can be created if it needs to be. But I keep coming back to the same sentence in my nominations for a reason: Wikipedia is not a place to host one-page profiles for parties regardless of notability. If you can't persuade voters, you shouldn't persuade Wikipedia editors. doktorb _words^deeds 21:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment (for the time being - there is no hurry to delete, it can wait until after the UK local elections) - in any case many political parties with no representation have Wikipedia articles. Is it people outwith the United Kingdom clamouring for the deletion, without any knowledge of the UK political scene? If they get no seats, then there might be an argument for deletion, although as previous said there are many political parties with no seats/no representation with articles on Wikipedia. Removing before 6 May 2021 will create a lot of broken links on other Wikipedia pages. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm from the UK, not that it matters. Rhyddfrydol2, can you please remove the second bolded "keep"? You already put one above. It is confusing. — Bilorv (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind confusing, it's cheating. Mind you, this is politics So I suppose we should behave like politicians. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, but just like the UK's elections, we don't have a "one person one vote" system, and unlike the UK's elections, the purpose of these discussions is to assess what the community as a whole thinks. So the closing admin isn't just doing a tally, but assessing the weight of arguments on each side, and adding more bold doesn't give something more weight. — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhyddfrydol2: This party's representation, or lack thereof, is not relevant. WP:GNG states that any topic requires coverage in reliable, independent sources to verify the information, and establish notability. That coverage does not seem to exist in this case. Jdcooper (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at the moment I do not see anything that would make this a notable party. As others have said there is no sign of a significant level of coverage. It's a relatively new party so this might, conceivably, change in the future, but as it stands it lacks the notability that would be expected for the subject of an article. Dunarc (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP, no establishment of GNG. — Czello 16:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 07:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Yamada

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

Fails WP:GNG. I could not find any information at all about this person and the only source listed on the page is a user-generated database. The subject has not won any major awards at sporting events. lullabying (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I will withdraw this request as WP:NOLY applies. lullabying (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the Olympics, so meets WP:NOLY. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NOLY. We don't have access to Japanese news sources of that era, but will have been in the news. See for example here. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as WP:NOLYMPICS exists, this person is presumed notable. If you've got a problem with that notability guideline, you need to start a request for comment on the guideline, and not nominate individual articles for deletion. Schwede 66 09:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Olympians are notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anchil Oral Arjunan

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

Essentially unreferenced article, the film fails WP:GNG/WP:NFILM, nothing on WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed with the following comment: "Found a source on doing WP:Before in Malayalam [1] Hence not eligible for PROD" The "source" is not really about the film, mentions the film once. Kolma8 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing indicating it meets WP:GNG my search did not find anything, the argument by the nom on the source is accurate. No other language articles found. Jeepday (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't have sources to demonstrate that it qualifies the Wikipedia guidelines for films. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Oberg (musician)

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

Unsourced BLP since 2012. Appears to fail WP:NCOMPOSER/WP:NMUSICIAN. I can't find any significant coverage. The only real assertion of notability in the article is that Several accomplished classical guitarists [...] have performed his compositions, but the listed guitarists don't seem to be very notable themselves. Lennart97 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to have any sourcing and does not appear to meet notability requirements. Bebopjohnson (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable musician -Xclusivzik (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non notable musician with not enough coverage. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable --Devoke water 23:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revista de Investigaciones Altoandinas

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

Non-notable journal. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Legit peer-reviewed journal, and articles often get cited a decent number of times [2]; but I can't find anything about its general impact, h-index is not available due to lack of indexing, and the one sorta-kinda selective indexer (Emerging Sources Citation Index) is generally regarded here as only just scraping in under the definition. So, extending benefit of the doubt, keep. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not indexed in any selective databases ([3]), very modest citation record, no independent sources. Misses WP:GNG andWP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough indepth coverage available. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can’t find anything that suggests notability. --Devoke water 23:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bekaye Wade

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

Article was draftified by me as, at the time, the subject did not meet notability criteria but could, in theory, meet them at some point in the future. Creator User:Lilianasri contested this by moving it back into main space.

In my view, Wade still doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. I found two sources that mention him Sene News and WIW Sport, both of which mention him only in passing. In terms of NFOOTBALL, he has only played in the Mauritanian league and the 4th tier of Saudi Arabia, neither of which are listed as fully professional at WP:FPL. He has no caps; GSA confirms that he was called up in 2020 but he never got off the bench. National Football Teams, the most reliable source on these matters, has no mention of Wade. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing GNG and NFOOTY JW 1961^Talk 14:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing GNG and NFOOTY as all. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 07:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneer Mirza

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 6 FC and 4 LA games for a county side makes me think that there will be more coverage offline and locally. I found this which covers his return from injury, and there's a few other bits in a simple search. I think there will be more out there though. Redirect to List of Worcestershire County Cricket Club players a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 10 qualifying games, 5 of which were in the county championship, and 16 championship wickets, along with a tough luck story of his exit from the professional ranks. Think there will be enough coverage here to pass WP:GNG. DevaCat1 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of trivial/passing mentions, but there is certainly some significant coverage, including over a paragraph dedicated to him in The Times covering his County Championship debut. Meets NCRIC and based on the sources found so far, the presumption of notability afforded by that SNG seems perfectly reasonable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Present coverage seems enough to pass this cricketer for WP:NCRIC. Also, As explained above by Wjemather The Times sources can be counted here for GNG too. As per these points he meets GNG and NCRICKET. Grailcombs (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think WP:GNG's just barely satisfied here so far between the Worcester article and the assumption the Times coverage on his debut works, but everything else appears trivial. Again shows county cricketers without many appearances don't receive large amounts of media coverage as players. SportingFlyer T·C 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Country Championships. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Power Corporation of Canada. Plausible redirect target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IGM Financial

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

The article is not sourced to any secondary, independent sources. In fact, after a double-check, there is pretty much no coverage of this company in such sources. Accordingly, it fails WP:ORGCRIT. JBchrch (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Power Corporation of Canada: I am not seeing evidence of distinct notability for this company. It is mentioned in the Power Corporation of Canada article so it can be a suitable redirect target. AllyD (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mackenzie Financial Corporation (acquired by IGM Financial) was a very well known company in its day Devoke water 16:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorex

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

Fails WP:CORP because of a lack of qualifying WP:RS. Please note I have a WP: COI as a staff member of this company. Cat13701 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a company employee request deletion via AfD is a new one. Sources in the article are industry junk; a search did not turn up enough for NCORP--- Possibly (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP. No mainstream coverage. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Fork Summer Homes, California

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

This does not appear to be a formal community, thus it fails WP:GEOLAND. Rather, it appears to be a collection of lakefront second-home properties. Coverage is mostly trivial stuff like real estate listings and does not rise to WP:GNG, IMO. Hog Farm _Talk 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's populated, it's legally recognized, and it's a place. I've found it on maps and listed in official government reports. But this is a yet another example of why the "populated, legally recognized, place" dogma is bad. It's populated and legally recognized, but there isn't a thing in the history books about it, and all that one can verifiably say (according to what I've been able to turn up) is actually about Lake Pillsbury and the area surrounding it that just happens to include this populated place in a list or suchlike. Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, Geoland is bad, but listing in GNIS is not legal recognition in the first place. It's the Geographic NAMES information system, a database of names on maps. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said anything about the GNIS? I found this listed by reports on the Mendocino National Forest, by the Mendocino sheriff, and some others. It's officially recognized as a place, and one can almost certainly pull government records for it. The problem with the dogma is that being legally recognized is not the same as being documented in depth. One can try to squirm around the idea of what legal recognition is, but that's actually bending the idea out of shape for one's own purposes, as the plot of grassland to the west of my house is legally recognized. It has government documentation that has force of law. What's legally recognized is in reality far more than what people assert to try to make that dogma work. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even "presumed notability" under WP:GEOLAND is "presumed" because it is presumed that legally recognised populated places "typically" should have enough sourcing out there to pass WP:GNG and if you don't have it yet that's just because we don't have it. Wiki only has "features of" a gazeteer, it is not a gazeteer per se and so does not have to list every place/geographical feature. We can still say "yes, but this case is obviously one where the typical presumption is wrong", even if you think it is a legally-recognised populated place.
However, this is clearly not a legally-recognised populated place as it is not incorporated. As such the presumption does not apply. Instead we apply WP:GNG directly, which it clearly doesn't pass. FOARP (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete The only references to this name that aren't either clickbait, WP mirrors, or place-name-drops are talking about a big wildfire in the region, and they all refer to it as something like "the Rick Fork Summer Homes area" or even "the summer homes around Rice Fork". And none of them say anything about this area, much less talk about it as a "community". It just seems to be a place where there are, for reasons unknown, a scattering of houses. Mangoe (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete We have to draw the line somewhere and given the lack of media coverage of this place and the fact that we're talking about a small number of houses that are sometimes inhabited (and sometimes uninhabited), this doesn't seem like it meets the criteria for inclusion. That said, given some of the squishiness I personally read in GEOLAND, my vote is a weak one. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Edinger

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

Not enough significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, mostly primary sources. Sources cover him but not in a substantial way. Throast (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can see, this page passes Wikipedia's general inclusion threshold. From reading through the 18 sources listed, one is on the BBC radio interviewing him directly about his life as a YouTube star and another by the SWLondoner interviews him about his his worklife which lends to the notability which is in question. That BBC report as well as the 2 inclusions on the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire Show fulfill verifyability. Further references in Mashable and other online publications definitely seem to aid in the notability requirement, so I do not think this page suits the criteria required for deletion as stated. It could definitely use a cleanup though. For instance, possibly by replacing the primary source listed for his hometown with one of the large number of secondary sources found upon a cursory search, but a lot of those sites appear to be content aggregators so I wouldn't class them as too reliable. But as far as I can tell, most info on this page seems to be cited by the aforementioned reliable secondary sources.TwinTelepathy (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion on whether specific sources count towards WP:SIGCOV can help develop a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search resulted in several meaningful coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources such as a review on his digital content by New Media Rockstars at [[4]], a review on Favorite Evan Edinger moments by Ten Eighty Magazine at [[5]], and a story of his career by American Expat Finance at [[6]]. Believe subject satisfies WP:SIGCOV which states "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, subject is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roulisegee (talk • contribs) 2021-04-09T18:30:44 (UTC)
Keep per TwinTelepathy, the other editor (who left their comment unsigned), and the prior AfD. See Yash!'s comment. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singhania Buildcon

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

Article patrolled by indefinitely blocked user Jikaoli Kol in 2016 and recently unpatrolled for review. The subject does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources are giving in depth coverage to the company. Writtem for promotional purpose. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cherushii

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. After filtering through all the sources, it appears that there are only two sources that could potentially be tested for notability: KQED and Vice. Much of the sources listed there are either press releases, editable databases, or social network posts. The Vice article appears to be a personal account from the artist's friend, so it cannot be used as a source, and the KQED article is plainly a trivial mention following the Ghost Ship fire. Even if the Vice article can be used as a source, it still would not fall under "significant coverage" as per the notability criteria. Thus it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Aasim (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, and because I have added an obit/review from the Chicago Reader, an obit from SFGate, news highlighting her death from LAWeekly, The East Bay Times and Pitchfork, which support her notability; I haven't yet added this ABC7 report or this LA Times report, but both also provide biographical information. There are also reviews of her music from Pitchfork, LA Record, and 5Mag as well as in-depth coverage of her music from Pitchfork, which supports WP:CREATIVE notability, because she created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and similarly, per WP:NMUSIC, because she has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician. Beccaynr (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have never heard of this individual until after the Ghost Ship fire. None of the works that she has authored or coauthored with another artist is notable, and after doing some digging, she does not even have a big social media presence compared to other individuals and singers from the Bay Area and Los Angeles. This may be a case of WP:ONEEVENT, where all that she got attention and notability for is for being a slightly popular musician who died in the Ghost Ship fire. All of the coverage I am finding are from after the Ghost Ship fires. It may be better to merge this with Ghost Ship warehouse fire. But I do not think she merits an individual page on Wikipedia. See [7] and [8]. Aasim (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:IDONTKNOWIT, Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion. As to her notability, per relevant policies and sources cited above, including WP:NMUSIC, Cherushii has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician, with biographical information that can be used to further develop the article. Per WP:CREATIVE, the multiple reviews of her music cited above also support her notability. Per WP:SOURCESEARCH, social media posts are described as sources that aren't actually building notability at all, and are cited in the nom as problematic, so an apparent lack of a social media presence does not seem relevant to her notability. I also disagree that this is WP:BIO1E, including because based on the multiple independent and reliable sources, she did more than die in the Ghost Ship fire. Her music and her life are reported independently from the Ghost Ship fire (even when her death is mentioned), including by KQED in 2016 and the sources listed above, including music reviews several years after the fire and articles that focus on her. The obit articles cited above also support her notability per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG because they are significant and in-depth coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources. She also was not low-profile after she died, due to her music being released and reviewed by multiple independent and reliable sources after her death, so this is not WP:BLP1E. In addition, merger with the Ghost Ship warehouse fire article does not appear to be feasible, because that article focuses on the fire and the legal aftermath. I also do not think that links to WP:GOOGLEHITS, especially when only using her stage name as a search term, provides support for deletion, because multiple independent and reliable sources are available to support her notability according to several guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In particular, BLP1E and a merge have been suggested in addition to the NMUSIC and BASIC/GNG considerations. Further participation and discussion may help develop a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional sources, per WP:NMUSIC and WP:BASIC/WP:GNG: 2017 in-depth coverage about her life and music from Dazed, 2016 music review and interview before her death from Dummy, 2014 interview with Femmecult, 2020 review from DJ Mag (of music recorded by Cherushii in 2015), 2019 review with background context/biographical information from DJ Mag, 2019 review from Exclaim!. Beccaynr (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:GNG with significant coverage of her career as well as her death such as Exclaim!, DJ Mag, Pitchfork and Vice as well as newspaper coverage so this is not a case of WP:BLP1E and there is no valid reason for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources to support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and how she was not low-profile before or after her death (and therefore not WP:BLP1E) include a 2016 Chicago Reader feature article before her death that includes a focus on her with substantial context, a brief 2019 KEXP review, and a Reverb magazine obit with commentary, which includes what is reported to be her last interview before she died. Beccaynr (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. ~Kvng (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the sources identified by Beccaynr that show the subject passing WP:GNG (in my opinion). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Cherry

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

I'm struggling to find any secondary reliable sourcing on the subject. This appears to be a non-notable academic. There are 7 criteria for academic notability (WP:NACADEMIC) and the subject doesn't meet any of them as far as I can tell:[9] . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep, has multiple reviews such as "Social Service Review, Vol. 82, No. 2 (June 2008), pp. 335-338", "Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 6 (Nov., 1990), pp. 809-81", etc. passes WP:NAUTHOR and probably also WP:NPROF since these are reviews in academic journals. --hroest 20:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that fall under the exceptions under Point 1 of (WP:NACADEMIC)? Virtually every academic who has published books in the social sciences will have at least some reviews of some of those books. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I dont know how difficult it is to get a review into an academic journal as I am a biomedical researcher. Do you mean "Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here." -- on the other hand we generally allow authors to be notable per WP:NAUTHOR if they have multiple independent reviews of their books, so according to WP:NAUTHOR alone he would be notable, correct? --hroest 00:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Hannes Röst, Could you clarify your post? Do you mean that his life has been subject to reviews? His works? Or that he has written then? In the future, please link the sources you cite, or at least provide full information like the titles of the works you are referring to. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Piotrus. Took me a few minutes to look them up based on the refs given: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/590570 and https://www.jstor.org/stable/2073178?refreqid=excelsior%3A2ec11bb4dcd0d96d5a4576246ed43ea6 - they are book reviews of his work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kj cheetham, Ah. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, I think they could make some of his works (books) notable (if any received a at least 2+ reviews), but do not mean the writer is. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Piotrus What about clause 3 of WP:AUTHOR, treating it as a "collective body of work"? I admit I've not looked for other reviews beyond these 2, as I assumed these were sufficient. But I think hroest said he found more. Plus the named professorship mentioned below under WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Piotrus that does not seem to be a good faith argument, if there were only a single relevant book then WP:BLP1E would apply but clearly if someone wrote multiple notable books then that person is also notable. This is also clear in policy see WP:AUTHOR#1. In addition the person also clearly fulfills WP:NPROF#1 and WP:NPROF#5. It this point the evidence is just overwhelming. --hroest 15:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Google Scholar shows a good amount of citations, in thousands, so he meets WP:PROF.Webmaster862 (talk)

Please give a link to these thousands. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I looked at https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=RD+Cherry&btnG= but seems to be more than one person included in this list. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he was head of economics at Brooklyn College meets nprof. [10], [11], [www.brooklyn.cuny.edu›web›aca_centers_wolfe›Future_of_Policing], [12] Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Davidstewartharvey being a head of a unit does not meet WP:NPROF, but a named professorship ("Broeklundian Professorship") would. --hroest 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hroest He was a named Broeklundian Professorship, see [13].Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Davidstewartharvey yes, exactly my point :-) --hroest 16:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hannes Röst. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete'. While I think we need to be more inclusive for academics, I can't see what makes him notable. No awards, no indication his work is impactful. It seems he wrote a single book but I failed to locate a single academic review of it. I'd be happy to reconsider my vote if anyone pings me and shows me sources that describe his life, impact, work, or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Piotrus: Beyond the couple of book reviews, what about the named professorship? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kj cheetham, I still don't believe the reviews of their books are relevant but named professorship is listed at NPROF. Now, the subject still fails NBIO/GNG, but that has hardly stopped the torrent flood of bios about sportspeople who meet some specialized NSPORTBIO defended by several fans. So I am withdrawing my deletion vote, not because I believe the subject is notable, but because I think we need to be more inclusive for academics in general. Treat my abstain / rationale however you will. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Piotrus: I found multiple reviews on JSTOR here as indicated in my comment above. --hroest 13:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - hroest I think something has gone wrong with that link? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment hmm it works for me, but only if logged in through a University. Sorry about that, I usually dont use JSTOR and it seems to be only semi-public unfortunately. In either case, I see 29 results and easily several book reviews. Some of these are by Cherry himself, and at least one is about a book by a different Robert Cherry (Wilt, I assume an economics prof did not write a sports persons biography). I can add some quotes:

Rather than simply retell the story, Cherry carefully ties some key dimensions together to create a policy tapestry in which he considers several proposals for the future Review: [Untitled] Demetra Smith Nightingale Social Service Review, Vol. 82, No. 2 (June 2008), pp. 335-338
His argument is compelling. In eleven creatively organized chapters, Cherry synthesizes the complex body of scholarly literature ... Review: [Untitled] Ivy Kennelly Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Jul., 2002), pp. 420-421
Review: [Untitled] Nina Shapiro Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp. 137-139
Review: [Untitled] Allison J. Pugh Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 42, No. 6 (November 2013), pp. 832-833

each one about a different book that Cherry wrote. ... I clearly see a lot of coverage of different books over the whole career. --hroest 15:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject served as Broeklundian Professorship, as cited in the article as above. He has written several books that have been reviewed in a variety of publications, also cited above. If they are not included in the article, then they should be added. The subject easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NPROF as a university educator and because of the Broeklundian professorship and academic journals cited above and in the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5 and the Broeklundian Professorship and per WP:AUTHOR and the book reviews discussed above. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Pashby (campaigner)

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

BLP of a political candidate and campaigner that does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NPOL. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abilympics

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

The same user has spammed this article across multiple language wikis. It’s tagged everywhere for notability and potential UPE. The sourcing is primary. A WP:BEFORE does show some third party sources but it’s pretty thin and I don’t think it’s sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is merely spam based on primary sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ettawa Springs, California

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

I'm not sure that this site meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Found some older coverage stating that this was a resort with 7 cabins. As noted at User:Hog Farm/springs, this is not mentioned in a directory of natural springs in California. When I search in An Arcadia press book about resorts in Lake County, nothing is coming up for me. Newspapers.com coverage is a vast string of "houses of rent" real estate listings and a few passing mentions that things happened at the Ettawa Springs resort: the discovery of a dead body, an accidental shooting, and an insecticide poisoning.

Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, but all I'm really getting are trivial mentions, unreliable genealogy-type stuff, and a crap ton of real estate listings that don't contribute to notability. As a resort, not a community, it fails GEOLAND, and I'm not convinced that GNG is met here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to have arisen from the Ettawa Berry Ranch which is seen inviting campers here in 1919. Nothing comes up before that so I think it's safe to discount any long-lost ghost town. Marketed as a resort from the 30s with serviced cabins but by 1995 the site is for sale stating "Lodge/cabins probably not salvageable. Old RV park". No evidence that it was a collection of permanent homes.----Pontificalibus 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My research yields the same as the nomination, with the addition that the 1972 Woodall's Trailering Parks and Campgrounds gives location data only. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No post office. I found the same trivial, non-notable coverage in newspapers.com. JSTOR returns one article about moss with a trivial mention. GBooks has a few trivial mentions - nothing of note. This is a non-notable location without legal recognition and with only trivial coverage so #1 and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met.Cxbrx (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salminas Resort, California

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

The only information I could find out about this place is that there was a spring there. Every other reference is either clickbait, mirrors, or name drops as a location. Topos show a bunch of buildings, but there's not a lot of correspondence between them and aerials. I have to assume that it was a resort which died sometime before WW II, but I can't prove even that. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A resort operated in the 1920s by Frank E. Salmina ([14]). In 1937 it's advertised as containing housekeeping cottages (i.e. serviced holiday rentals), still a resort in 1985 ([15]) and bankrupt in 1996 ([16]). No evidence it was a permanent settlement.----Pontificalibus 17:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Waring (c.f. User:Hog Farm/springs) nor the Arcadia Resorts of Lake County (ISBN 9781439634233) have Salminas, but they both have a Carlsbad Springs, California on Cole Creek which was a resort with a hotel until 1908 when it was destroyed in a fire (Waring, p.187). Salminas is not in the earlier 1892 Mineral Springs and Health Resorts of California either. I also checked for Salmina since that's the name of the nearby road. But I did find Saliminas Resort (note spelling) on page 85 of the Arcadia book. It was a resort on the ranch of the Salimina family, with no mention of a spring. On page 86, interestingly, the Arcadia book then shows a picture of an advertising flyer that calls it Salmina's Resort, indicating that the Arcadia book does not come up in searches because it has mis-spelled the name in its prose. The Salmina name is confirmed by doi:10.2307/41168583 (JSTOR 41168583) which is actually about so-called ptomaine poisoning and mentions the ranch of the Salmina family, still going in 1956, in passing. So it's a ranch about which history has almost nothing to say. Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No post office. I also searched newspapers.com and found only trivial coverage. JSTOR has a couple of links about specimens found near this locale. This locale lacks legal recognition and has only trivial coverage, so neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. Cxbrx (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The latter keep arguments have refuted the only delete argument (discounting the sock) of not meeting WP:NPROF. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damodar Sharma

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. BLP does not meet WP:NBIO. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Devan Lallu (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage or citations to meet WP:PROF.Webmaster862 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:PROF#C6? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Vice-Chancellor, meets NRPOF C6 (also see Board of Management Resolution on retirement as Vice Chancellor). Also served as Chair of the Academic Council. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nom is a blocked sockpuppet of Phoenix man (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man/Archive. --Blablubbs|talk 12:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being VC of RTU (an evidently major university) makes him notable as per NPROF C6. I am glad I have clarity on this now after participating in some other similar AFDs and making wrong nominations! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Studio

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. While I don't doubt that many notable artists have recorded here, I can't find any significant coverage dedicated to the studio. Lennart97 (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTINHERITED and lack of sources for WP:NCORP.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NCORP, current sources are not enough. Grailcombs (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Thareja

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

doesn't appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTH EGGIDICAE🥚 16:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her textbooks appear to be quite popular, so they probably pass WP:NBOOK#4. If it can be shown that her books are "the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country", then I'd support keeping this page, as I believe it's usually better to have a page about the author than about each of their notable books. (See Sole authors of notable books.) pburka (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass NPROF. The books mentioned in the list appear to be recently published college text books on regular topics with no evidence that it satisfies WP:NBOOK#4. VV 16:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book mentioned specially one from 2012 and one form 2017 are best sellers and has also been referenced. The books by her are popular and seem to pass the WP:NBOOK#4. User:Vedantbah 09:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best sellers according to whom? Because all I see is Amazon and we do not consider that to mean anything. EGGIDICAE🥚 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any significant independant reviews of the books? E.g. in an academic journal, not just Amazon reviews. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her faculty page is here. It and Google Scholar provide a range of further publications by her in comp sci journals. I don't know enough about the field to tell whether they indicate notability or not. Furius (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She's an assistant prof and her gscholar page doesn't give me any indication that she's notable. TAXIDICAE💰 18:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to pass WP:NPROF. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 19:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPROF, seems like WP:TOOSOON to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPROF, assistant profs are only notable in rare circumstances and that is not given here. --hroest 16:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only plausible claim of notability is for textbook authorship, the textbooks are on standard topics for which there are already many other textbooks, and we have no evidence beyond the bare assertion of being a "best seller" (whatever that means) that they stand out in any way from the field. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pranayamarmaram

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM. I can't find any significant coverage, although it's possible that non-English language coverage exists. The article itself does not make any claim of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources to establish notability hence fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It would help if the article provided any information on the album's background. It appears to be a various artists movie soundtrack. There is no place to redirect it to, and unless someone can deliver native language sources, the album appears to have gained no notice and can only be found in a few minor streaming services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Doomsdayer520, Im a native speaker of Malayalam and I could not find any local sources. The problem is that there were not much online sources available before 2010. So its almost impossible to find the sources. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Boushaki

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Creator, who has a lot of edits on various Algeria-related topics, added a ton of references, which don't seem to get close to GNG. Player spent his entire career in low divisions, it looks like. BlameRuiner (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. To confirm, he hasn't played in any of the top 2 divisions in Algeria (which are fully-pro), so at most in 3rd division. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Bebopjohnson (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this Q&A has some decent coverage but I couldn't see anything else, although it's still more than you would generally expect for a player and coach at this level. The Blogspot one looks like a Wikipedia mirror and is unreliable anyway. He also hasn't played at a level that would give him presumed notability so I feel that deletion is the only option here but the user has clearly put a lot of effort into creating this; it's just a shame that almost every source is just a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tol | Talk | Contribs 21:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Corwin

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NPROF. The Jane Doe case may be notable but I do not think this is enough to convey notability to David Corwin per WP:ONEEVENT. Also the article is written like a resume and would need to be completely rewritten if kept. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Scholar shows reasonably well cited papers. What I don't know is whether the citation numbers are significant. If they are then I think they confer notability on him. An editor like DGG may well have good information for this discussion Fiddle Faddle 15:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is a good point. If an expert can verify that these citation numbers are significant then I will withdraw the nomination. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Corwin straddles academia, clinical practice, and forensic expert, but in my opinion he passes on GNG and possibly NACADEMIC-6 and 7 as well. Corwin founded and headed ASPAC: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, and headed AVA and NHCVA as well. Some of his research work has been cited highly. However, Corwin's impact on child abuse extends beyond academia as evidenced by coverage in the media: New Yorker, The Guardian, and CBC, LA Times, as well as coverage in books such as: Remembering our Childhood: How Memory Betrays Us, By Karl Sabbagh.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I checked the citations of the 1993 paper, and although 80 citations in 28 years isn't wonderful it's quite respectable, and a Hirsch (h) index of 46 isn't wonderful either, but again, it's quite respectable. (In both cases I'm speaking from the point of view of biochemistry: I can't comment on his field.) There are clearly people who are likely to look him up on Wikipedia, so yes, he's "notable". Athel cb (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athel cb, where are you getting those numbers?? An h-index of 46 (which is generally really good) would mean 46 papers with at least 46 citations, but he's only written 26 papers indexed by Scopus... JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use Scopus, because I was already a Web of Science addict before I encountered Scopus. Anyway, my numbers come from Web of Science. Athel cb (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, can you link the author record number (at the end of the url) you're using? The one I got for him (1099506) is actually a mishmash of different people, but still only gives him 44 citations and an h-index of 12. JoelleJay (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you're right, and I wasn't careful enough, as I didn't think that Corwin D would be such a common name, and my list included lots of people who were clearly not him. I'll try to be more careful next time. Athel cb (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he definitely meets notability criteria. Bebopjohnson (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I looked at the Scopus metrics for Dr. Corwin and all 108 of his coauthors who have more than 5 papers.

Total citations: average: 3102, median: 1602, Corwin: 1208.

Total papers: avg: 71, med: 40, C: 26.

h-index: avg: 22, med: 17, C: 16.

Top 5 highest citations: 1st: avg: 500, med: 311, C: 264. 2nd: avg: 254, med: 175, C: 174. 3rd: avg: 193, med: 141, C: 115. 4th: avg: 158, med: 101, C: 89. 5th: avg: 130, med: 88, C: 77.

If I restrict this to the 32 coauthors who published 2 or more papers with him (so, people who will have greater similarity in their research focus), these are the metrics: TC: avg: 2233, med: 1262. TP: 50, 42. h-index: 20, 16. Top 5 papers: 1: 339, 264. 2: 170, 171. 3: 129, 126. 4: 109, 89. 5: 98, 77.

Based on these data I would say he does not pass NPROF C1, as his impact (as measured in citations) is not clearly above (or even close to equal to) that of the average professor in his subfield. Note also that my cut-off of 5 papers is very low so these comparisons comprise mostly non-professors. If I was to restrict analysis to coauthors who held professorships or had established research leadership I assume the averages/medians would be much higher. However, I haven't looked into his possible qualifications for other NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He fails WP:NPROF, but passes WP:GNG based on his coverage in the media and involvement with a high profile case. --hroest 20:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I reviewed the media coverage and it does seem sustained and non-trivial, even if limited to the one topic. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meets WP:GNG.Webmaster862 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable as WP:PROF-- a first approach to using the standard is simply to look for there being 2 or more highly cited papers. From Google Scholar there is only 1--- 300 cites for the review paper that's no. 1 in the list. Nothing else over 88. Scopus cites should be about 1/2 that. That's not enough. I don't think he qualifies as GNG, because the notability is only about the case. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I would normally agree re: BLP1E, but it does seem the case garnered coverage both at the time and in several subsequent follow-up articles many years later. He's always mentioned as the person responsible for the study, and the specifics of his involvement are generally detailed, which makes me lean toward this being a case of made a significant discovery ... [the] contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. It's on the edge for sure, especially since the coverage is less from academic sources and more from continuing lay interest (and lay coverage of academic interest). I'd be willing to reconsider my !vote. JoelleJay (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the related articles. I think we might be dealing with a WP:Walled Garden, where the articles are being used to support each other DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it some more, I would support a redirect to the Jane Doe case, unless SIGCOV more directly addressing Corwin himself is uncovered. JoelleJay (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons given to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Light Academy

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also unsourced too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's zero references in the article and the only ones I could find are about some students from there winning medals. Which isn't enough to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Plus, the article is a tad on the advertish side, but with the none existent sources there isn't really anything that can be deleted and (or) added to make it not be that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we deleted from Wikipedia every article sourced only to the subject's own website. If we did that maybe we would go back to a manageable 4.5 million articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I agree. However, we can't flood school related–AFDs per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 23:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole attitude we have around schools is wrongheaded and myopic. It is built on the idea that the level of size and stability that existed with high schools in certain suburban areas in the US from the 1960s-1990s leads to us being able to on a global level consider high schools notable. The fact it started with an intact fiat, instead of strinving to make every high school that ever existed notable was bad enough, but it never took into account how many short lived private schools have existed in the US, how many truly dinky rural schools have existed, how it ignored hundreds of smaller rural and small urban area schools wiped out in consoldiations from the 1930s-1990s, how it did not account for instability with the rise of charter schools, how it did not ever decide if it applied only to standard full subject schools, or to various concentration centers and alternate high schools, which are often smaller, and come and go quite often. Even more so it never dealt with the fact the American model does not apply elsewhere, and we start getting a truly dizzying number of school articles a huge number of which are under sourced. Beyond this I strongly supect many school articles in some ways reflect the reality on the ground when the school article was created, many sport lists of sports, clubs/extra curricular activities, and a few even detailed lists of classes taught, but I have a strong suspicion that these do not up date as often as they change, and I have yet to see one that treats such matters in a historic way. Even many college articles only list what NCAA sports are offered, they rarely tell use when they started. Some of the enrollment and student demographics data we have in school articles is fairly out of date, and it is very rare when we take the historical perspective on such numbers and compare them over time. Actually in the US, possibly half of articles on schools we do not even have an establishment year listed. Sometimes we are also less than clear if the article is on a building or an institution. My wife's elementary school (Greenfield Union School) is a very clear case of the article being about the building. That has an aside that mentions "as of 2011" what the use of the school was. That building at one point included high school level students, for probably 80 years was just an elementary, and has been pre-K to 8 since at least 2009.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Thank you for your insights regarding this issue. I would focus on the Philippine side of this issue for now since we have a lot these (lol). It is quite possible that these school-related articles are actually made by people who went to, or works for (or maybe both!), the school which they had created an article for. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HueMan1: that is one thing I suspect for the case of Gen. T. de Leon National High School, which prompted me to remove some highly inappropriate material. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen edits on high school articles in the US that amount to "x person is drunk". I suspect with the US at least some of the articles have been created by current students.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Trinity School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and the "Facilities" section in list form has made it partly-promotional. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This unsourced piece of rubbish has lasted 11 years. It should not have even lasted 11 days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Hurtubise

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

Fails GNG, only coverage is local news or news focusing on his invention. Noah ^💬 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy is quite famous in Canada for "project Grizzly", a suit worn to protect from bear attacks. There is a lot of of national-level coverage. There was a documentary film made about Project Grizzly. Peter Gzowski interviewed him several times.

Here is what the New York Times said of him in 1997: "In 1984, Troy Hurtubise was hiking in the Canadian Rockies when he came face to face with a 600-pound grizzly bear. The great beast knocked him down, stared momentarily and casually retreated into the bush. End of story. Well, not quite. Since that day, Hurtubise, a scrap-metal dealer from North Bay, Ontario, has been on a quest to wrestle a grizzly in the wild."
Here is what The Guardian said of a book he wrote: "Bear Man: The Troy Hurtubise Saga is Troy's magnum opus, the tersely told summary of his yearnings, frustrations, triumphs and philosophy. The book includes many of Troy's previous writings on these subjects, augmented with a powerful-as-a-riled-up-grizzly collection of previously private photos, philosophy, intellectualising, and emoting."
Variety reviewed the Project Grizzly film about him, summarizing it as "Ultra-Canuck docu profiles one seriously deranged individual, an Ontario scrap-metal merchant and inventor of a string of high-tech suits, all designed to help him come face-to-face with his obsession, grizzly bears."
The Globe and Mail, one of Canada's national newspapers, printed a huge obituary when he died, saying "Troy Hurtubise combined the fevered imagination of a mad scientist with the foolhardy bravery of Evel Knievel in his quest to design a suit impervious to bear attack. Operating from a makeshift laboratory in a garage in North Bay, Ont., he produced ever stronger armour for what he called Project Grizzly. He was a backwoods Don Quixote convinced of his scientific acumen, a Captain Ahab whose white whale was ursus arctos horribilis. As with those fictional characters, he, too, was ultimately doomed by his compulsion."
The National Post sums up some of his fame: "With his fringed buckskin jacket and ostentatious red beret, Troy was not just Canadian famous, but American famous. He did spots on big-time talk shows like Roseanne Barr’s, with Penn & Teller. David Letterman wanted to drive out of a New York alley in a limo and crash into Troy in his armour, but Troy said no. Even The Simpsons did a parody, in which “local laughingstock Homer Simpson” builds a bear-proof suit out of scrap metal that looks just like Troy’s, called the BearBuster 5000 in a clear reference to his Ursus Mark VI." (here also is the Simpsons clip)

It would be quite easy to add 20 more quotes like this. He was also mentioned in many books and magazines such as The New Scientist, The Canadian Journal of Film Studies, Reader's Digest and so on... His obituary appeared in The Evening Standard, Vice Magazine, CTV News, the Toronto Star, and the CBC. I would suggest withdrawing this AfD, since the subject is very clearly notable, as a WP:BEFORE would have shown.--- Possibly (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons that Possibly has noted above. I don't even know how this article could be thought to meet GTG. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per what Possibly has listed as rationale. Bebopjohnson (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have a look at this and this. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 12:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article could use some improvement — but right off the top, the nominator completely ignored the existence of a Genie Award-nominated feature documentary film about Troy (by the National Film Board of Canada, one of the most prestigious documentary film studios on earth, to boot!) when assessing what coverage Troy does or doesn't have, and that's before you even consider (a) their misreading of the existing sources (some of which are bad, but the good ones cover a wider range than claimed), and (b) the fact that numerous other good sources have been offered in this discussion, demonstrating that the nominator didn't do much WP:BEFORE work. Seriously, how could anybody on this planet ever be notable at all for anything, if news reportage about the things they did somehow didn't count as valid sourcing? Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 It (novel). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Kaspbrak

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

Fails WP:GNG as the depth of coverage is insufficient. Even if it is argued that GNG is met, I believe that, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, and as is the case with all the other characters, this character is best covered only in the book and film articles. I know that AfD should not be a way to address vandalism or content disputes, but this article has been subject to continual edit-warring over the character's relationships in the book vs the second film...covering the character in those book and film articles instead of this half-way house will solve this problem. --Pontificalibus 14:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 14:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 14:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 14:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I would suggest this gets merged into the page for the book. Bebopjohnson (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not seeing enough to merit stand-alone article, but ping me if better sources are found and/or the reception section is expanded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to book article. Most of this article is cited with web news pieces on It Chapter Two. Some of these reliable, although a couple use the questionably-reliable Screen Rant and a tabloid, but they're not unique to Eddie and basically fawn over the gay relationship in It Chapter Two. That is not enough to indicate this character should have his own article. I'm debating whether the other Losers characters should have their own pages as well. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Hi, I'm the author of this page. I wrote this 2 years ago when I was still learning about creating pages. As the original author, I'm going to say merge and I'm going to work on it in the sandbox if I have time. I'm a college student now, I wrote the majority of the pages I've created in high school when I simply had more time. But the first couple articles I've written aren't the same standard of quality as my later articles. But that comes with experience, which I definitely didn't have when I began this article. If I wrote it today, there would be more sources, more in depth analysis and it probably would've taken me a while to finish. I believe I wrote this in a week if my memory serves correctly. Also I'm tired of seeing the edit wars with this page. It's a fictional character guys, it doesn't matter. SeanTheYeti452

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanothermodynamics

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

Bundle nomination together with:

These articles have been discussed before in WikiProject Physics. Written by the SPAs Barejsha02 and Bona85 to promote the work of Draft:Leonid_Adamovich_Sosnovskiy. Full of copyright violations. Just checking the two open access references [17] [18], we see that Figure 3 of Mechanothermodynamics is copied from Fig. 1 in the first article, Figure 4 is copied from Fig. 1 in the second article, the equations in the section "Λ-interactions" are copied from Figures 2 and 3 in the first article. Tribo-fatigue has just been trimmed because of copyright violations, and Bona85 simply added the same material again. I'm sure that if we checked carefully against all references we'd see that the entire articles are copyright violations, but frankly I already spent too much time with this nonsense.

The content of the articles is also pretty strange. The idea that mechanics and thermodynamics were somehow incompatible until Sosnovskiy managed to unify them is ludicrous; ever heard of the Carnot engine? Also, I did a search on Google Scholar, and I couldn't find anyone other than Sosnovskiy and Sherbakov writing about this stuff. Which they published in the predatory journal Entropy, as well as Russian-language journals that I cannot evaluate. Tercer (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – these all seem to be promotional articles for things (and in particular ideas of the primary author Sosnovskiy) that are also not notable. The only part where I don't go along with the nom's statement is that a new concept does seem to be defined: "irreversible damage" (which is probably not standard in thermodynamics), but I see no clear definition of this and this strengthens rather than weakens the case for deletion. —Quondum 14:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I agree with what Tercer says, in particular "The idea that mechanics and thermodynamics were somehow incompatible until Sosnovskiy managed to unify them is ludicrous; ever heard of the Carnot engine?" I learned my thermodynamics in the context of chemistry, but I've talked with engineers about it, and it's clear that mechanics and thermodynamics have been connected almost since the time of Carnot -- and that's a long time, at least since about 1830. Athel cb (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as the engineering version of vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All As a general principle, one of the great foundations of the scientific method is reproduceability. Our article on gravity mentions Sir Isaac Newton, but also cites the very many other scientists who have studied and made discoveries in that field. Similarly our article on DNA is about more than just Franklin, Watson, and Crick. These articles appear to be solely related to "discoveries" by Sosnovsky and his associates. If these were notable topics, there would be many others working in the field. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The author's comments in the WikiProject discussion do indicate that most of this falls afoul of the no original research policy, and a quick look for literature confirms this. Other people outside of the creators have not adopted this, and reactions from reviews and the like have been things like "Why didn't they simply use the Boltzmann equation?". Uncle G (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Which they published in the predatory journal Entropy:" I don't think one can really call Entropy a predatory journal on the basis of one awful paper about glyphosate. Just about every journal you can think of -- Nature, Science, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, you name it -- has published stuff they should be ashamed of. Notice that the Wikipedia article on Entropy devotes a lot more space telling readers about the glyphosate paper than they do about anything else. (This doesn't affect my opinion that all the offending pages should be deleted.) Athel cb (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that what may make it predatory is if it is engaging in "pay for play" tactics where it publishes articles in exchange for money from the authors. This is a serious concern with a number of open-access journals. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't even aware of this glyphosate affair. I called Entropy predatory because of the incredible amount of garbage it publishes, they can't be doing peer review. I'm familiar with it because I have seen time and time again some crackpot from my field get a paper published there. Tercer (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all until topic is shown to have more support in mainstream science. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Mechanothermodynamics is serious science. It is a subset of Unified Mechanics Theory. This is a well established field in Mechanics circles. There is no reason to delete a well established topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tragab (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We require reliable, independent sources that establish that it is "serious science" or a "well established field", not assertions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all just because someone once defined a word to mean something does not mean that the concept is notable enough to merit an article. That issue applies to all these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Quondum's comment above. Promotional articles where the notability is not yet shown. --SimoneD89 (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all as pseudo science, potentially WP:SYNTH and note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified mechanics theory where the main author (papers) on that... concept... is authored by the creating editor of at least one of these. Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barejsha02 which interested parties are invited to contribute relevant evidence to Fiddle Faddle 13:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broward County Uniform Station Numbering

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

Fails WP:GNG and I think also WP:DIRECTORY. Pretty sure this is WP:LISTCRUFT.

The article is just a table list of fire stations in Broward County, Florida, based on what is apparently a guideline for shared station numbering in the county. Relies on four sources: one is dead, one is a book (that's very likely outdated given newer information), and two really just mention a total of three fire stations as existing or proposed without actually detailing anything else; basically a passing mention. The article was apparently created, quote, "as an encyclopedic reference for any members interested in fire department operations within Broward County, FL", which makes this page very, very niche. Information should be spun off to associated articles if possible (specifically Broward Sheriff Fire Rescue and Fort Lauderdale Fire-Rescue Department, though the latter already has that information). AdoTang (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not aid in navigation, only relevant blue links are to Broward Sheriff's Office Fire Rescue and Fort Lauderdale Fire-Rescue. Need more than two things to have a list article. Dream Focus 14:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Niche" is about right... this kind of thing is supposed to hang as a printout on the wall of a county comissioner's office, not sit on Wikipedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion G5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N Sai Balaji Yadav

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

This donot qualify WP:NPOL, as he is not elected to any office and is primarily an activist Heba Aisha (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sigcov hence fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kara H. Eastman

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

Non-notable politician who fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete losing candidate covered only in the context of her elections. SportingFlyer T·C 10:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, only famous for losing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. To qualify for an article without having to win the election, a candidate must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten them into Wikipedia regardless of their success or failure in any given election (which I call the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) be referenceable to such an unusually large volume, depth and range of coverage, far exceeding just what every candidate can always show, that she has a credible claim to being much, much more special than most other candidates in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). This article is showing neither of those things, however. Furthermore, it's evident that the middle initial is present in the title solely to bypass the fact that the uninitialed Kara Eastman already exists as a redirect to the election, pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara Eastman (2nd nomination) — but just altering the title does not mean that the earlier discussion isn't still binding on whether she qualifies for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Music from the 3D Concert Experience. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is on Its Way

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. The only available coverage comes from album reviews. Two low chart entries and a fake one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Music from the 3D Concert Experience - per blatant failure to meet the 2021 notability thresholds. There is almost no content at the album article either so a merge would be beneficial for both.--N Ø 14:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music from the 3D Concert Experience due to a lack of adequate coverage outside of album reviews. Charts (or lack thereof) are moot in this case, though for the record, I removed that fabricated entry here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that NØ above is the creator of this article, and is also now suggesting a redirect. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. This is not a bar against recreation if their is increased coverage in the lead-up/during/after the election they are involved in. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Green Voice

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. See Patriotic Socialist Party, Miss Great Britain Party and Scottish Family Party for precedents for the wider Wikipedia community agreeing that not all political parties are notable, and notability does not attach itself to political parties as of right. This article has sources, but no evidence of GNG, ORG and general achievement. Content of article has issues of tone, content, and sourcing. Political party has no evidence of achievement or notability prior to, or following, elections, and party has no evidence of notable coverage for campaigns expected of a political party. doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another step on the nominator's campaign to have every article on a small political party removed from Wikipedia. In the interest of balance, please list also the AfDs you have proposed that were declined. Emeraude (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until after the May elections. Notability seems to be borderline at the minute, but I think it is in the interest of democracy that the article is kept during the election period, especially as they are standing candidates on most of the Scottish Parliament's regional lists. We can then take into account the party's results and media coverage in the election when deciding whether or not they are notable. If the article is deemed non-notable, I would suggest redirecting to List of political parties in the United Kingdom to preserve the page's history. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am swayed by some of the opinions below. It is unlikely that this party will garner any significant coverage before the election, seeing as the campaign has been ongoing for two weeks already and there is nothing so far. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is appropriate that this article be deleted. It is my view that, if the decision was taken on the other List parties mentioned by Doktorbuk, then this party certainly does not pass the threshold - there is no evidence at all that it has any remote presence on the political scene. The individual named as the sole member of the party may, himself, justify a page about his own political activity, but it is not appropriate for a whole wikipedia page to cover this party. There are hundreds of other list parties with bigger followings that do not make the cut. I disagree that the issue should be kicked until after 6 May 2021.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.100.98 (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO - I do not think it is correct that this party are standing candidates in multiple lists, my understanding was that the individual himself was contesting one Glasgow seat. It is not a party with members and individuals elected to stand on the list. My understanding is that the Party is the man himself.

I have checked all of the statements of persons nominated and they say that the party is standing on six out of the eight regional lists. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that is correct I missed it when I looked because I did not check each list (82.2.100.98). It is not a one-man party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.100.98 (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a complicated one. For a party standing in an in progress election they are currently attracting very little coverage. In the past there has been some coverage, but historically they have been a bit of a one man band and it might be argued that an article on Alistair McConnachie is more appropriate. I can see the argument for leaving until the end of this election, but I have doubts that this will make a difference in the long term. Dunarc (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Considering that there is a moderate chance of increased notability in the leadup and aftermath of the upcoming election, it doesn't make sense to delete this article until after the election - then, whether or not Independent Green Voice is notable will become more black and white. Wait until after the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary elections. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 01:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:GNG. It's not even borderline. Arguments based on the proximity of the elections do not appear to me to have any basis in policy. What we have is a party so minor that secondary reliable sources are not talking about it. What RS coverage we do have is more about Alistair McConnachie than about the party, so my second choice would be to re-name the article Alistair McConnachie. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The party fails WP:GNG today. We are considering this article today. Should it become notable in the future the article may be restored, provided with delete without prejudice to future re-creation Fiddle Faddle 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. The article is basically just an acknowledgement that "this party exists". — Czello 14:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" !votes have the stronger policy-based arguments. LISTN is not met. Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Melbourne, Florida

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

List of not-notable local politicians. Melbourne is not big enough community to make their officials notable and most people listed here are notable for other reasons if they have an article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per what I said here. AdoTang (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's about 20 politicians with articles who are linked in the list, so even if this topic fails WP:LISTN this is a useful navigational aid for readers per WP:LISTPURP. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep satisfies Wikipedia list requirements. Djflem (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete which is also what we need to do with a lot of the entries on the list. The position is notable. Wikipedia needs to stop Melbourmania, before it gets to be a true disease like Dedhammania.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge It fails WP:LISTN (source is primary) and is really poorly formatted (it's done by year, not by person.) The information wouldn't be bad to have somewhere, a cleanup and collapsible table on the main article may be the best bet. SportingFlyer T·C 11:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unlike the above linked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Altamonte Springs, Florida, this one is wp:verifiable, so it should not be deleted under this reason.
The list is cross-categorization being in the form of "List of X of Y". According to WP:LISTN, for this kind of list, satisfying WP:LISTPURP is often enough to be kept. In this case, there are a reasonable amount of bluelinks in the article, satisfying WP:LISTPURP#Navigation.
Apart from that, the list seems like a reasonable split from Melbourne, Florida considering the HTML document size of this article (162 kB), which would increase the HTML document size of Melbourne, Florida (317 kB) drastically.
I will try to improve the list with reference to other similar articles. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-categorisation refers to circumstances where X and Y are two completely separate topics. In this instance, "mayors of Melbourne, Florida" is not - it's just 'X,' or a sub-categorisation. Therefore, LISTPURP doesn't really apply, and there's still no evidence these have been referred to as a group or set. Furthermore, a merge to another article is still possible as this article's really poorly formatted and can be easily trimmed down. SportingFlyer T·C 14:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Does not meet WP:LISTN as the topic is not covered by multiple secondary sources. Also, everyone should be reminded, that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion--Rusf10 (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Farid Saibun

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

No indication of passing WP:NFOOTBALL; Sabah were in the 2nd tier for a lot of the 2000s and there is no indication that any of his alleged two appearances for them took place while they were in the Super League. Melaka United were playing in the third tier so those 10 appearances definitely don't count either. Farid Saibun is absent from all football database websites as far as I can tell.

More importantly, a Malaysian search yields absolutely nothing. I found a passing mention in the Daily Express and another one. Both of these articles relate to a local football tournament, which, as far as I can tell, is very low level; possibly 4th, 5th or 6th tier of the Malaysian football league system. In any case, the coverage is very weak and not enough for WP:GNG and, at 33 years of age, no indication that he will ever play in the Super League and/or pass any guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Redzuan Nawi

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

Article makes a claim of 2 appearances for Johor, which would give Redzuan Nawi presumed notability through WP:NFOOTBALL but there is no clear evidence of this anywhere. No such appearances recorded on Tribuna, GSA, Playmaker Stats and Soccerway, all of which have been tracking the Malaysian Super League since this player's career started.

A Malaysian search did not yield any clear significant coverage in WP:RS but plenty of small mentions on social media and Blogspot. Google searches tend to bring back the same results but with a few match report mentions like this in The Star, BH, BH, Goal and Goal. I would argue that none of this is WP:GNG coverage.

In conclusion, this footballer may or may not have 2 professional appearances (no indication of whether this was the entire match or just a few minutes at the end). In any case, I can't see GNG and there is a clear consensus that players with 1 or 2 appearances that do not pass GNG need to pass GNG, therefore, I would like to start a discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, not enough Apps CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes NFOOTY. He has 23 pro appearances in a FPL league, the Malaysian Premier Leaguehere. That's significantly more than a handful? Also found some local coverage where he scored a goal, although not sure if this counts here@GiantSnowman:Ortizesp (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ortizesp - the fully pro league is the Malaysia Super League, the top tier. The Malaysian Premier League is the 2nd tier and is not fully professional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, striking my vote. Thanks for letting me know!@Spiderone:--Ortizesp (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hasnain Nazish

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

Fails WP:GNG, Present coverage is not enough for this author. Citterz (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

https://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%86_%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%B4

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both the nominator and delete voter are confirmed blocked sockpuppets. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IC Markets

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

Present coverage is not enough for GNG. A case of refbomb. There are not WP:RS present. Citterz (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. Most of sources are press releases and announcements. Setreis (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD appears to have been opened in bad faith and I have blocked both participants as socks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other delete suggestions. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Salehi

AfDs for this article:

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

Present coverage is not enough for GNG Citterz (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This one is a little rough, because I could find actual zero English-language coverage of this poet. (Confusingly, there's a different Persian poet named Ali Salehi published in an Australian press.) However, it seems GNG may be met by Persian-language coverage, e.g. this coverage in a cultural magazine. Lean delete, would love input from a person who knows Persian. Suriname0 (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says "Seyyed Ali Salehi" which finds no Google hits. But change to "Seyed Ali Salehi" and sources begin appearing. It's the same person as seen in Google Image search there are multiple spellings of his name. -- GreenC 15:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Michigan Quarterly Review [19] "SAYYED ALI SALEHI (born 1955) is a famous Iranian poet and writer." According to ICORN [20] "Seyed Ali Salehi (Iran), one of the best-known Iranian poets; resident in Teheran." There is also a lengthy article on fawiki. Seems like enough evidence not to delete, until there is a better reason for deletion beyond the standard "fails GNG" sort of stuff as we now have two reliable English source asserting notability, and lots of Farsi sources in support, and probably many more English sources under the English-fied spelling of his name. The article itself needs copyediting. -- GreenC 15:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added the Michigan Quarterly Review reference to the page. He seems to have won at least one significant award, which pushes him well into Notability territory. PianoDan (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the MQR source. I also added the passing ICORN reference, to help out any future improvers of the page. Suriname0 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable author. I also found a number of English citations to support notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable author with significant wide coverage. Passes GNG and NAUTHOR. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Belgium–United States relations. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belgium, Washington, D.C.

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

Was the subject of a previous AfD in 2019 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo) the result was procedural keep as participants clearly think the mass nomination was inappropriate and wanted the different embassies to be considered individually. The article is solely reliant on primary sources and it should be noted that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Belgium–United States relations. Dan arndt (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Belgium–United States relations as per routine for these articles. It's pretty obvious tha tthe building isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Belgium–United States relations as per routine for these articles, as per all above. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 11:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda College of Technology and Management

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

No refs with a before. Zero notability(NSCHOOL) Vikram Vincent 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe it's a reference to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which says "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online." › Mortee _talk 22:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mortee All these institutions are only affiliated to a university and do not award degrees themself. Also, as per WP:NSCHOOLS, "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." These are for-profit and hence are not exempt from satisfying W:ORG or WP:GNG. VV 03:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's as may be. I haven't tried to assess this myself, so I haven't !voted. I was just pointing out what there is some actual text behind what Necrothesp was saying. I looked it up because they've been an admin for 15 years so I was surprised to see someone saying their !vote had to be ignored as invoking a "nonexistent consensus". I thought I'd share the link in case it was useful to other participants. › Mortee _talk 04:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Mortee Consensus can change per {{outcomes}}. If you were to look at the delete stats, you will see that the consensus has moved to deleting non-notable private tertiary educational institutions which do not have RS. I think following the existing guidelines is a better approach and then changing the guidelines when necessary. VV 04:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wait, that means "I agree with the listed reason", right? I hope it does, because I've used this on, like, seven AfDs so far. AdoTang (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Vikram (honorable mention to his/their enormous experience in AFDs of educational institutions). Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass automobility

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

Neologism covered elsewhere such as Automobile dependence, History of the automobile etc. Darrelljon (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The OED has usage of automobility back to the 19th century and so it is an established part of the English language and therefore not a neologism. Moreover, the topic seems to be reasonably notable and so merits a page. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mass automobility suggests something distinct from mere automobility or other topics already covered such as automobile, history of the automobile, automobile dependence or modal share.--Darrelljon (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It crops up in some papers and books, e.g. "Harmonizing Cars and Humans in Japan’s Era of Mass Automobility", "The Automobile Industry Since 1945.", "Exploding Johannesburg: Driving in a Worldly City", Republic of Drivers: A Cultural History of Automobility in America, "The Car and the City" Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Automobile dependence, the articles essentially cover the exact same topic, the only difference being that this one goes of on an America-centric original research-ish tangent. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. Automobile dependency is essentially current urban planning, while History of the automobile covers the nuts and bolts of inventions. Mass automobility is a social phenomenon. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive city covers urban planning. Automobile dependency covers the social phenomenon. Mass automobility is surplus here and the title implies something other than mere automobility. The level at which it became "mass" automobility is covered in the history of the automobile.--Darrelljon (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chanuka Nadun Perera

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

PROD contested by author. Obvious WP:AUTOBIO, nowhere near WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:GNG. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, obvious promotional. Probably could be speedy deleted. User3749 (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Chanaka L (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur that this young journalist doesn't pass GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Dan arndt (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Kumar Khara

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from the bank he works for. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You mean the bank he manages? State Bank of India, the largest bank in India, and one of the largest in the world? Yes, notability is not inherited, but this is the sort of position where notability can be presumed. It is obvious just from the long list of results on google news that he is notable and passes GNG. There are profiles fter the recommendation to appoint him ([21][22][23]), profiles when he was appointed ([24][25]), profiles after he was appointed on his economic views ([26][27]).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per reasoning provided by Eostrix, there are tons of references [28], [29], [30] which all are satisfying WP:SIGCOV. In my opinion, the article should have been expanded rather than being deleted. Chirota (talk)
Keep As per all above, passes WP:BASIC. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 11:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran Tickets Foundation

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

A worthy organisation, but I couldn't find the coverage to show it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I tried to improve this when I found it in a backlog, but there's just no significant, in depth sourcing that I've been able to find. It exists and it does good work, but it's sadly just a run of the mill charity with nothing to indicate notability. StarM 13:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Błaszki. Where it is now duły mentioned. Sandstein 10:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Von Dem Alten Kloster

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

I couldn't find evidence this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD - it's linked in the see also section of an article on a town, but with no info, and apart from that is orphaned. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The author has an article in Polish wikipedia but not in en.wiki (I've added {{ill}} links). If someone can find a reliable source for the statement that the book comprises legends etc about Blaszki then it would be sensible to add that sourcing to the mention of the book there, perhaps call it "Further reading", and redirect the title to that mention. Otherwise, Delete. The mention of the book on that page seems to have been a de-orphaning project. PamD 10:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SOFIXEDIT, up to a point: have tweaked the mention of the book in Błaszki - still no source to confirm the info, but a redirect from title to Błaszki would be sensible. PamD 10:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Blaszki. The writer was a nonnotable local Zionist activist and writer, I briefly googled an don't think he is notable for English wikipedia. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I don't see what makes this book pass WP:NBOOK. I've started a deletion discussion on pl wiki, may be worth monitoring in case someone there finds sources suggesting notability (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:04:10:Von Dem Alten Kloster). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not nearly near the sources that would be needed to show that this book is notable. Not every book every published is notable, and that is where we would have to draw the cut off to include this book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UEI Global

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

Zero refs available. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS. Article was already deleted once by CSD. Vikram Vincent 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this but not really anything that truly establishes notability through WP:NORG, which is what is required here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to insufficient participation, therefore no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NSL Buses

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

Article fails our main notability criteria for companies and organisations, WP:NCORP (not WP:GNG).

There are two secondary references in this article, ref 1 (Worthing Herald) and ref 2 (busandcoach.com).

Reference 1 is an article about the parent company's name change, and is not significant coverage of the subsidiary.

Reference 2 is trivial, non-independent coverage as described in NCORP - "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business".

I could not find sources that meet the NCORP requirements in a WP:BEFORE search.

Sourced content has already been added to NSL (company). Endorsing a redirect there. SK2242 (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

~~Likely to be sources in the usual industry publications, but for now Merge to NSL (company). Lilporchy (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough reports in reliable sources to retain. Lilporchy (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
but where’s the significant coverage? SK2242 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep. Since the movie has released and gotten reviews, the draftifying reasons aren't relevant anymore. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Ami Renu

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

~~A non notable film, Fails WP:NFILM. Citterz (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)~~ Struck the nomination rationale as the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article should stay on the article space. The article had much news coverage. And @Citterz:, i think you should read all those news source what I have provided. Android you should search on Google, there in google you will get much more coverage about the film. Anyway the film passes WP:NFILM so the article should stay on the article space. TryingToDo (talk)
Draftify: the film has not been released...so WP:NFILM would be considered. But per WP:NFF: 'films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.' I say kick it into the draft space and once released in 2 weeks consider to publish it again. Kolma8 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the film has been released on 9 April and has reviews such as here. A quick search is not finding a lot more so it's a weak keep at this stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has already released with notable coverage in WP:RS and passes WP:NFILM. Also, added this film review from Anandabazar Patrika. Run n Fly (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Shit

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. A song charting or not doesn't give the status of notability.

1) Its coverage comes from only album reviews, one sentence per each.

2) Interview with the producers and management that could fall under the "other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work" umbrella

3) The same goes for the Tyga post as he is featured guest on the track. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has multiple reliable sources talking about the song [31] [32] [33] The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all self-promotion because its Tyga (a featured artists) making posts about the song, so its an interested third party. See third point. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is still being covered by sources, which leads to notability. Vulture, in particular, is a reliable source which discusses the song and a controversy around it for about half of the (small) article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still third party coverage because what he's talking about is the song. And it's content written by the sources too, it's not just a repost or an interview. I don't think you can handwave these away like that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MarioSoulTruthFan I have found another reliable source The Times of India ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It just shows the lyrics of the song. What kind of source is that? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon per nom. Not enough independent sources to meet WP:NSONG. SBKSPP (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to sufficiently satisfy WP:NSONG in terms of charting and coverage. I'm not sure where others expect information regarding the song's background, songwriting, and recording are supposed to come from other than the subjects directly involved in the song. ✗plicit 06:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 06:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gina D's Kids Club

AfDs for this article:

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

No consensus was reached last time; the only new source provided [AV Club piece] discussed the work as part of a larger context (the Smile TV channel) and the only other “keep” argument didn’t provide any reasoning whatsoever. Dronebogus (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has a full review in Common Sense Media already in the article and coverage in this AV piece here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the piece I was referring to when I said “new source provided discussed the work as part of a larger context (the Smile TV channel)”, which I didn’t find in-depth and specific enough to count as “in-depth coverage”. Dronebogus (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Rosary parish, Warispura

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable parish, nothing notable found in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH. Störm (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A local church with 6000 members in a Muslim country like Pakistan sounds notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge or Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Faisalabad. Looking things over there are some sources, but they extremely trivial, not in-depth at all, and a good percentage of them are primary. That said, sources do exist, but I'm more toward merge or redirect because it's pretty borderline. As far as it being notable due to the number of attendants alone, there are almost a million and a half Catholics in Pakistan. So 6000 going to a church isn't that big of a thing. That said, the population of this "local" place is only 554 people. So it would be impossible for the 6000 church members to come from there. Again, it isn't that big of a thing for a large number of people from outside of the village to go to a "local" church there. The population of the district where it's located is over 2 million. So it getting 6000 people going there isn't really that surprising. Anyway, that aside, IMO this should be merged or redirected to the article for the diocese. Since the references are pretty lackluster. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the parish per above. Notability of organizations is determined by how much has been written about them in reliable independent secondary sources. It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers. Peterkingiron, votes that simply state your opinion without any arguments to policy or sources are disregarded when closing an AfD discussion. 184.99.109.101 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as multiple articles by Asia News already in the article so passing WP:GNG. This seems to be a notable parish running six schools and a medical centre, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To be honest, I was ready to go along with deletion, but then saw it's been covered in the media over the years for both religious and secular reasons. It's also notable for its large congregation, the riots by other religious adherents, and programs. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on WP:GNG as required by WP:NCHURCH yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traedonya Chequelle

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

First nominated for deletion in 2013, outcome was no consensus. It appears to me that this musician doesn't quite meet WP:MUSICBIO, so let's re-evaluate. This article, brought up in the previous AfD, could be significant coverage, but 1. it's not clear to me how notable this magazine is and 2. the piece seems pretty promotional in nature, so not sure about it. This article is about a group she was/is in (and which I can't find much else about), not about Traedonya individually. Apart from this, nothing beyond coverage in unreliable sources or passing mentions has been produced by either my own searches or the previous AfD. Lennart97 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a lot of articles from not so reliable sources, but nothing picked up by a major reliable source that would really contribute to notability. Just for completeness I'm going to dump some of the sources here, in case anyone wants to assess to see if they think they're more reliable than I do. [34] [35] [36] [37] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real coverage, no fans, no plays, no streaming, no social media. scope_creep^Talk 11:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Young

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

Unknown actor with no references nor notable acting roles. I could not find any independent, reliable coverage but, as is, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. BriefEdits (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My WP:BEFORE has shown no coverage in IRS. A bunch of user generated sources only. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR - he may have had a few roles but none can be considered significant. Less Unless (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like he's actually been in quite a few shows and movies, but never as a large role. I'm seeing him mentioned as being in a new movie but again it's just a mention of his name. Not able to find anything actually discussing him. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the significant role rule is violated. Plus articles need reliable sources, MySpace and IMDb are both not at all reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since he played a recurring character on Family Matters, which was a hit TV show in its day. However the sourcing is atrocious. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kym Gold: Notability aside, searches do not return wp:reliable sources that can be used to satisfy wp:verifiability, which is part of a core policy. Redirecting to the subject's (former?) spouse ({{R from spouse}}) as a WP:ATD-R. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ΜC++

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

No independent sources reference MC++; all cited articles and chapters are written by P.A. Buhr, the author of the language. Appears to be self-promotion, WP:PROMOTION Mathnerd3141 (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article title is only "MC++" because Wikipedia does not permit article names to begin with lowercase. That is not actually the name of the subject, if one is looking for sources. Uncle G (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only substantial coverage of μC++ / uC++ is written by the main creator of the project or students supervised by him, and so this would not meet the requirement for WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the name of the article being MC++: I also did look for uC++ and μC++, neither of which yielded any independent sources - all sources are either directly written by the professor or by one of his students. Mathnerd3141 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Celebrity Family Feud episodes

AfDs for this article:

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

List of celebrities who have competed on a game show. There is no precedent whatsoever for doing this for a game show; unlike a reality show or otherwise episodic competition like The Amazing Race, there is no continuity arc where a list of episodes would even be necessary, nor any "plot" to make a synopsis of. (Indeed, this is the only game show shoehorned into Category:Lists of American reality television series episodes.)

Every source in the article is either a press release about the show, unreliable self-published blogs about game shows, or wayback links to TV by the Numbers to confirm the viewer data. There is literally zero possibility of an individual episode of a game show having noteworthy production data or any other notability that would require a list of this nature. It'd be like having List of Jeopardy! episodes.

ETA: This was previously kept in August 2020, but that AFD consisted entirely of one WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that three other people ditto'd without going into detail.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A nationally aired series of its own distinct from the daytime version (which I would agree would be a 'kill with fire' type of article) with a common WP:TV episode list which just happens to link-out to the contestants for each episode, and well-sourced but not so broad it's down to the questions and scores of each game in each episode (which was the rationale of the first nom and I immediately disproved). This list is not unusual compared to other primetime series, and it took me a mere three minutes to fix the category issue by adding much more fitting cats. If anyone had any objections to my linking out to the contestants, there were plenty more days in the nom and my own talk page after where they could have told me not to do so. And I do disagree that all three vote!s after me just 'per Nate'd my rationale; they had their own unique reasons for a keep. Nate • (chatter) 02:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The entries of a list do not need to be individually notable. Just the opposite: we commonly have lists "explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles" (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists). When episode lists are too long to fit in the main article about the show, breaking it off to a separate page is standard.

The idea of requiring a continuity arc or plot synopses is too overfitted to particular genres. A more appropriate standard is whether the information distinguishing the episodes is of interest from an outside-the-fandom ("out of universe") perspective. Under this standard, a list of Celebrity Family Feud episodes is appropriate (showing who the celebrities are, which is meaningful even to readers browsing or searching and aren't watching the show). Listing The Colbert Report episodes is similarly appropriate (significant guests). An episode list with brief plot summaries for a plot-driven show is appropriate. A list of Family Feud or Jeopardy! episodes is inappropriate (the contestants and events mean almost nothing externally). Same for Judge Judy. These are just for illustration; please don't nitpick the choice of examples. I acknowledge that my criterion is not established policy: There really are no clearly established criteria, reflected by the reality that these list-of-episodes AfDs have been disputed routinely, case-by-case. Whatever the right criteria are, having an overarching narrative to chronicle is the wrong place to draw the line. Adumbrativus (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So by your logic, why would regular Family Feud not deserve a list, but the celebrity version does? There is no substantial difference in the games. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list shows who the celebrities are, which, as I explained, distinguishes the episodes meaningfully to readers reading about the show and has "outside-the-fandom"/"out-of-universe" significance. It's a central element of the show. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.... not sure why this article should remain after these others were summarily deleted:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? UK episodes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hollywood Game Night episodes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal Special shows

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Figure It Out episodes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BrainSurge episodes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My Family's Got Guts episodes

The only thing this article has for verification, of anysort, is archived TV ratings. Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As pointed out in the first nom, this doesn't match those articles, which were deleted due to finite detail with questions and game results. This merely has episode titles which just happen to link to the 'families' playing in each game. The entire point of the series is that celebrities are playing the game. Nate • (chatter) 17:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Individual episodes of a normal game show will be indistinguishably non-notable, but a celebrity edition is defined by the notability of the celebrities appearing on each individual episode. BD2412 T 23:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is a large amount of discussion, it does not indicate that substantial quantities of reference material are available about this individual. This result should not be considered prejudicial against recreation should such material be in fact located in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rumney

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

The only sources I can find are artwork, thus making this person not WP:NOTEWORTHY JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 19:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:NAFL. The-Pope (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NAFL only presumes notability; it looks like he fails GNG so not actually notable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

The article unambiguously satisfies WP:NAFL. Yes, this isn't a guarantee of notability. However, it does indicate that it would be unusual for the article to fail GNG, and thus puts more responsibility on the nominator to conduct a thorough check for sources.
Many entries in the The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers are substantive and Rumney's entry may well qualify as a source contributing to a GNG pass. Yes, it won't satisfy GNG on its own, but it's another sign that a pre-AfD source check should be more thorough than usual – just one more good-quality source would be enough to shut down a nomination.
Rumney's career occurred in the pre-Internet era and thus sources are much more likely to be offline, inaccessible from a quick Google search. Again, this doesn't prove such sources do exist, but it's another reason to avoid jumping to conclusions if Google doesn't turn up many results.
I'm unconvinced JTZegers has actually carried out a proper check for sources before nominating this article. A check of his contributions reveals he was preparing another AfD nomination on a completely different subject (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Forbes) beforehand, and apparently managed to become fully familiar with the notability guidelines for the AFL subject area, carefully evaluate the existing sources in the article, complete a thorough search for sources not in the article, and finally write and post a nomination statement in less than ten minutes. This is simply not plausible; the more likely explanation is that one or more of these components were badly rushed.

In JTZegers' nomination statement, he's also made reference to a completely irrelevant section of the notability guideline (WP:NOTEWORTHY, which discusses notability exemptions for content within articles or lists) and said his search results only turned up artwork – neglecting to mention these results are about a completely different Peter Rumney, who is an English artist, not an Australian footballer. Coupled with the remarkably quick time his research apparently took, it gives the impression that the extent of his pre-nomination search was to glance at the first page of Google's results for "Peter Rumney" and nothing else.

In summary, there are strong factors that suggest Rumney is notable, strong factors that suggest the nominator's search for sources was shallow at best, and strong factors that suggest such a shallow search would not be adequate to find GNG-satisfying sources if they did exist. – Teratix ₵ 06:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teratix Ok, but AfD is where you need to prove GNG sources exist (or at least demonstrate existence of a specific offline source that is highly likely to cover him). Continuing to pass along the burden of establishing notability to hypothetical future editors is not helping to build the encyclopedia. My own search uncovered literally nothing outside of a couple databases where the extent of biographical information is identical to that of our article. Presumption should go both ways: just as you can presume sources exist somewhere requiring offline access, you can also presume entities that have both access to those sources and a strong incentive to publish the information therein will do so. For example, Australianfootball.com explicitly uses The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers as a source for many of their profiles; if there was substantive content on Rumney there surely it would appear on a site dedicated to documenting historical Australian footballers? Additionally, they say Acknowledgement is due to the wonderful project that is Trove, the National Library of Australia's (NLA) initiative to digitize and make accessible online its vast repository of content, most notably newspapers and magazines. Hidden within that inventory is a literal ‘Treasure Trove’ of material relating to the history of Australian football, and AF has made and will continue to make use of this material to provide as comprehensive a record of the game’s past as is practicable. Clearly they are actively tracking down offline local contemporaneous news coverage as well, so if all they can find on this person is what is contained on his profile then SIGCOV emphatically does not exist. JoelleJay (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as someone with zero background in Australian football, it took only 15 minutes for me to make the above determination. JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption does not go both ways. Claiming Rumney isn't notable because AustralianFootball.com hasn't expanded his profile is akin to claiming Luke Shuey isn't notable because The New York Times hasn't written an article about him – an absence of significant coverage in one particular source does not equate to an absence of significant coverage everywhere. AustralianFootball.com repeatedly states that it's a work in progress, not a finished product, so it's unreasonable to assume the content in Rumney's current profile is all they can find. It's more likely that Rumney is not a particularly high priority for research; he's not a conspicuously famous player, and it's also not at all unusual for footballers' profiles on the site to have little content beyond basic statistics.

AfD is where you need to prove GNG sources exist (or at least demonstrate existence of a specific offline source that is highly likely to cover him). This is not true. All I need to show is that, given a reasonable amount of time, there is strong reason to think GNG-satisfying sources will emerge. (WP:NSPORTS FAQ #1) I don't necessarily need to prove they exist. Nor do I necessarily need to reference a specific source that is likely to satisfy GNG – although I did, in fact, reference Rumney's entry in The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers as such a source in my initial statement. – Teratix ₵ 08:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianFootball.com is a resource specifically dedicated to profiling every AFL footballer -- Rumney's lack of content in it is not at all comparable to an AFL player's lack of coverage by the NYT. FAQ #1 says very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. There is not a very strong reason to believe these sources exist. That he's included in a book purporting to [list] every footballer who has played the game at the elite level since the competition's first season does not suggest he has SIGCOV there (he played 5 games and scored 0 goals...why would they give nontrivial background on him??). The article has been around over 5 years; how long do we have to wait before his lack of GNG-meeting coverage is acknowledged? Many, many newspapers in Australia have been digitized and are free to search on trove.nla.gov.au (I got 171,001 hits spanning from 1850 to 2015 for newspaper articles containing both "football" and "Kilda"; 1,585 are from 1958 to 1975; and 174 from 1968 and 1969). Since a search for newspapers containing all of "Peter" "Rumney" "football" and "Kilda" from between 1958 and 1975 returned zero hits, are we just to assume that Trove just hasn't gotten around to digitizing the particular local newspapers that might have profiled him? If I flew to Australia and physically looked at the paper newspaper archives and didn't find anything, would the assumption now be that his SIGCOV was just never archived? At what point can we agree he isn't notable? JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My NYT analogy was solely an illustration of why it's inappropriate to treat lack of significant coverage in one particular source as lack of significant coverage everywhere. Replace NYT with the ABC, AFL.com.au, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian etc. if it makes the analogy easier to understand, or ignore the analogy entirely if it means you can better comprehend my point.

why would they give nontrivial background on him? Because he's played Australian rules football at an elite level with a prominent club, the very type of person that the encyclopedia is aiming to document?

are we just to assume that Trove just hasn't gotten around to digitizing the particular local newspapers that might have profiled him? Trove is a useful resource for digitised content, but it has limitations. Many newspapers published post-1954 are still in copyright and are thus not available through its online search because Trove hasn't made an agreement with the copyright holder. For example, The Age, a prominent Victorian newspaper that covered 1960s football, is only digitised up to 1954, and thus its coverage of Rumney would not appear on Trove. (Didn't the fact that only one Victorian publication appeared in your search for articles on a prominent Victorian club across 1958-1975 – a seventeen-year period – raise any red flags?)

The article has been around over 5 years; how long do we have to wait before his lack of GNG-meeting coverage is acknowledged? Well, NSPORTS FAQ #4 explains that editors have been "very liberal in allowing for adequate time" since Wikipedia lacks deadlines. It's not as if the article contains any unsourced or false content that urgently needs to be addressed.

If I flew to Australia and physically looked at the paper newspaper archives and didn't find anything, would the assumption now be that his SIGCOV was just never archived? No, that would be ridiculous; in that case, Rumney would have been definitely shown to fail GNG. – Teratix ₵ 00:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My NYT analogy was solely an illustration of why it's inappropriate to treat lack of significant coverage in one particular source as lack of significant coverage everywhere. My point is the NYT or any other newspaper isn't expected to profile AFL players, especially not in any detail, whereas that's literally the whole purpose of the AF website.

Because he's played Australian rules football at an elite level with a prominent club, the very type of person that the encyclopedia is aiming to document? Why is this argument valid for assuming coverage in the Encyclopedia but not for assuming there would be coverage on the AF website? AF would have even more reason to include details since they aren't publishing a physical book. And anyway, as far as I can tell only prominent V/AFL players are given more than a brief summary of their stats in the Encyclopedia; considering there were around 500 players just between 1968 and 1970 (and 42 from St Kilda alone) who appeared in more games I'm going to guess Rumney is not the subject of an extensive biography.

What kind of SIGCOV is even expected in The Age? Everything I've seen there from my institutional access has been fully routine match reports, with barely a sentence dedicated to a single player and certainly nothing that could even partially contribute to GNG. For example: July 26, 1968: "Rumney, who played his first game last week, has gone back to the reserves." The longest mention I could find was this from March 13, 1967: "Two 17-year-old recruits, Peter Rumney, from Brighton, and Jim O'Dea, Noble Park, gave displays that suggested both could make a strong bid for places on the St. Kilda list this season. Rumney, at centre half-back, had the call over Jack Austin, and O'Dea was far too good on a half-back flank for State amateur forward Geoff Ward." I am still far from convinced this person received sufficient attention to achieve notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that's literally the whole purpose of the AF website. Just because AustralianFootball.com has the stated purpose of providing fully detailed profiles of top-level Australian rules footballers, it does not follow that the current state of every player's profile reflects the full extent of information available – because the site is a work in progress. Much like the purpose of Wikipedia's articles is to cover all notable subjects, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a subject lacking an article is not notable – because the site is a work in progress.

Why is this argument valid for assuming coverage in the Encyclopedia but not for assuming there would be coverage on the AF website? I've never claimed that we should assume Rumney is significantly covered in the Encylopedia. I've merely said that, considering the nature of the publication, there is a reasonable possibility that he is, and we should not assume he is not covered without actually consulting the source. Sure, Rumney very probably won't have a multi-page, intricately detailed biography, but there's a reasonable possibility the coverage will satisfy GNG.

Thanks for checking out those excerpts from The Age. You might not think much of them, but in my view they're genuinely useful for expanding the article and showing Rumney meets GNG. Take the March 1967 excerpt: it gives Rumney's original club, it explains his position, it gives the author's opinion on not only Rumney's performance but also his future footballing prospects – the sort of analysis that goes beyond the routine. It mentions Rumney "had the call" over his opponent Jack Austin – I can't read the full article for context, but that seems likely to be Jack L. Austin, who had played top-level VFL football for St Kilda in 1966 – so Rumney was outplaying footballers with VFL experience at the age of 17, which seems to be highly significant! And that's just one excerpt. – Teratix ₵ 09:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I suppose I can see your earlier points. However, the coverage in The Age is definitely not significant...if that's the benchmark sports editors are using for meeting GNG it is waaaay off from that of any other biographies. JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you assert it isn't significant, but I have pointed out that it contains quite a bit of salient information and non-routine analysis despite its brevity. In any case, it can at least be taken as an indication that coverage of Rumney seems to become increasingly significant as our search goes deeper. – Teratix ₵ 04:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then what other newspapers will actually contain SIGCOV? What sources are used for other players from his time period? JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)'[reply]

(This question assumes that the extracts from The Age are not SIGCOV, a claim you have not actually made any arguments for beyond bare assertions). Any other Victorian newspaper that covered 1960s football (e.g. The Sun News-Pictorial) or a football-specific publication such as the Football Record. (I usually edit Australian rules football articles that are closer to the modern era, so I'm not sure of an exhaustive list). – Teratix ₵ 05:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Age extracts are all 1 or 2 sentences describing his contribution to a particular match, or remarks on the prospects of a team after acquiring a slate of recruits. None of them are direct, in-depth discussions about Rumney or his background. This and this are the sorts of article considered SIGCOV. See also this AfD on a Norwegian footballer whose combined coverage here, here, and here was deemed "just about sufficient ... to satisfy GNG". Another Norwegian footballer similarly scraped by with what was considered in-depth coverage but with the caveat of it being local. The profiles of Bill Barrot in The Age from 1 May 1968, 16 and 19 April 1971, and 23 July 1975 would also very likely contribute -- note that in each of these there are 15+ hits for "Barrot" within the article. In contrast, you can see a search for "Rumney" between 1965 and 1980 in Australia returns no articles with more than 5 hits (all of them about other Rumneys), and the most Peter receives is 3 (in two articles, the one I quoted from 26 July 1968, and another mentioning his playing amateur for Prahran in 1973). All the rest have 1 or 2 hits (one from SMH reveals Harold Rumney is his father, which is interesting but does not contribute to notability whatsoever). JoelleJay (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment (already voted above), and many will say "so what", "notability isn't inherited" or "other stuff exists" to it. 13881 players have played in the AFL/VFL since 1897. We have articles on every single one of them. About 3400 played 5 games or less (Rumney played 5). I know this is probably just a red flag to the deletionists to think they've got a lot more of these to do, but isn't there any benefit to having full sets? No redlinks? Are we really going to spend the next few years slowly undoing a decades worth of work? They will never digitise every newspaper from every era. We'll never be able to read every club history book or game day program. That's why we have the SNGs. That's why we presume notability if it can be proven they reached a certain level. It will be a sad day if the full set is broken up. The-Pope (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The-Pope, why not curate them in lists with redirects? A large proportion of those players will never have any further information added to their stubs that couldn't easily be contained in a list or football club table -- what difference does it make if someone searching a name is redirected to an appropriate page where they would get the same details? The same data are also already available on multiple other sites and books, so it's not like we are providing novel content or context. If the only thing that can be verified about a person is statistics, then having a standalone article on them makes us indistinguishable from a directory. JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's been done, it does no harm, it provides an opportunity for anyone to add information later, and our coverage of early-mid 20th century topics is poor, and will only get worse if we rely on the minimal digitised papers from the day. Why destroy it? A couple of examples. Don Fergusson, was an Olympic rower, but not a medal winner, so he had a page created. I came across it because it was in a death category on en.wikipedia, but no death date was recorded in wikidata. Looking into it, I found we had his surname spelled incorrectly and he actually became a police deputy commissioner whose suicide was front page news in 1970. Ian Mathers is another few game footballer, who, because he had a page due to that, I was able to find and add that he was highly regarded, including national awards, for leading brass bands. I'm here to provide information. Why are you here? The-Pope (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These stubs aren't being "destroyed" when the exact same information is contained in a list. There are plenty of people who expand articles out of list items and would not need to randomly come across a standalone page to do so. And anyway, the examples you provide would survive AfD because coverage could be found. I've searched the newspapers from Victoria for SIGCOV of Rumney and it doesn't exist, despite ample coverage of other St. Kilda players from the same seasons. This article can be redirected to one of the St. Kilda lists/tables, making it more navigable and easier to contextualize for anyone searching for him. WP:DIRECTORY, WP:BLP, and WP:N all apply here -- which policies and guidelines support keeping this stub? Is there any justification for WP:IAR beyond WP:NOHARM? JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Hansraj Modern School

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

No notability , no notable alumni and no sources provided. Princepratap1234 (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are zero references out there about the school and the article has been heavily edited by SPA accounts in a promotional tone. So, deleting the article seems like the only sane thing to do. Unless someone can come up with WP:THREE in-depth, independent references. I'd be more then happy to change my vote to keep if anyone can. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler (German singer)

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

The subject of the article was to represent Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020, which was canceled due to COVID-19. Typically competing in Eurovision makes the participant notable per WP:NMUSIC #10 and #12, but since the contest was canceled, these criterion were not met. A recent move of this article to a third stage name in just over a year, makes me believe this artist is not yet established enough to have an article. All sources about previous potentially notable activities are summary points in Eurovision articles, while the newer information is only WP:PRIMARY, specifically Instagram. It is possible that once established as an artist with a stable stage name that he may be "notable" enough for Wikipedia, but I don't believe that is the case right now or in the near future. Grk1011 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Good sourcing as well. Has been involved in several notable singing events. BabbaQ (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

In my opinion, the only reason to keep his profile is due to his Eurovision 2020 selection and his appearance on Eurovision: Europe Shine a Light. Though his other achievements (The Voice of Germany, New Wave) add to his biography. If he is not deemed noteworthy enough to have his own article, he could have a section in Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020, simular to what is done for Junior Eurovision acts. GoldenSubtle (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. For me, the most blatant indicator that he is not yet notable is the inability to pick a stage name. Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 already contains a few sentences about his background prior to the contest. Subsequent activities are either lacking or non-notable. There really isn't much left to add to his biography at this stage, though he may do things in the future that would establish his Wikipedia notability. Grk1011 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reinsert a mention elsewhere. I could not agree with GoldenSubtle's observation more. The article itself was created in November 2019 with the justification thus: "Cypriotic singer that will represent his country in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020". Sadly did not prove to be the case. Also not invited back by CyBC to represent Cyprus, Germany or any other nation in 2021. Sadly this article fails any form of significance. Not released any albums or toured internationally? Section number 10 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles within WP:NMUSIC is the only valid clause of inclusion, and that, as GoldenSubtle has already mentioned, is elsewhere.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the reasons given above. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, I have changed my opinion after what I have just read, as the singer is not yet notable enough to warrant an article, but that could change in time. Is there any article that this can be merged with? If so please merge with whatever this can be merged with. If there isn't anything that it can be merged with then for now it should be deleted. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced, passes WP:GNG. The whole "he can't choose a stage name so he's not notable" is quite honestly irrelevant, given we've got multiple artists on Wikipedia who've changed their stage name frequently. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Changing my !vote to Strong Keep per sourced inclusion of his participation in Eurovision: Europe Shine a Light in front of millions of viewers. clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC point 1, 10 and 12. Good sourcing as well. Has been involved in several notable singing events, which are all sourced. BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have not changed my stance with Keep for this article. His appearance in several high rated television events like Eurovision:Europe Shine A Light that was broadcast throughout Europe, Australia and parts of the Middle East last year is notable per WP:NMUSIC point 1, 10 and 12. His appearances in The Voice and New Wave competitions further strenghtens his notability beyond WP:GNG as well. BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not appear to be met. There are no sources in the article that cover the artist in significant detail (his song/entry, yes). The subsequent events you mention are more "Sandro appeared for Cyprus at the event". They are not sources about the subject, but merely trivial mentions. After his failed Eurovision appearance, there is no more reliable information, with everything coming from self-published sources. The last line of the GNG reads If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article and that is what I did when bringing both Running and Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 to WP:Good Article status. As someone who has already deeply researched this topic, I honestly don't feel that there is much room for expansion, nor do I find a standalone article very useful. All of his notable events are tied to Eurovision thus far and it makes sense that the Eurovision articles (song and entry) be the location for that information. Grk1011 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience

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

This is essentially a promotional wen page for the organization. I have not been able to find references that meet WP:NCORP. I recognize that intuitively it ought to be considered important, DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, but consider reinstating if the author adds some appropriate sources. It's not ipso facto non-notable. Athel cb (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article needs references but that does not mean it should be deleted. A cursory google search shows multiple references to work carried out in the centre and published this year in reputable sources like Scientific American, Psychology Today, and EurekAlert!Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other language article does not add much in the way of references or claims of notability but a google book search returns a plethora of places they subject is used as a reference one of many examples Jeepday (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NORG (the relevant guideline) and the WP:GNG. I'm a bit puzzled about this nomination. The Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, its predecessors, and their research have been covered extensively by Dutch national media since 1904. As it is affiliated with the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, a case could be made to merge a shorter article into the parent. But this article isn't short. Next, it's absolutely fine for the nominator and the first respondent not to be great in source research in a foreign language and in a foreign country. I'm 100% with them! I do not understand how that becomes an AfD or support for an AfD. gidonb (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I seriously wonder whether a WP:BEFORE has been performed, because a simple search produces an endless amount of academic journals, CNN, NPR, The Lancet. Indeed the current article is not well referenced, and even forgot it's native name which produces an equally impressive list of search results. The institute meets WP:GNG, WP:NORG without any problems.

Also four national Dutch newspapers use this institute as a tag de Volkskrant: [38] De Telegraaf: [39] Trouw: [40] & Parool: [41] That only should meet GNG if national newspapers tag all the article from one organisation. KittenKlub (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG, there are enough sources present. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristides_M._Tsatsakis

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aristides M. Tsatsakis

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

This reads like a resume. It lists accomplishments with no citations, and it was created by a single user who is no longer active. This smacks of self-promotion DigitalPants (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree, it seems it lacks notability.~~ Cinadon36 04:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I share the concerns of the nominator on the promotional tone, Tsatsakis easily passes NACADEMIC. He doesn't have a google scholar profile, but his h-index is well over 20 which possibly satisfies criterion #1. Looking at his cv, he is academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences and member of The World Academy of Sciences, which would satisfy criterion #3. He is also ex-president / honorary president of several societies, which may satisfy criterion #6. He is RIFM Managing Editor (which isn't chief editor, unsure of scope) at Food and Chemical Toxicology and chief editor of Toxicology Reports, I am not sure this satisfies criterion #8, but it may. To summarize while the article could use cleanup, Tsatsakis passes academic notability.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are borderline though. H index doesnt translate to "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". I would like to see a published article making that claim. Same goes for cr #3. Cinadon36 08:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are the normal way to judge impact in a scholarly discipline (Semantic Scholar has him with an h-index of 29 (in an un-managed profile, which may be incomplete), Google Scholar has him at 72, his publications in Greek and Russian complicate searching for his name - google scholar gives better results with the Greek name (Αριστείδης Τσατσάκης) for an odd reason even though the publications are mostly English). Being a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the The World Academy of Sciences is a very clear pass of WP:NACADEMIC#3, and is not borderline at all.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, per Eostrix. Nothing "borderline" here, clearly passes WP:PROF on multiple grounds, including having h-index of 72, and multiple significant honors and awards (WP:PROF#C1). Being a full member of the the Russian Academy of Sciences also clearly qualifies under WP:PROF#C3. The article does need some cleanup but WP:DINC. Nsk92 (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per GS he has an h index of 72 and 22509 citations. Clearly passes WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 13:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Scopus gives him 15058 citations and an h-index of 58. JoelleJay (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:NPROF. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on awards and honors, meets WP:PROF. Webmaster862 (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep convinced by the arguments of @Eostrix: and others.Cinadon 36 06:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record looks strong but membership in RAS seems a more clear-cut way of determining this to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Juma Al Majid

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

Page has had multiple tags since 2016. I find no substantial coverage of the subject in English-language RS. There is nothing to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search in Arabic produces zilch. Mccapra (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of incurable diseases

AfDs for this article:

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

Nearly the same problems as with the previous version that was deleted by consensus – an absolutely pointless grab-bag of medical conditions, to quote Jfdwolff. The term "incurable" is not defined at all (violating WP:LISTCRITERIA). The definitions are not aligned with disease articles, some entries have attracted doubtful medical advice from drive-by editors.

Also worth keeping in mind that upwards of 95% of the 7,000+ known diseases have not only no cure but even no approved treatment, so the purpose of this article is not at all clear. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "an absolutely pointless grab-bag of medical conditions," as stated above for a previous version Athel cb (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated. Would be better as a category. AdoTang (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. That's an excellent suggestion (if someone wants to implement it). Athel cb (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My views on the matter are unchanged. JFW | T@lk 16:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The list seems unnecessary, listing these diseases in categories will be encouraged. Iflaq ^(talk) 11:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Rename List of diseases that there is currently no cure for. This is a perfectly valid list article, groups things in a logical manner, and adds in navigation, plus provides additional information. Dream Focus 18:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider a cure for a disease caused by a gene mutation? A therapy that alleviates the symptoms but must be taken for life? A therapy that repairs the mutated gene? Can you define cure? What if a treatment does away with all symptoms in some patients but not in others? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of diseases exist and groups everything into other lists. Better way to sort things than this list. Dream Focus 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple ways to classify diseases, proteins, and other biological entities. They are not alternative classifications, but rather classifications based on different properties of objects. This is normal. Yes, some classifications are better and more scientifically justified than others. Yes, this is not one of these better classifications. Nevertheless, such list/way of classification has every right to exist in WP context simply because it is based on terminology widely used in scientific literature (see Google Scholar links in my comment below). My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are entire classes of diseases, such as the many thousands of genetic disorders, that cannot be cured, or sometimes even treated, with current technology. The scope of the list is unclear as well, since we do not define what is a cure or what is a disease. Standards were much lower in 2010, when the last AfD closed as delete, so it is unlikely that will change this time. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is merely a list. It's no threat to providing quality accurate information to the public. If any rules exist within Wikipedia which would make this list article inappropriate, I still advocate for keeping it per WP:BRAR. --Greysonsarch (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This "category" of diseases simply has no scientific justification. One can reasonably argue that even many genetic disorders are treatable and therefore in a reasonable sense are curable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to List of terminal illnesses Given that the terminology, i.e the "incurable diseases" was widely used in literature (see Google Scholar, see also untreatable disease), one can justify the existence of such list, assuming that inclusion of every item was sourced. Even though this is not a scientifically solid terminology and not a part of any solid classification of diseases (I think). My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Google Scholar search is an actual argument against this list. If one checks the first page of search results for "incurable" and "untreatable diseases" (note that these don't mean the same thing), they mostly come across conditions that wouldn't make it to the list in question, either because the term is used to describe incurable cases: cases or forms or subsets of diseases that are incurable, not actual, self-contained diseases (unresectable brain metastases are incurable, but they do not constitute a "disease"); or because the disease in question was untreatable in former eras of medicine; or because it refers to diseases that cannot be eradicated, yet are treatable. This highlights another problem of the list, how many different definitions of "incurable" one can work with. An essay on the subject proposes as a test for the legitimacy of a list of X the question "if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article". No such article as "Incurable disease" exists - and I would propose its deletion if it did - because it would have to cover so many definitions of the term that the article would lose its meaning, becoming something of a chimera article. Medical literature can indeed describe a disease as incurable, but there is not such thing as the study of incurable diseases, or a book on it, as it is an extremely diverse topic. There is no actual question that this list answers. NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, there are multiple definitions, disagreements between sources if something was incurable, it can be incurable only for certain patients, etc. This is not a scientifically solid terminology I think. But so are many other subjects in medicine and humanities. This does not invalidate such subjects as long as they have been described in multiple RS. Consider Definition of terrorism for example. I think that a page on the general subject of incurable disease would be legitimate simply because it was described as a coherent subject in multiple RS (a couple of examples from 1st page of Google scholar search: [42], [43]), hence this would not be WP:COATRACK. This is a well known term in medical literature. Only that matters. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Scholar links you offered focus on the question of care to patients who suffer from an incurable condition; they don't claim that certain diseases are, and others are not, incurable. Moreover, it must be noted that the authors of both are experts in nursing, not in disease classification or treatments. If you want to contribute links to academic articles, they should expressly mention that "disease X" is incurable. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is possibly not a classification at all. This is just a terminology, and yes, it seems to be more frequently used in nursing. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give more time for the ongoing discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A more complete list could be made of "incurable" diseases that have been cured. BD2412 T 14:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a list of "incurable" diseases that have been cured. Yes, I think that could be an interesting and legitimate list. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the exception of some infectious diseases, and a small number of medical conditions that can be corrected by surgical means, the vast majority of medical conditions are essentially incurable. They can often be treated, and this is why we have an ever growing list of pharmaceutical drugs that are discovered to treat various conditions. This makes it rather non-notable that a disease is incurable. The general role of a physician is to reduce suffering and improve a patient's ability to engage in acts of daily living. If this can be done by curing the cause of an ailment, all the better, but "curing" the patient is not actually a physician's primary goal. One difficulty with medical articles is that the general Wikipedia guidelines are not very useful (this is why we have MEDRS, for example). In this case, basic medical practice is more useful than any Wikipedia guideline, and there is very little notable about the fact that a disease cannot be cured. More relevant statuses might be whether it is likely to be terminal, whether there are available treatments, whether the patient will be capable of basic ADLs with or without treatment, etc. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the vast majority of medical conditions are essentially incurable. Not sure if this is majority, but definitely a lot. But I do not see how this is an argument for deletion. Terminal conditions - yes, that would also make sense. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that a disease being "incurable" is not really notable. Many "incurable" diseases can be treated to the point that they are more or less "cured" so long as treatment continues. Even then, it depends on the patient, for example with epilepsy some patients may take anticonvulsant medication and never have another seizure, others may require surgical intervention, and some will eventually die either directly (status ep, SUDEP) or indirectly (drowning, falls) from the condition. Many psychiatric conditions can be treated with medication and the patients can have otherwise normal lives, other patients may see symptom reduction but still experience some disability, others may stop taking their medications due to anosognosia. Many endocrine conditions are simply a matter of hormone replacement therapy (insulin, glutocorticoids, etc) to make up for an insufficiency, by replacing the function of an organ with a daily pill or injection, the patient's blood levels return to normal, are they "cured"? The very concept of "cure" is somewhat irrelevant, and usually you only see it in infectious disease (occasionally), and in so-called "alternative medicine". Hyperion35 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually agree. I can not say how notable it might be beyond the fact it appears in many references, etc. This is the reason I initially voted "delete". But my point is simply this: if the term (and this is really just a term, not a classification) was used in multiple WP:MEDRS sources (like [44]), there is nothing wrong with creating such list. This is just a reference work. The only valid argument here is this: defining specific items of the list may be difficult. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was precisely the key reason of my nomination: that the definition of cure is (unavoidably) so imprecise that the article runs afoul of WP:LISTCRIT. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is something poorly defined, just as many other things in medicine, humanities, etc. This is not anything "unambiguous" or "objective", I agree. But I would rather suggest to rename to List of terminal illnesses. Indeed, this term term appears in dictionaries as terminal illness - [45], which a much better established terminology. If health departments of governments have such lists [46] (in relation to treatments and care towards the end of patient's life), I do not see a compelling reason why we can not have such list. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? Most of these conditions are not terminal illnesses. Definitions in medicine are very important, and they are sometimes very different from how they are used in everyday English, and ambiguity is to be avoided at all costs. Terminal illnesses are more than just incurable conditions. Many incurable conditions will continue throughout the patient's life, but they are not terminal and unlikely to result in death. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to pay close attention to definitions in medicine and recognize that there is a great body of knowledge required to interpret them. I am perfectly capable of reading and writing medical regulations, for example, but as a non-clinician I regularly consult with our CMO's office for clarification on clinical terminology.

So there are two issues that collide here, one is that medicine is complicated and so it is difficult to make simple and unambiguous statements. The other issue is that in medicine precision is essential and ambiguity is to be avoided, it can even be dangerous. This creates all sorts of problems when writing an encyclopedia that is accessible to the average non-expert. Overly broad presentations of information can be ambiguous and incorrect to the point that it can be worse than not presenting that information at all. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Hyperion. It's not only that terminal is something entirely different than incurable, but illness alone is not the same as disease. A terminal illness is something wholly, entirely, fundamentally different than an incurable disease.

As you conflate two completely different terms, it feels that you are not very familiar with medical terminology and so I suggest we end our discussion here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian list you linked only gives examples of medical conditions where patients may require care at the advanced (terminal) stage of the disease. This does not mean that they are terminal conditions; only, that these conditions may have a terminal stage that necesitates specialised end-of-life care. Hope it clarifies. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I am not an expert in medical terminology. According to our page terminal illness, Terminal illness or end-stage disease is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient. Yes, that is what I thought, an end-stage disease that can not be cured. My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article is quite bad, and the definition given in the lead section is unsourced. The Talk contains a fairly good definition by the DWP (UK): A condition that is 'reasonably expected' to result in the death of the patient within a relatively short period of time, whether medical treatment is received or not. Also, this study discusses the various definition found in the literature.

For the avoidance of doubt, such diseases as cold sores and dandruff are incurable but, hope you agree, they can hardly be called terminal conditions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. I thought that the current list would have to be significantly changed if renamed. This is not the same. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of programs broadcast by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. Sandstein 10:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herreavdelingen

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

I prodded it with "No evidence this radio program passes WP:NMEDIA/GNG.". User:The Banner replaced it with a merge proposal. A year has passed, and the merge discussion at Talk:NRK#Merge_from_Herreavdelingen_and_Norsktoppen did not produce a consensus for merge, and one editor (IP...) even voted 'delete' there. Ping merge participants: can this be rescued or not? User:Klbrain, User:Geschichte, User:BengkelBerkah05. I'll add that my BEFORE does not find any coverage in English, and the interwikid Norwegian article is longer but also rather poorly referenced. PS. The anon did make an interesting point that List of programs broadcast by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation is currently about television channels only, but if were to redefine it to radio and TV, it would make for a better merge candidate... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of programs broadcast by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation It was too short for an article. BengkelBerkah05 (Talks/Contribs) 04:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of programs broadcast by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation It was too short for an article but too notable for utter destruction. The Banner talk 08:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Saary

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

I found no notability per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. T.B.A. (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. No sigcov about her, therefore she fails the GNG, plus nothing points to WP:JOURNALIST either. PK650 (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe our first go around of heavy deletion of weather forecaster articles was back in 2006. I think it did not work well then, because that was before we had fully formulated notability guidelines. However we clearly need indepdent sourcing, not just staff bios. Or in this case, one staff bio. Just because someone appears on TV does not mean they are notable. There may be some female weather forecasters who actually get significant levels of coverage, either for weather forecasting, or maybe in some cases in some warped way as sex symbols, but that does not seem to be the case in either way for Saary. I have to admit I still think the biography of Sonny Eliott should not have been deleted, he was a known person in Metro Detroit who made his name with a very colorful way of reporting the weather on the radio. The only other weather person I can think of off the top of my head is Amy Freeze, who I actually first learned about from readin an article in BYU magazine about how her and her husband (since divorced, but they were still married at the time) met because she was a BYU cheer leader and he was Cosmo the Cougar. There are several sources on that article but I am not sure if they really add up to substantive, indepth coverage in multiple indepdent, reliable, 3rd party sources. No matter how well respected a publication is, it is not adding to notability by covering employees. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Barnette

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

Fails WP:NPOL; references do not establish notability beyond routine campaign coverage. Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine but can the current page be saved under a draft Anish631 (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Anish631[reply]
I don't have any problem with that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. Fails WP:NPOL and has not received an unusual amount of national-level coverage (Ex: Christine O'Donnell). Obviously, if Barnette wins the election the article can be recreated. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. Sources nearly all surround her candidacy or he previous failed candidacy for Congress. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She qualifies as a media presence and author, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkCxKgaf4p0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7qzCFjDVIc ISBN: 978-1-5460-8575-1 Pibolata (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Pibolata (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pibolata (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Pibolata (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos cannot be used as support notability at all, and being an interview guest on the news is not a notability maker: a person does not get over our notability rules by being the speaker in coverage about other things, she gets over our notability rules by being the subject that is being spoken or written about by other people. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice against draftification if desired, but I'm not confident that the editor who's asking for that understands that draftspace isn't forever — even if it's sandboxed, the page will still be deletable in October if it hasn't been improved to a "can now be returned to mainspace again" standard. But people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, the article is not properly demonstrating that she has sufficient preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy, and the sourcing is not solid enough to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any specific notability standard: it's far too dependent on primary sources (Twitter tweets, raw tables of election results, her book's promotional profile on the self-published website of its own publisher, etc.) that are not support for notability at all, and the sources that are real media coverage are entirely run of the mill campaign coverage, not demonstrating any credible reason to treat her candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for US house are almost never notable. Here advocacy related to her birth origins is just not covered enough to show notability. Canidaates for US senate are sometimes notable, but this usually applies to winners of the primary, which is still a year or more away, and even then most are not. She may eventually get enough coverage, and she may win the election when she will be clearly notable (by election I mean the general, winning the primary is not a notability freebie), but until that happens we should not have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Kathy Barnette article. It contains helpful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.210.195 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to provide actual reasoning as to why you think Barnette meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. "It's helpful" is not a valid argument. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists influenced by Beyoncé

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

Okay, I know Beyonce is one of the most acclaimed artists of her generation, but this list comes to me as WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. How do we define "influenced by"? Any qualitative analysis? It seems some artists included here merely mentioned Beyonce by name in interviews. This list raises more questions than answers, and should not have existed in the first place. To note, in 2015 this list was merged into the Beyonce article, but somehow it was reverted in 2017. HĐ (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is totally redundant. Whoever was influenced by Beyonce has that information probably on its main bio page. We do not need a separate list of that. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I agree with the previous voter; anyone who says they were influenced by Beyonce can have that fact stated at their own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah I think we should delete this. Editors have abandoned this article for days and this article is so poorly written. By the way, should we also consider list these articles for deletion? I let y'all decide:
List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson
List of artists influenced by Madonna
List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson
List of artists influenced by Eminem
List of artists influenced by Christina Aguilera
List of celebrities influenced by Selena. ADTN1210 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proper procedure is probably to do a full AfD nomination for each of those other articles, but they could refer to the reasoning in this one. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the above per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's how it works with bundled-AFDs. I have however started separate discussions, so feel free to join there. HĐ (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is two remaining of those lists to be nominated: Michael & Janet Jackson since I've the impression with the comments/nominations there is not exceptions to justify the existence of this type of lists, no matter the artist. I could, but I'm not very familiar opening an AfD tbh. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whoops. Thanks for reminding. I have nominated them both for AFDs. Please feel free to comment. Best, HĐ (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks. And there is actually two more: Selena and Ayn Rand (non-musician) --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with the nomination and arguments. The best, we can do is avoid this type of lists. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary list that falls into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable examples of how Beyonce influenced other artists with more detailed explanation into Cultural impact of Beyoncé, and Delete the rest per arguments above. Bgkc4444 (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do not oppose deleting this article. I only fear that voting for this may result in its deletion, while others like it possibly may not end up deleted. So if the other ones go and if this comment can then be used as a “delete” vote.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a POV fancruft used for POV pushing and providing a false notion that "everyone has been influenced by my favorite artist". We don't need that here. TolWol56 (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angier Buchanan Duke

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

Fails WP:BIO. Being born into a wealthy and prominent family is not enough. The newspapers only covered his divorce and funeral. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "The newspapers only covered his divorce and funeral". The newspaper in question being the New York Times. Even if (which I think would be wrong) you interpret this as tabloid/gossip coverage, there's this book which has a long section on the man, same with this book. Pretty clear WP:BASIC pass. FOARP (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP's additionally found sources, notability is met Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Pharcyde. Consensus fails NMUSIC Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imani (rapper)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC as an individual member, and a before search reveals no sources which pass GNG. Noah ^💬 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pharcyde if anyone thinks the article title is a probable search term. Could just Delete otherwise. Everything notable about him is relation to the group, and his outside projects and solo works have received no reliable or significant notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pharcyde as suggested above. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hristo Botev. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanka Boteva

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

While technical notability may (or may not: I can't verify this either way) be satisfied by the sources cited, it seems that this person's noteworthiness is based on child(ren) who went on to be notable, as well as being "famous with her beauty, pride and spirit". I call that non-notable, sources or no sources; fails WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her son Hristo Botev. I too felt there were some concerns with the article, I am not sure how finished the creator is with the article. I did ask some questions on the talk page to him, however I think a redirect would work for now. Govvy (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. While we do keep some women known solely as mothers (e.g., Abigail Adams), I don't see how this woman was notable, although someone might be searching for her name. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now per talk page. VocalIndia (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion was fairly closely balanced in terms of numerical votes. However, in terms of policy backed positions, the delete !votes had significantly more weight centered around insufficient secondary sourcing to meet GNG/BIO. Those arguing in favour of keep generally felt that the position had inherent notability. While there are certain positions where that holds up on Wikipedia, they are enumerated exceptions - with civil servants in this position not falling into it.

There were also several comments about likely alternate routes per ANYBIO in the future. These are certainly possible, and I will draftify the article on request, but are not sufficient as things currently stand.

There wasn't agreement on a redirect target, since the proposed one isn't an exact category match. If users want to add in, or discuss first, that is certainly fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceri King

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

Non-notable civil servant; search finds nothing, and no ex officio notability either despite the grand-sounding titles (certainly not for _deputy_ posts). Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Crown Office is a key part of the inner workings of the Monarchy in the UK. It is not well known mainly due to being very secretive - the only way to get information out of them is through Freedom of Information requests. That being said, the Crown Office article as well as the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery page explain the duties of the Crown Office. The Deputy Clerk nowdays runs the Crown Office due to the titular Clerk being the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. As a matter of fact, it is the Deputy Clerk (Ceri King in this case) that takes the title of Head of the Crown Office. If you google “Ceri King” I am aware theres little to no results (the same will happen if you google Elaine Chilver and Ian Denyer, both of which are former Deputy Clerks of the Crown in Chancery), but I have just explained why that is. Creating articles about the Crown Office will make it more accessible to the public, and isn’t that what this website was created for? If not that, then tell me whats the purpose of Wikipedia. Mrs King will probably be on the list of candidates after Antonia Romeo retires, and with that become the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. She currently holds 2 senior appointments within the civil service, and that should be enough to give her a place in this encyclopedia. Some information is missing, such as her birthday, which is currently being researched. Her appearances in Parliament will be added tomorrow, as well as her career within the Privy Council Office, which started over 10 years ago. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With respect, this article isn't about the Crown Office, or even the post of the (Deputy) Clark of Crown Office, so whether or not those are notable isn't relevant. This is about the individual, and civil servants are not inherently notable, so she would need to satisfy the GNG criteria, and she doesn't. Besides, I can't see how having an article on this person does anything to 'make the Crown Office more accessible to the public'. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @DoubleGrazing: Civil servants are very notable indeed. The departments of the UK Government would not run without them. They do not all deserve an article, as most of them are simply secretaries and other "normal" jobs, but the senior civil servants are what keep the civil service going. In the case of the Crown Office, it is the Deputy Clerk of the Crown (Ceri King) that takes the title of Head of the Crown Office - she is the one that runs the Crown Office. As if that wasn't enough, she is also Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Head of Secretariat, and runs all the paperwork and background work of Privy Council meetings. She is indeed very relevant and notable, even if she does not get press coverage. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the key to Wikipedia is verifiability. People may actually be very important, but if we do not have the sources to show that, then they are not. For example Gerrit W. Gong may have been the most important person in the Bateman and Samuelson administrations, but without adequate sourcing of how his actions were key to the university functioning we would not have created an article on him, although evidently his academic contributions in the 1980s were actually at a level to make him notable, and his current position as a member of the quorum of the 12 of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is clearly enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Johnpacklambert: I have just updated the Ceri King article with the sources that speak of her career. Alex Galloway was Clerk of the Privy Council (Ceri King's boss), and still has a page with half of the information I've put in for Ceri King. I believe both persons (Alex and Ceri) are relevant to the Privy Council Office, but if we are talking about quality of sources, my article on Ceri King is far more advanced, but still the discussion is based on only my article, and not on the hundreds of articles with less than 100 words about people who never contributed to society or to their home nation at all. Ceri King has indeed, and continues to, contribute to the UK Civil Service in the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) and Cabinet Office (Privy Council Office), and deserves to have a page to certify that. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see why people would think Ceri King (or any Deputy Clerk of the Crown Office for that matter) wouldn't be important to warrant an article in here, but having made various Freedom of Information requests to the Crown Office, I am well aware of their importance, and of the recognition they deserve. Their work is usually under the shadow and is very secretive, which is why news outlets do not cover them, and also why there aren't that many sources talking about them, except of course the Gazette, the Court Circular and Acts of Parliaments - there are many books that speak about the Crown Office anyways, it just takes a bit of searching for them. A recent one, "By Royal Appointment: Tales from the Privy Council", even thanks Ceri King for her contributions to the book. Making this page will change that and will allow for their activities to be known to the public as they should - what they do is not illegal, its just they prefer not to be all public about it, and until now no one has cared to change that. Well its time for a change. Kaceymontaguu (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't help noticing how remarkably similar your arguments, and even the language you use, are to those of MaximusWikipedian. How curious. Anyway, let me say it once more: how 'important' someone is, or how much in your opinion they may 'deserve' to have a Wikipedia article, isn't what is being considered here. I suggest you revise WP:N, and especially the section dealing with significant coverage, to understand better the concept of notability, which is the basis for this AfD. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is wholly lacking in reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject (GNG fail). It has been WP:REFBOMBed with primary sources such as employee listings and letters, but none of these prove anything other than she exists and has a job. WP:SYNTH and OR has been used to try and weave this into an article. This should be discouraged. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Unable to find any secondary sourcing, but anyone looking for her will likely be looking for her related to that position. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That would only make sense if she actually held that post, but she doesn't. Otherwise someone searching for Ceri King and being directed without explanation to an article on the Clerk of the Crown would probably be confused. (And yes, I know she is currently listed in that article, for having served for a few months' interim, but IMO she should be removed from that list anyway.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current page is clearly better than proposed alternatives such as redirect to Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The subject clearly had a significant ceremonial and adminstrative role and they show up in matters such as Privy Council warns BIS not to alter ‘sensitive’ word list and The Curious Case Of Camilla And The Privy Council. Our policy WP:PRESERVE applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With respect, PRESERVE does not apply here, nor does it override the need for notability. And as for having a 'significant' role, that largely goes for the 5,000 or so Senior Civil Servants (and that's just in the UK alone); should notability be waived for all of them on the basis that their work is important? If so, can someone point to the relevant guideline providing for this? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a general rule, civil servants are supposed to be non-notable. The job is to apply the law as written, in an apolitical and broadly agreed-upon fashion. This is not to say that civil servants do not do important work, I myself am a civil servant. But with the exception of a few people who work in the communications department, none of us should appear in the news. If this person was known for some sort of scandal, some sort of mistake, some sort of misconduct, that might make her notable. But for a civil servant in the normal conduct of their business, no, I don't see how they become notable. Ideally a civil servant should be generally indistinguishable from their predecessors or successors. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Civil servants are usually not notable, except when they actually performs duties that grant them relevance. Ceri King is a constant figure for the Crown Office, and has attended Parliament numerous times to perform her duties publically. No other Deputy Clerk had ever been as active as she has, specially in regards to Freedom of Information requests MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a lot of debate for someone who will probably soon be awarded the CB and become notable under WP:ANYBIO #1 anyway! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is the point I am trying to make. The previous Clerk of the Crown, Ian Denyer, was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) and a Member of the Royal Victorian Order (MVO), and considering Ceri King is also Clerk of the Privy Council, it is likely she will become an Officer or Commander of either of the said orders, if not, as you said, a Companion of the Order of the Bath. I would even go as far as to say she would qualify for a knighthood (to be a dame, considering she's female). MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian journalists. While by a pure nose count this might appear a "no consensus", the "keep" arguments do not refute the argument that there is not enough source material available to sustain an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burhaan Kinu

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

The sources are primary and of his own website, the other sources mentioned aren't articles on him rather then article's which have his pictures. He works for Hindustan Times. but it doesn't demonstrate notability. Also there are sources like gettyimages where anyone could upload pictures to. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards holder. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 06:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily passes WP:ANYBIO as he is the winner of Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s Comment, as above stated by two editors that this article should be kept just because he has won an notable award. This doesn’t justify or demonstrate his notability. Because WP:NAWARD is a failed proposal. Apart from this award this journalist has no other source to demonstrate his notability, it’s clearly evident from The sources and references on this page. And if this article is kept because of the Award, then the WP:NAWARD page should be updated because it’s misleading. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 13:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to nom: Dear nom Jammumylove, I am not saying about WP:NAWARD. I am saying about WP:ANYBIO. Please interpret things properly.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough to have this BLP on WP. Kolma8 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This old article may have COI concerns and needs heavy cleanup. But the subject seems notable while passing WP:GNG. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if more !votes address whether the subject meets WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG instead, perhaps through searching for sources. Skimming over the sources in the article, the deletion rationale does not seem baseless.

Per WP:NBIO#Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria, if the subject meets WP: ANYBIO or other additional criteria but fails WP:BASIC or other guidelines to establish notability (such as WP:GNG), it might be more appropriate to merge instead.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shows notability within local news outlet and some even outer aspects. Not reasonable for quick deletion. Future guides. --203.87.133.197 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Indian journalists. There is no doubt that his work has been acknowledged in journalism, but unfortunately listed sources only shows Image courtesy: Burhaan Kinu at Hindustan Times. I found only one source [47] that talks about the subject independently, but since it is a BLP article, it should be supported by multiple independent RS. Therefore, it be redirect it to Indian journalist list. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: agree with TheBirdsShedTears that it should be redirected to the List of Indian journalists as the subject lacks secondary coverage defcon5 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

If anyone feels a Need to delete Lorna Breen article, i strongly disagree, please No deletion

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

The result was keep. Consensus that notability is met by GNG. Discussions on renaming can be held on the Talk Page. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Breen

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

I raise this article for consideration with great trepidation, considering the circumstances that led to Dr. Breen's death. Unfortunately, I am not finding evidence to warrant the inclusion of this article based on Dr. Breen's career achievements. I do not believe this meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO standards. I raise the subject strictly as an academic consideration and will gladly withdraw the nomination if early consensus shows my judgment was in error. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's two NYT refs, one Washington Post, and one Guardian ... what's the problem? This meets GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in major reliable sources all over the US, UK and many other countries including France and Italy. This should be covered somewhere and there's easily enough coverage to create a decent article from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Death of Lorna Breen The sources are about Breen committing suicide which is WP:BLP1E. There is probably enough coverage on her death for an article. Breen fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage about her. Lots of people have their deaths in the news but we don't create articles on them. Wikipedia isn't a memorial. Dougal18 (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. Milokan, If you're open to keeping this article by a different name, then your concern re: notability is moot and this discussion should be closed, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced and notable. Keep at present name. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm leaning delete on this one. Seems like a WP:BLP1E. Just reading her article, my subjective impression is that she wasn't particularly notable. Just a doctor that committed suicide. From a WP:NACADEMIC perspective, I tried to google her h-index, not seeing anything on Google Scholar or ResearchGate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closer of this debate will keep in mind that WP:N is either-or with respect to the GNG and a SNG like NACADEMIC. In other words, a valid claim of GNG notability renders consideration of NACADEMIC moot. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to badger. I mention NACADEMIC as an additional way to qualify this person, not as a way to disqualify them. If they had a high h-index, I would have been arguing for their inclusion, despite BLP1E/BIO1E concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Bri said Mujinga (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Jaeger

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

Sorely lacking in proper sourcing - a search for both "Reinhard Jaeger" and "Reinhard Jäger" (the proper spelling of his name) turns up nothing to help raise this to minimal WP:BIO standards. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in my before, no chance of even a WP:BASIC pass. Creator seems to have been an SPA. FOARP (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment - what about winning two competitions, it seems winning a European and a World championship would make one notable? --hroest 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if there were independent reliable sources that state that this person actually won them. It seems that the NABBA World Championships that he supposedly won is one of the unnotable competitions here and isn't the highest level of competition from that organization? It's also not clear how the IFBB European Championships actually fits into the hierarchy of their competitions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any independent reliable sources about this person, even to verify the IFBB & NABBA competition claims (which may not be sufficient anyways, see my comment above). There's no separate WP:NSPORT criterion (or other notability criterion) for bodybuilding, so the key point is that there's no verifiable passage of WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SPORTBASIC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebullition Records

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP as a distribution business/record label. Having notable bands pumped through is not an assumption of notability per WP:INHERITORG. Just like a lot of corner stores, dry cleaners, small factories and what not that existed for decades that are only notable within the small local community, this is only notable in the niche community and is not sufficiently notable for a wiki article. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the more important independent labels of the 1990s (in the sense suggested by WP:MUSIC), and the publisher of HeartattacK, maybe the third-most-important indie punk magazine after Maximum RocknRoll and Punk Planet. This is the label that released Fuel's, Orchid's, and Reversal of Man's albums, and others to boot. Ghettoblaster magazine called them "legendary" ([48]), and the book Punk Record Labels by Alan O'Connor gives valuable context about the label's place in 90s-era DIY punk. Our coverage of hardcore is incomplete without it. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment you name dropped bands. Association with these bands doesn't cause the company to inherit notability and this is what WP:INHERITORG means. An opinion statement of "legendary" by a magazine, doesn't count towards WP:SIRS. I looked at NMUSIC again and I'm seeing nothing saying recording companies and record labels should be evaluated according to NMUSIC criteria over NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That completely misses the point of NOTINHERITED. Record labels literally do one thing - they release music by musicians. They are of encyclopedic interest only insofar as that music is of encyclopedic interest. WP:MUSIC suggests a definition of an important indie label, and since this is a musical topic, we should look to guidelines created by musical subject experts to evaluate it. There's no necessary reason why we would use NCORP, nor even a good reason to do so, when we have subject-specific guidance - any more than we would use NCORP to evaluate a band (even though, were they not specifically excluded from NCORP, bands would unquestionably fall under its purview). Chubbles (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely disagree. Publishers publish books by authors. Galleries exhibit art by artists. Those things too are bound by NCORP/NORG. Record labels is similar. Run your argument past other editors at WT:Notability#Appropriate_SNG_for_record_labels/recording_companies. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that WP:MUSIC (and, by extension, the lede of NCORP) should be modified so that bands and musical ensembles should fall under NCORP, as "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose"? Chubbles (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Happy to be proven wrong, but don't see a lot of coverage--and I say that as someone who owned a lot of these seven inches and who read the zine. I found this article interesting, but, since a Kent McClard article exists, perhaps it's not totally necessary. I don't think anything Chubbles wrote is incorrect; I just didn't find enough sources (through ProQuest, so far). I do disagree with part of Graywalls's argument: hardcore punk culture is, of course, of interest throughout the world. Caro7200 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that this business entity is not of adequate general interest, just as local meat repacking plant with local presence isn't even if they process packaging for companies like Tyson and Hormel. Graywalls (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that ProQuest is the best place to look for sources (though, of course, if there were a lot there, it would move strongly in Ebullition's favor); 1990s-era punk zines other than HeartattacK are going to be much better guides. Chubbles (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it was just the database I chose after doing a Google search. I agree that coverage may be mostly in books about punk culture or zines. I remember one book titled Fucked Up and Photocopied... I just haven't found anything beyond a line here or there. I also agree that it doesn't make sense to apply WP:NCORP to record labels, or to try to divorce them from their artists. Caro7200 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Side question - is the !vote for delete something chosen over and above, say, a merger proposal? You note the existence of McClard's article, but a deletion here makes a redlink, which makes it impossible to connect the bands on the label to each other. I'm not necessarily opposed in general to merging label and label-owner articles, though in this case I think the information is better suited to the label article than the man's article (his label and publishing output gets more notice than he himself ever did). Chubbles (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a merger works--and I always prefer that the BLP be the one "to go." Caro7200 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chubbles:, why do you believe zines are acceptable sources? I don't believe zines qualify as WP:RS, especially not for establishing notability. See this description. "For the uninitiated, zines are small-run, self-published works that span genres". So, this fails WP:SPS, and the "reliably published" requirements for sourcing. while I was quite sure NCORP is the appropriate bar to be met, I checked with others just to be sure. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Appropriate_SNG_for_record_labels/recording_companies Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about basement zine productions, then yes. But publications like Maximum Rocknroll and Punk Planet, which I refer to here perhaps too loosely as "zines", actually had editorial control and weren't SPS in the way Wikipedia uses the term. They would be first-call sources for information on music of the sort Ebullition released. Chubbles (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this was "more inportant" for a decade, we would have multiple reliable sources covering it. We need sources, not empty assertions of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — NCORP is simply not met, there are insufficient coverage in RS. Celestina007 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oakhill Christian School

AfDs for this article:

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

A 2014 no consensus under a very different period of school notability. A current BEFORE shows up nothing other than information that it would offer in person classes in 2021 and mentions that a subject interviewed [49] had a child who went there. This was substantively the same issue as at the AFD when this thin sourcing countered the "schools are notable" default at the time. Sourcing then and now is thin: its basketball team wins games and of course a local paper covers it. This is probably the best source, but it's neither significant nor in depth coverage about the school to meet current standards for notability. StarM 01:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while I am usually in favor of keeping public high schools, private high schools (imo) have a higher bar of notability. This school just seems like a small private school that happens to teach any of the 9-12 grades. Add a sentence or two to Janesville, Wisconsin#Education, but nothing more. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 13:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was leaning delete on this one last time around, 7 years ago, when our guidelines for school notability were even more lax than they are now. I just did a quick search for sources since then and don't see much. Please ping if you've found something that would satisfy WP:NSCHOOL. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough indepth coverage. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we want to be a truly global encyclopeida, we need to think like one. The level of sourcing on most high schools world wide and the will to create articles means that high school coverage is almost completely in countries that are at least a little English-speaking, and almost non-existent for the rest of the world. We should at least expect articles to meet standard sourcing levels for institutions before we keep such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Mathis

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

Very close to failing WP:NJOURNALIST. I found two sources, one from the Encyclopedia of Arkansas and another from here. I couldn't find anything else that would confer notability, either as a journalist or as an author. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is having a full biography in another encyclopaedia not an indication that something is encyclopaedic? The subject has an entry in ISBN 9780313336812, too. That's a third encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep she has an entry in the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame. seems she would pass WP:NJOURNALIST#1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." --hroest 13:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO #1 & #3. pburka (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the entry on her in Encyclopedia of Arkansas mentioned above, she is also has an entry in the Greenwood Press book African Americans in the Media Today (pgs. 290-292)[50], those combined with being in the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame make this a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO. Plus reviews of two of her books here[51]; this profile in Ebony[52] makes this a WP:GNG pass as well. Netherzone (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)`[reply]
- The second book (which is a biographical encyclopaedia) was mentioned above, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, as noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC) I also found she was selected for a fellowship at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, another review of one of her books, and a reference to a book she co-authored in The Paris Review. Beccaynr (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has published books with major publishers such as Simon and Schuster and Penguin and also has been the subject of major media coverage. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, as noted above. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG as per stated above by others. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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