Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 31	February 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to North American Floorball League. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Bucs

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

Non-notable semi-pro teams with no WP:GNG-satisfying independent coverage whatsoever. Searches in local newspapers such as cleveland.com in the case of the Cleveland Bucs find no mentions at all of these teams. Also nominating similar pages created by the same user:

Kges1901 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to North American Floorball League, as is normally done for teams in sports leagues where individual teams aren't individually notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably should have nominated the league first, but I have bundled the league article as well as it also attracts no independent coverage, being referenced to press releases and specialist floorball media. Kges1901 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Bushranger. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON as these teams haven't even started playing yet. Lennart97 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: redirect which articles where? The only proposed target has been bundled into this nom
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the league article, Redirect the others The league should not have been bundled into the AfD with the Teams, it's a suitable redirect target and there's no reason to delete it that has been provided. It seems to have been thrown in hastily after someone suggested retargeting there. There is ample coverage of the league to justify keeping. Not so much the teams, yet. Maybe later, not yet. Simply WP:TOOSOON. No objection to recreating team articles once further notability is established. Smartyllama (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minimal participation, some article improvements during the debate, and two relists makes this incredibly hard to deduce consensus. No prejudice whatsoever if anyone wishes to renominate this again in the near future. Daniel (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Hughes

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

Lots of routine coverage and press releases, but I'm not seeing much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NCORP. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really! I spent a lot of time on this and there are many more references than with this complete speck of an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Security. The company has been around -- in some form -- for 30 years, has worked on modernizing monuments all over the US, and has a shared history with the professional discipline of fire engineering (a discipline that is not terribly well featured on Wikipedia I might add).

I tried very hard to keep it very neutral in tone. The Baltimore Sun article is certainly not routine and NONE of the sources are press releases - I was diligent in my research to make sure the writing wasn't "boilerplate". I don't see what the harm is here and I would love help to make it work. :( IanCappelletti (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources:

[1] is a database profile
[2] is routine business press
[3] this is essentially a press release
[4] is a statistics database
[5] brief coverage of Hughes Associates, a precursor firm.
[6] routine business press
[7] press release
[8] press release
[9] obituary of unclear independence that makes no mention of Jensen Hughes and only brief mention of RJA, its precursor.
[10] possibly the best publication cited, but the content is mostly a routine investment announcement
[11] primary source
[12] this doesn't appear to mention Jensen Hughes
[13] doesn't appear to include any information about Jensen Hughes other than naming it as the #10 company in MEP design revenue. The source is a trade magazine that I'm not familiar with.
[14] Listed in a top companies report of unclear reliability, but no significant coverage
[15] another "top firms" list
[16] not independent

Even if we take a very charitable reading the Baltimore Sun piece, we just don't have enough independent significant coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am at work right now so please give me some time to respond. Thank you. IanCappelletti (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me explain why I put this article together to the best of my abilities in the first place: If you put in the name "Jensen Hughes" into Google Books or Google Scholar, there's HUNDREDS of references to the name because the company basically gets engineers work and assists in the publishing their work too. That seems relevant and respectable, right up Wikipedia's alley, yes? But after I kicked around for a few days and tried to figure out how to translate the sum total of these references into a Wikipedia article, I realized I am not versed enough in how to do that. So, I was hoping that if I did publish something of a stepping stone article, definitely a "stub" no question, then maybe eventually someone else who has more experience on this website -- yes, while I've had an account for years I'm not an expert by any means -- could help get across how immersed the company is in its related professional and scientific field. If you know of a way or have seen an article on here that accomplishes that kind of summarization, please please direct me to one and I will gladly try to mimic what I see. IanCappelletti (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that we need independent sources writing thorough coverage of the company, whether that's talking about its history, analyzing its performance, etc. I have been unable to find such coverage, so the issue is less that there's some writing skill you need to learn and more that the coverage needed to write the article just isn't readily available, and may not exist at all. Looking through the search results you provided, while I see that clearly a fair amount of research has been written by people on the Jensen Hughes payroll, I don't see coverage of the company itself. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I took your keen remarks and criticism to heart and went back to my text with the express purpose of showing how there are better sources out there communicating the same facts about the subject. I know I have no right to ask but if you would be so kind as to see the major, major updates and source-replacing I made and maybe reevaluate the article as it is now, that would be so very cool. Thank you!! IanCappelletti (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

God as the devil

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

Article is OR/SYNTH. It cites some factoids about Satan in the Jewish scriptures, belief in an inferior demiurge as found in Gnosticism and various historical Christian sects, etc, but those factoids are already covered in other articles, and their connection to the article title is quite tenuous. The phrase "God as the devil" is rarely found in the scholarly literature, and its occasional disparate uses appear to have little connection with the contents of this article. Mr248 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be a pretty clear case of WP:SYNTH. The article is taking several different topics (the concept of Satan and evil in the Old Testament, Gnostic beliefs, etc), and combining them into this singular article. Since none of the actual sources are linking these different concepts together, doing so for this article is nothing but WP:SYNTH, with a fair amount of other WP:OR as well. Rorshacma (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/split: I agree this is WP:SYNTH, but the solution to this is merging, not deleting, especially as the content is well researched and referenced. This also has the advantage that it can be done by anyone without going through a deletion request. --dab (𒁳) 06:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dbachmann: which article(s) would you merge/split to? And what would we do with this page after the merge/split is done? (Disambig? Redirect to one of those articles?) Mr248 (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Akronowner (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with the above reasoning (i.e. violation of WP:SYNTH ) SacredSunflower (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH and original research, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Rename/repurpose -- We cannot have an article with this title, which is a slander that none of the adherents of the heresies in question actually supported. The heresy asserts that God and Satan are equal. Variations of this have had various names in various places: see map in Paulicianism, Manichaeism, Bogomilism, Catharism and Waldensians. There may be scope for a general article, covering all of these, perhaps Dualist theology. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure).
Additional reliable sources were presented in discussion that prove notability. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 21:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorare

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

Note: No longer unconvinced of subject's notability. My nomination for deletion is withdrawn.

~~I'm on the fence with this one.~~ At first glance of sources currently cited, it seems non-notable; the Business Insider is the only one that might count. However, after a search online, I found a handful of RS's, but some don't contain WP:SIGCOV.

The potential RS's I found are listed in the first comment below for brevity. Figured I'd at least open this AfD for others to discuss and find consensus since I'm not convinced one way or the other. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The sources I found that may or may not demonstrate notability:

Business Insider: Currently cited in article, weak notability according to WP:RS/P
Fox Business: Reliable for non-politics/science, brief mention but not trivially so.
CNN Brasil: Good, notable source, includes WP:SIGCOV, but is WP:NONENG and I'm not sure if CNN's notability/reliability extends to foreign language publications like this.
ABC News: Again, good source, but like the Fox Business source, only has brief mention (not trivially so, IMO) but includes almost exactly the same info as Fox Business.
VentureBeat: Not the sole focus of the article, yet is more ore less significant in the context as it goes into some detail about each related business/product mentioned.

Here's also a source assessment table if anyone wants to use it (honestly, I just wanted to try creating one to see how it looks/functions). ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 23:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.businessinsider.com/andre-schurrle-football-soccer-startup-sorare-funding-2020-7				? Unknown
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/soccer-teams-turning-to-virtual-fan-tokens-to-raise-money				? Unknown
https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/business/2021/01/09/jogo-tem-cartas-digitais-de-astros-do-futebol-que-custam-ate-r-615-mil-conheca				? Unknown
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/soccer-teams-turning-virtual-fan-tokens-raise-money-71425125				? Unknown
https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/10/ubisoft-launches-5th-entrepreneur-lab-with-8-startups/				? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment. I was looking for game reviews, but what I found is not impressive: Medium.com [17] and Forbes.com [18] (M is a game review, F is a news coverage we missed so far) IMHO are borderline as a lot of their content is de facto blogging, one decent review on a blog (but blogs are not RS by default). Then there's is the coverage from the cryptocurrency press, but I have had serious doubts about the reliability of those for years (walled garden of circular reporting and rewriting based on press releases and likely PR...). Hmmm. It's borderline. There's a decent amount of mentions, but mostly of low reliability. But it is diverse enough to be more than the obvious spam-delete 'two press releases and three rewrites'. I am undecided now, ping me if more arguments for or against are presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several reliable foreign sources that discuss Sorare in a non-trivial way: La Republica [19], La Stampa [20], Handelsblatt [21], Les Echos (France) [22], Capital (French magazine) [23] and I consider the mentioned CNN Brasil good enough [24]. Should be enough for to pass WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Piotrus and GiantSnowman to see this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some good sources there - happy to keep on that basis. Giant Snowman 11:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - receives coverage from a wide number of reliable and prominent news sources, passing WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per available sourcing presented above. Regardless, the article needs heavy cleanup. IceWelder [✉] 11:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator withdrawal – Based on the additional RS provided by Jovanmilic97, I'm convinced this is notable enough to keep. I'll withdraw this AfD nomination in a few moments. Thanks all.
^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 20:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis John Gardella

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can not understand how this individual would be considered notable to anyone other than family and friends. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BASIC. Fails everything. I am not even sure what the rationale for the creation of the article was. He was once married (per article) to a "b-movie actress" and that is a claim to notability? ExRat (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being married to an actress is not a default sign of notability, and nothing else here is either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyman B. Samuels

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability other than having been married and divorced from an actress. Article doesn't even state any other claim to notability. ExRat (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. His own career was run of the mill, or redirect or merge to his wife's article. Bearian (talk)
Delete per non --Devokewater (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Engelbert Jr.

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability other than having been the the married (for three years) and then divorced from an actress. Article doesn't even state any other claim to notability. ExRat (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion, and WP:GNG, or redirect to his wife's article. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the husband of a film actress is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet to fulfill the demands of the wiki notability standards. Jenyire2 06:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saif Farouk

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

Soccerway has no appearances listed and FilGoal only has 2 friendly matches. He does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL on that basis as the guideline requires it to be a competitive match between two sides in fully professional leagues. There is also no indication of passing WP:GNG. I did initially draftify as an alternative to deletion but the article creator cut and pasted this back to mainspace, so here we are. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete - As per nominator, does not satisfy association football notability guidelines or general notability. Author appears to trying to game the system. Recommend Draftification, but ECP-move-protect so as to prevent another move into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Akronowner (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.Fatzaof (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete WP:SIGCOV in his area of specializing appears to be missing. Jenyire2 06:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a soft-delete due to being a BLP with no sourcing. Daniel (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Howard

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

BLP but no sources. Very short article Larryzhao123 (talk | contribs) 22:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is way past time we stopped being an IMDb mirror. Not every actor who flitted from minor part in a TV show to minor part in a TV show is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Ebbs

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

A very lengthy article but there is no evidence whatsoever of any notability. She very briefly played in the W-League and then the second tier in Sweden, none of which would give a passing of WP:NFOOTBALL anyway, and then spent the rest of her career at various amateur clubs. The two best sources, this and this, are both non-independent as they are from the website of a club that she used to play for. Ozfootball confirms that her career was very brief in the W-League. My WP:BEFORE search did not find any significant coverage. Nothing on ProQuest about the player. There is also a WP:COI concern and parts of the article have been written by someone claiming to be her sister. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Akronowner (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above.Cupnoodle2021 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
❤️ Hmlarson (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? Jay eyem (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically WP:GNG is not met Jenyire2 06:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Raider Cast

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

Article about a podcast, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for internet content. As always, every podcast is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the notability test requires independently sourced analysis of its significance, not just technical verification of its existence via its own self-published web presence. But the only "source" here is itself, and in 12 years of existing it's never had any other sources added at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just encyclopedic enough to not be speedied under G11 but entirely promotional. Could find nothing to satisfy GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in addition, I'm failing to find any WP:IMPACT on the topic. It's kind of an "oh" -- response. So an NFL team has a podcast.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no indepedent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV for now Jenyire2 06:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Comerford

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

The only available coverage is this piece in the local paper which is of the "local 22-year old very successful" sort. The business itself has not been discussed in other sources. Not sufficient for WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Best of luck to the chap, and all that, but just not notable (not yet, at least). One article in the local rag (typically with very low news threshold) does not constitute sigcov. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman. scope_creep^Talk 19:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frith

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

It's just a dictionary entry and fails WP:NOT#DICT. I can't see any societal aspect that could serve as the basis of an article. White Whirlwind 10:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article discusses the cultural aspects of the concept and this may be developed by reference to sources such as Development of the King's Peace and the English Local Peace Magistracy. Per our peaceful policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not a mere dictionary entry. The content of the article goes beyond that. And as highlighted by the editor above, if there is a possibility of improvements in the article, this should be done instead of exclusion WP:ATD. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alithya Group

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

Fails WP:COI, written like an advertisement. And possibly created for payments Larryzhao123 (talk | contribs) 20:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rankin (Canadian politician)

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor requires the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and with the only sources being a blurb's worth of information in a local history book and an undergraduate history essay by a student at the local university, it doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per above fails WP:NPOL. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC) SpareSeiko (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock of Akronowner (talk · contribs). Pahunkat (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every mayor of North Bay becomes notable for this fact alone. This applies to some other places where we have a collection of many of the past mayors, often very minimally sourced, as well. I think Flint, Michigan is a place where someone might want to review if we actually have enough sources on all the past mayors to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Purvis

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable mayor of a small city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John M. McNamara

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable mayor of a small location.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William McKenzie (Ontario merchant)

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being mayor of North Bay is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bunyan

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every mayor of every place with over 50,000 people today is notable. Having seen lots of past articles on former mayors I have to say many are atrociously under sourced. This is one area where we let the wild west nature of early Wikipedia get truly out of control and the creation of way too many articles on people who virtually nothing is known about happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Colgan

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering that someone wanted to speedy delete an article on a person in Pakistan who was the lead government official over a place with more than 200,000 people, the fact that we have articles on so many mayors of a place that currently has just over 50,000 people is a sign of how much these under sourced local political figures articles almost always lead to systemic bias in coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pike

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

Unless I'm missing something, Pike doesn't pass WP:GNG. No significant coverage found in Google Books, Google News or in a British newspaper search. The best results found in a ProQuest search were this and this, both of which are trivial newspaper stories about decisions he made in a football match. No in-depth coverage that we can build a biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable referee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skinner Louis

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

Non-notable US lawyer. Seems like his biggest achievement so far is founding an "Admiral Cigar Club and Lounge". The page was created by a WP:SPA. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely nothing here establishes notability in the legal field. BD2412 T 19:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BD2412's argument above. Kolma8 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing significant or no big accomplishments. Peter303x (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Spyrou

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

fails NFOOTY and appears to fail GNG too with no significant coverage Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage and it looks like he's playing well below professional level if indeed still playing at all so no point in draftifying either Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted as an improper cut-paste of the still pending Draft:Curtis J. Jones, Jr.. As always, editors are certainly allowed to write a draft in draftspace and then submit it to the approval queue, but the process does not entitle them to then immediately cut and paste their own work into mainspace while the draft is still awaiting AFC review. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis J. Jones Jr.

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

Fails to pass WP:NPOL Woinfosd (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Woinfosd (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was speedy delete. The G4 nomination removals were performed by a confirmed sock. As the G4 tagging was valid, there is no need for AfD at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navid Abdolmaleki

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

Karate practitioner who does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:SPORTBASIC. The article was previously deleted in 19 November 2020. Papaursa comments at the previous AfD still hold true: "According to the World Karate Federation database, Abdolmaleki has never competed at a WKF world or continental championship.[25] In terms of qualifying for the Tokyo Olympics, he is ranked in a tie for 351st in his division.[26] None of the references in the article nor anything I found in my search show significant independent coverage that would support a claim that WP:GNG is met. He does not appear to meet any WP notability criteria."

This latest article has twice been tagged with WP:G4, but the notice has been removed without explanation both times. John B123 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - still not notable, same situation as two months ago. The reasons for deletion have not been addressed and the article has no significant changes. The G4 was removed twice by a confirmed sock so I've reinstated it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CFCH-FM

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

Premature article about a radio station that was granted a license in 2020 but has not yet commenced broadcasting as of today. Simply having been given a license is not grounds for an article in and of itself — there have been many, many instances in North American broadcasting of radio stations being granted licenses by the FCC or the CRTC but then failing to actually launch within the authorized period and thus having their licenses expire, so a radio station has to actually be on the air to qualify for a Wikipedia article per WP:BCAST, not just get a license. So obviously this can be recreated if and when the station has actually launched, but as of February 1, 2021 the company still hasn't verifiably announced any launch date at all, which means it's not an appropriate article topic yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah, definitely too soon and a little crystal ball-ish with the format. Nothing on the website linked, nothing on Vista's own website. So, while it is a construction permit (CP) for a radio station, a CP does not get you an article. It needs to be on the air....per NMEDIA. This one is not. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:41 on February 1, 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have no issues with this article being recreated when the station gets it's license to cover. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:42 on February 1, 2021 (UTC)

Delete does not appear to pass WP:NRADIO unfortunately. It also does not seem to note future radio stations as notable. Garnarblarnar (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Article can be recreated once the station is launched. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No verifiable evidence of operation, no presumption of notability. They still have until May 2022 to get it on, and given how the economic climate has changed since the original application… (I'll note that the assertion that this is to be an oldies station comes from their applications and statements to the CRTC, but I'm not sure that's necessarily binding — and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball…) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G5 (created by a blocked user in violation of block). Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hashem Ghaffari

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

The sources for this article are all self-published or do not refer to the subject in detail. His IMDb page suggests that the subject is known for being the son of a martyr, which, of course, does not confer notability. Since I have not been able to find any reliable coverage of his music- or acting-related activities, I think the article should be deleted for failure of WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A speedy deletion tag has been placed on the article at the same time that I processed this nomination. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear GNG failure Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taliaʻuli Sikuea

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

dePRODED with no comment. Player fails WP:NRU as has only featured in the Romanian league, which is not a notable league and has only played 7s in non notable tournaments. A WP:BEFORE search only brings up transactional reports and some match reports, but this is all routine and so he also fails WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - since Sikuea meets neither GNG nor NRU, there is no guideline that supports keeping the article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joji Sikote

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

dePRODED with no comment. Player fails WP:NRU as he has no professional appearances at all. A WP:BEFORE search brought up a couple of transaction announcements on him moving to Romania, but this is just routine and not enough to pass WP:GNG Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails NRU; no professional appearances, it doesn't even look like he has made any appearances in Romania, which wouldn't qualify him anyway. Even more importantly, this fails GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not rugbypedia. We have notability guidelines for a reason, which Sikote fails.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Sola

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

dePRODED without comment, player fails WP:NRU as he has only appeared in the Romanian league which is not notable, and played in a non-notable 7s tournament. A WP:BEFORE search provided no suitable sources that would allow it to pass WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NRU and GNG; no coverage in reliable sources that comes close to qualifying him for the latter Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Three relists and decent arguments on all sides. Can't find a consensus here either way (del, keep, merge). Daniel (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Kanty Zamoyski

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

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY in every respect Smerus (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article on an exciled notable who did nothing of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep: No evidence of notability. Very poor sourcing, possible hoax too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Changing to walk delete per sources fond by LU below. Would be also nice if a Spanish Wikipedian could comment on whether any orders the subject received (mentioned in their Spanish biography) could be sufficiently high-level to grant notability? Particularly the Grand Cross of Order of Charles III seems to be on the more significant side. Also, if this is kept, here is a picture from his wedding [27], likely PD, and here is a movie [28]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC) PPS. Changed to keep as I have concluded that this order meets ANYBIO #1.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Weak keep I have found several mentions here, here and here that seems to e reliable sources, however they mostly only mention about the marriage. I don't think he is notable apart from that.Less Unless (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC) ps: have changed my vote to weak keep after the order information was found.Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Less Unless, Johnpacklambert, and Smerus: After reviewing it again, I would like to hear people's thought about whether the GC of Order of Charless III (linked above) would be enough to grant the subject auto-notability or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why the receipt of an order in itself makes the recipient WP:NOTABLE, unless it was awarded for some action or circumstance which was notable. In this case, this particualr order seems to have been distributed mre or less wholesale in the 20th ceentury and he seems to have got it either for being rich or for having married into the Bourbon-Two Sicilies family - neither of which count as WP:NOTABLE in themselves.--Smerus (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* I think this particular order is not an evidence of notability. We should take into account what the order is given for. Some orders are assigned automatically to nobles or royal family members and don't require any other achievements whereas others need something to actually be done. Less Unless (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less Unless, Right, but we can't assume this is the case. Cynicism aside, most orders and such should be given for merit, that's how "it is supposed to be". And the order discussed here is described as ' the most distinguished civil award that can be granted in Spain' and the subject received 2nd class (out of 5). It seems pretty significant to me. The more I think about it the more I learn towards concluding that this order is sufficient for establishing notability (WP:ANYBIO #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus After taking a closer look I am inclining to agree with you on this Order. Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we need sources that cover a person's life in detail, that is still lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ... I'm citing User:Bearian here, on nobility and notability: There are two ways nobility or royalty can become notable in the 21st century: (a) being involved in major scandals and/or (b) being the patrons of notable philanthropies. Having one's picture taken with some people of ill repute is not enough, nor is a one-time socialite dinner. Examples of major scandals would be an sexual affair or financial corruption that gets significant coverage. Examples of patronage of charities would have to show the person is a guest of honour, or has made a significant donation of art or the equivalent of millions of dollars of donations, preferably over a number of years. Op Cit, delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Whiteguru, But this person is from the 20th, not 21st, century. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I realise he was born in 1900. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is an interesting and borderline case. I found a few online sources: a story about his relationship to Juan Carlos I, and more here. That relationship as cousins-in-law is described here. There's a story about what appears to be Poland-Argentina bilateral relations here. So he's basically an in-law of the current Spanish royal family, and a minor noble of the deposed Polish kingdom. I'm not sure that's enough for me. I do not see any evidence beyond the one diplomatic effort, of any independent notability. As we have done many times, I would prefer a merger and redirect in this instance to the spouse's page. I would also ask for the courtesy to be able to take the sources that we have found and add them to that merged article. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented above. Luciapop (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relisting, since the disagreements are varied and marginal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability not shown Nosebagbear (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Martin

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

Recreation of a stub of previously deleted content by an editor with very little participation in Wikipedia otherwise. BD2412 T 15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG and Ymblanter: checking with participants in the previous discussion to see if their view has changed. BD2412 T 15:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the same opinion as last time - I do not see any notability. The NYT article only mentions her once, it does not provide any comprehensive coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as before. The onlu new ref is the NYTimes, which just mentions her. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a level of appointment that makes someone notable, and the sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that though there are sources, their quality is not sufficient to meet GNG Nosebagbear (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter L. Levin

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

Subject has a substantial number of sources, but I question their usability. They include press releases and other outright PR documents, primary sources, and pieces authored by the subject rather than about the subject. CTO of the DVA doesn't seem to be a position that confers inherent notability. BD2412 T 15:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was created by an effective WP:SPA, whose edits are almost entirely on this subject, and on a related Blue Button product. BD2412 T 15:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough here to meet WP:GNG, .gov profile, USA Today mention, etc. Peter303x (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show me the policies allowing a .gov profile and USA Today mention to fulfill the requirements of the GNG? To me this looks like a paid editing job trying to manufacture notability out of insufficient material. Literally the entirety of the USA Today "mention is: "It is the department's first effort at automating claims processing in its 80-year history, says VA chief technology officer Peter Levin. It comes as the agency struggles to cut a backlog of more than 1 million disability claims, appeals and other cases. The system "is likely to break" if nothing is done, Levin says". There is no biographical information about Levin other than his job title, and no other mention of him in the article. BD2412 T 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. One well-cited paper in a high-citation field [29] is not enough for WP:PROF#C1, so we need to rely on WP:GNG instead. But the case for that also looks weak. In the as-nominated version of the article, my analysis of the sources is:

1. A web page listing people associated with an organization, neither independent nor reliable nor in-depth.

2. Press release from a school he studied at. Not independent, dubiously reliable.

3. Deadlink and appears to be a press release.

4. Deadlink, appears to be another bare listing of people associated with an organization.

5. Internal news story from employer, not independent.

6. EE Times. Good source.

7. Deadlink business press-release churnalism, more about company than him.

8. Deadlink primary record of grant funding, not in-depth coverage of him.

9. Deadlink executive profile, routine coverage for people in this area and therefore non-contributory towards notability.

10. Employer profile, non-independent.

11. Quoted in a news story not about him, insufficiently in-depth.

12. Deadlink government employee profile, dubiously reliable or in-depth (because it's a deadlink I can't tell but most sites like this just scrape government-published employee profile data rather than adding any value).

13. Dubiously-reliable churnalism news story that quotes him, insufficiently in-depth.

14. Government press release coauthored by Levin rather than being about him.

15. FCW "Federal 100" profile. Very little depth of coverage.

16. FedScoop. In-depth but is it reliable? "He told FedScoop in an exclusive interview": Interviews generally don't count towards notability.

17. Company main web site, not about Levin.

18. FedScoop again, but this time as a deadlink. Doesn't contribute any more than the first one already did.

19. Interviews don't generally count towards notability.

20. Directly labeled as a press release.

21. About Amida, doesn't mention Levin.

22. Paywalled reprint of an article by Levin, not about Levin.

23, 25, 26, 27, 28. More articles by Levin, not about him.

24. Searching for the web shows that the same text can be found on many sites in a context suggesting that the site asked Levin for a profile and this is what he provided. That is, some web site has copied the profile that Levin wrote and uses as his own, and is publishing it as if they wrote it and researched it. Not independent.

29. A press release that mentions Levin's name only very briefly. Neither reliable nor in-depth.

The only source I am convinced by is the EE Times one. The rest are just puffery. And one good source is not enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein's well reasoned analysis showing that Levin does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fairline Boats. Very, very selectively. Daniel (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fairline Yachts Ltd.

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

possible contains original research, needs formatting Larryzhao123 (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Larryzhao123 Have tried to improve and format page to comply with Wikipedia policies and avert deletion, please can you advise any other improvements to be made. 16:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:TNT, and WP:MILL. There is nothing special about this company compared to thousands of others. There are so many formatting and sourcing issues, that I'm not sure it's worth it. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and Redirect to Fairline Boats, the prior company name for which there is notability. The sourcing for Fairline Yachts is, indeed, WP:MILL but there are some facts which could be included in the parent article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that sources are not sufficiently in-depth to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Bull

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

This page only has 2 sources, and most of the information is unsourced. (I can't find any more sources about her) Larryzhao123 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Larryzhao123 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Larryzhao123 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. I don't see any books, magazine articles, web pages, or newspaper articles about this person in particular. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when we have this level of coverage of winning a beauty contest, doing so is clearly not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sohaib Faisal

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. According to the espncricinfo (here), Faisal made only a single first-class appearance (on 11/15/05). Moreover, and although it was created 12 years ago, the article remains a micro-stub that provides zero sourcing beyond the statistical database. Such databases are insufficient to show that a player passes WP:GNG. The nom's searches (as well as my searches) have turned up zero in the way of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. And this is someone who played in the internet era. Cbl62 (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable cricketer with no coverage in the internet era, no apparent alternative to deletion available either Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1972)

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1970)

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1966)

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Water and Power Development Authority cricketers. Daniel (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afzal (WAPDA cricketer)

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when we have no indication of a first name for a sportsman they clearly are not a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers - no evidence that this cricketer was ever notable enough and there is clear consensus that one appearance is a weak presumption of notability at best Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Manghi

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Zahid

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Sohail (cricketer, born 1973)

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Munir (cricketer, born 1978)

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El-Sayed Mohamed Attia

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

As far as I can see player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of meeting NFOOTBALL or GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk)
Delete per nom and comments above.Fatzaof (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Malik (Quetta cricketer)

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LK (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication the subject passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Ilyas

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even remotely close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. According to the stat database cited in the article, Ilyas made only a single first-class appearance. Moreover, the article provides zero sourcing beyond the statistical database. Such databases are insufficient to show that a player passes WP:GNG. The nom's searches (as well as my searches) have turned up zero in the way of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. A "Keep" result would merely perpetuate a micro-stub consisting of two lines of text sourced to a statistical database. My view is that deletion is the correct result; if GNG-level coverage is later found, there would be no bar to recreating the article at that time. Cbl62 (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of meeting our notability criteria for biographies and no apparent redirect target available Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Khan (cricketer, born 1970)

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article clearly fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Khan (cricketer, born 1972)

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication subject passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Gulzar

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Jaffery

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. Harinarayana

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought we had gotten rid of these articles on cricket players that we known nothing about except one time they showed up for a "first class" match. It has become clear the main problem is first class is a term used far too widely in cricket, and does not imply a limited number of elite competitions in a way that it is at all reasonable to assume that every one who participates will receive the significant coverage in indepdent, reliable 3rd party sources which is the thing all Wikipedia articles need to be based on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kailasapathi Rao

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time we actually enforced GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andhra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandapati Subba Rao

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cricket player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Andhra cricketers - barely notable but a possible search term Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Rayeez

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cricket player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kerala cricketers. Daniel (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varghese Daniel

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of articles on cricket players that do not meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kerala cricketers - clearly not notable enough for a stand-alone article but a decent ATD exists Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Nader El-Sayed

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

No indication he has played professional football to pass WP:NFOOTBALL and I don't see this passing WP:GNG at present. Govvy (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of meeting either guideline at this time Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments above.Fatzaof (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On the assumption that JPL just put in one too many negatives, there is consensus that there is not enough sourcing to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L. Rahman

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm surprised there were still initial-only cricketers on here given that they were mostly all looked at a while back. Bobo . 16:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when we do not even know a person's full name, and have virtually no coverage, we should delete the article. There are people whose full name is not known who are not notable, but Rahman is not such a case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the provision of additional sources, consensus that there is indeed enough to show NBOOK is met Nosebagbear (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons and Warfare

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

I found one review, [30], little else to suggest a pass of NBOOK, though some passing coverage ([31]) exists. It does seem to be a useful book and is cited a few times in a few places, but I haven't seen indication that it's widely cited enough or covered enough to establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my rationale per Cunard's research. This should be considered equivalent to a withdrawal/or keep vote, however I cannot formally close it as keep because there is an outstanding delete vote. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough sourcing to show that this is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. McCoy, William F. (Summer 1980). "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare". Reference and User Services Quarterly. Vol. 19, no. 4. pp. 393–394. JSTOR 25826437. Retrieved 2021-01-25 – via JSTOR.
  The book notes:
  
  Although the literature on war is voluminous and diverse in subject matter—with many studies devoted to causes, campaign strategies, and economic effects—very little has been published on what can be termed the "engines of war." This information gap has been bridged significantly with the publication of the twenty-four-volume Ilustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare. It will be of value to multiple audiences, including historians, military history buffs, and general readers.
  The scope of the volumes is enormous. Virtually every weapon used during the twentieth century is presented. Many prototype weapons and other pieces of equipment that were never used in combat, as well as some unrealized projects that influenced subsequent develops in weaponry, are included. The arrangement is alphabetical, with the exception of a special section at the close of each volume that is devoted to artillery. Individual artillery weapons of particular note (e.g., the BAT series of British antitank guns) have detailed entries in the main body of the text. The volumes are profusely illustrated with photographs, cross-sectional diagrams, and color illustrations.
2. "The Illustrated Encyclopedia Of 20th Century Weapons And Warfare". Booklist. Vol. 77. 1981-01-15. p. 717. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25 – via Gale.
  Gale said their entry is "Citation Only".
3. Kister, Kenneth F. (December 1980). "The illustrated encyclopedia of 20th century weapons". School Library Journal. Vol. 27. p. 20. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25 – via Gale.
  Gale said their entry is "Citation Only".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Illustrated Encyclopedia Of 20th Century Weapons And Warfare to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has received three reviews: Reference and User Services Quarterly, Booklist, and School Library Journal, so it passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to assume that the SLJ and Booklist reviews are significant reviews without the text . SLJ reviews 6,000 items a year and allots 200-250 words to a standard review (meaning: It's brief for a book review). Per our own article, Booklist reviews around 7,500 books a year, meaning that these two are only slightly more selective than Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly. While these probably technically barely meet the letter of NBOOK, if there are no other reviews it's hard for me to see this equating notability. You also misquote NBOOK. It says "A book is presumed notable". You have to consider where the reviews are coming from, how in depth the reviews are, and how indicative of notability they are (for the last two points, the answer for booklist and SLJ is "not very"). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria's revised wording as it was changed on 29 December 2020, and I was using an old copy of the text.
The Booklist review is an in-depth review. I found copies of the review through doing searches through the Google Books snippet view here and here.
The review said that Weapons and Warfare was first published in 1967 "as a consecutively published partwork issued in the United Kingdom by Phoebus". It notes that the general editor is Bernard Fitzimmons, "who has edited works on military history for Phoebus". It said that the book has three consultants: Anthony Preston (naval consultant), Bill Gunston (aviation consultant), and Ian V. Hogg (land weapons consultant), who are "established authorities and prolific writers on military affairs". It said that John Batchelor illustrated the book.
The review notes:

The 24 volumes include 3,000 articles, and a Classified Index is the final volume. The articles cover various types of ships, aircraft, armored fighting vehicles, small arms, and missiles as well as survey articles on artillery. Each entry begins with a definition, e.g., Italian bomber or British destroyer escort class, and concludes with technical specifications concerning size, armament, speed, crew, etc. A typical entry includes several short paragraphs on noteworthy history and particular characteristics of the weapon concerned. Entries range in length from one paragraph to five pages; they are well written, succinct, and accurate. The wide variety of well-chosen illustrations, many of which are in color and which appear on almost every page, include contemporary photographs, paintings, and diagrams. There is no bibliography, and articles are unsigned.
[additional information]
The review later notes:
Weapons and Warfare is legibly printed in triple columns on coated paper and is side sewn. It is bound in plasticized paper-covered boards; the spine has been flattened with board stiffeners, which may cause early spine failure.
The information in this encyclopedia is reliable, the coverage is broad, the illustrations are attractive, and the indexing/reference structure is fairly adequate. Nevertheless, Weapons and Warfare is of somewhat dubious value as a as a reference tool: it is difficult to identify its potential audience. Scholars will find it too superficial; students will need to use it in conjunction with the more synoptic survey articles in general encyclopedias or textbooks; model builders may be better served by the standardized illustrations of various guide series; and general readers will require more interpretive information. The committee Recommends it for large and comprehensive collections but suggests that selectors for other collections carefully assess user needs before acquiring.
Booklist 77:717 Ja 15 '81 1350w
This review contains substantial background and analysis and criticism of Weapons and Warfare. I consider the reviews in Reference and User Services Quarterly and Booklist to be in-depth enough to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria criterion that "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."
I consider 200–250 words about a book to meet the "significant coverage" requirement in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
As long as the reviews provide significant coverage of the subject and are from reputable publications, they should be sufficient to help establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. That the publications review thousands of books a year should not affect their ability to help establish notability. An RfC would be needed to exclude reliable and in-depth reviews from publications like Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, School Library Journal, and Booklist from establishing notability because they review thousands of books.
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find Cunard! I can't withdraw because someone has already !voted delete, but I now feel this should be closed as keep and will strike my nomination rationale accordingly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of Purnell's partworks – an old school way of building an encyclopedia. Kudos to Cunard for validating the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ushan Dinuk

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of articles that do not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jayathu Neelaweera

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long list of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milindu Fernando

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cricket player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCRIC: what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Secker

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

I can find little independent coverage of this BLP, coverage of Secker in reliable sources is entirely focused of scepticism of his courses, with accompanying rebuttals from Secker; see Financial Times [32] and [33] The Guardian [34] and BBC [35] Other citations seem to be promotional and/or self written. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion, little seems notable about him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete BBC article is good, but there is just not enough here to meet WP:GNG. Peter303x (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a promotional text with weak sources. It's WP:TOOSOON for him. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:A9 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colder Places

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Created by a SPA, has been PRODded but the article creator reverted the PROD without explanation. The band do not have their own article so there is no redirect target, and there are no reliable independent sources. The last two sources are the band's website and their Spotify page – the Outburn article is an exact replica of the press release from the band's website. The New Noise Magazine article was an premiere of the album exclusively presented in collaboration with the band on the website, and is simply a link to stream the album, along with the press release again. The Frontview article just reports the premiere of the album on New Noise Magazine and replicates the press release yet again. The Moshville Times article is a primary source interview with the band on a non-RS website that doesn't mention the album at all. So everything is the same press release issued by the band, along with links to view the videos or stream the album. The only source which might be an RS is this review [36] but that's just one review, not multiple in-depth coverage, and I haven't found anything better – there are a couple of reviews on websites which definitely don't pass WP:RS [37], [38], and one from a promotion company that lists the band among their clients [39]. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NALBUM, and not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS. Album by a non-notable band. Lack of coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, no reviews, no charting, no certifications or accolades. Clearly doesn't demonstrate notability to warrant a stand-alone article. Ashley yoursmile! 08:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The user behind this article has also attempted an article on the band, which has not yet graduated from the Draftspace process due to scant evidence of the band's notability. If they are non-notable so is their album, which has also received no significant coverage in its own right except for one or two blog-like reviews. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. The band themselves are not notable, so why should their album have an article? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvraj Singh (cricketer, born 1998)

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Perfect example of why we should stop assuming notability based on one match criteria, WP:NCRIC need a revamp big time. Störm (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCIRC. As you know, there's been an attempt to revamp NCRIC, which failed. His debut was last week in India's top-flight T20 domestic tournament. Here's some coverage of him, which also notes he captained the U19 team too. Lots of false-positives in searches due to his more famous namesake, but at worst, there's a redirect to List of Railways cricketers, which you use as WP:ATD in most, if not all, of your !votes in similar discussions. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this ("Yuvraj Singh selected in Railway Ranji team") which starts with "Yuvraj Singh, a promising cricketer from Bareilly, has been selected in the Railway Ranji cricket team..." I guess there's more coverage in Hindi than English too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at least. If this were a historic player who had only made one appearance and we had little or no scope for learning more about them, then I'd suggest a redirect or deletion without a problem. Current players where there is a realistic chance we find decent sourcing and who might go on to make a relatively significant number of appearances and who have played for a significant team (if this were an MCCU team, for example, I'd think differently; or maybe if this were Zimababwean or Irish player (i.e. in a less signficant league system)), I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt to for a while. If he's not played anything further in a year or so, then, sure, redirect or delete. But I'm OK with a single appearance here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice for recreation should they meet criteria for an article in future. We don't have a crystal ball, so are unable to predict future career or coverage. As it stands they have played a solitary T20 match (not IPL though) and generated no substantial coverage, only incidental mentions in squad announcements, match reports, etc. Fails GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NCRIC, and while that SN may or may not need to be revamped, as it currently stands, they meet it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selayang f.c

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

This article is about a futsal club called "Persatuan Futsal Selayang" but, for some reason, the content is about Selangor F.C. and Football Association of Selangor. In any case, I have done a WP:BEFORE search about the futsal club, which is supposed to be the subject of the article, and can't find evidence that it passes WP:GNG. According to the article, it competes in the "Selayang Super League", which I can also find no decent info about. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possible hoax; definitely not notable. Giant Snowman 18:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly confusing. Nigej (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted as a hoax. Sam Walton (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella boy II (2019 film)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; I can't find any valid references for this 7 minute film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG completely, appears to be a low budget childrens' film project which does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable film. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Woinfosd (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too irrelevant - Telex80 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I initially thought that this was just a nn indie film created as a hobby (so to speak) but a deeper look into what little is out there shows that this is almost certainly a hoax.

First piece of evidence is that an IMDb profile for the director/actor brings up the claim that he won an award at the 36th PMPC Star Awards... which hasn't occurred yet. It won't be held until later this year. The editor who made the movie pages on here also made a draft article for the director where they claim that he won a FAMAS Award for 2021. Like the PMPC award, this is held at the end of the year. I don't think that they've even likely started nominating yet, to be honest. There's also the fact that this film was released in 2019 and if he was to have been nominated, both the PMPC Star Award and FAMAS would have nominated this film for last year's awards.

Finally, when I try to pull this up on Amazon or YouTube, nothing is brought up. Not even a whisper or a hint of a film. I'm aware that search results can differ depending on the country, but YouTube is pretty good about bringing up material from all over the world. I also searched using the director's name and found nothing. Google Play also brings up nothing as well.

This seems to make it point very strongly towards being a hoax. I'm going to tag this and the other film article accordingly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article shows exactly why we need to stop trusting IMDb and start deleting the articles sourced only to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rather than being a movie that was successful at the box office, this appears to be a YouTube video of kids playing a variation of the Cinderella story in the backyard. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Same goes for "Cinderella boy III". GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Kessler

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG, sourced to blogs and dead links, largely created and maintained by apparent WP:COI and WP:SPA editors Melcous (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete http://gregkesslerstudio.com/in-the-media/ makes it clear that there really hasn't been any in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. If there head been, he would have listed it there. Vexations (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Woinfosd (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There maybe review out there somewhere, but I do not see enough to support GNG I search. Possibly (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable artist; does not meet criteria for WP:GNG, nor WP:NARTIST nor does his academic career meet WP:NPROF. Netherzone (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zonguldak Alapli Anatolian High School

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

notability Robingunes (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robingunes (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source in the article is not an IS RS, and before showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. Article makes no claim of notability; this is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. Fails GNG, fails ORGCRIT for the organization, and makes no claim and has no source towards NBUILD for the facility. // Timothy :: talk 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be some coverage in Turkish - see this link Some of it is definitely routine, and I'm not even sure if all of it is about this school, but it's worth taking a look at. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dangmattsmith

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

No coverage to demonstrate this passes WP:GNG. BEFORE comes up with no reliable sources. WP:YTN says that subscriber count is "insufficient basis by which to establish notability." Does not pass it's relevant SNG, WP:ENT, either. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, no reliable sources or coverage of career. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Woinfosd (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable root vegatable, I mean youtuber. I could just not resist making that joke.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Per WP:ARBITRARY, having millions of subs does not make him notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Ghani Humnabad

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

Not an elected official. Nor has enough newspaper mentions to have an article of his own(TL; DR; Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG). He's a "state"'s president of a minor national-level political party. Not that it matters, but The party itself , and its national-level president are well known across the country though. Daiyusha (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:NPOL and I could only find a few passing mentions on newspaper websites. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above fails in passing WP:NPOL. Woinfosd (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom & above comments. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 13:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his coverage in reliable sources appears to be limited to a couple passing mentions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Flores

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

The subject is completely non-notable, has not made a single popular song, doesn't have any views on YouTube or Spotify, and doesn't appear to have had a single mention in reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repeatedly declined at draft, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly as a speedy G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Repeatedly declined in draft for a reason. —Kbabej (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero useful coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only visible in amateurish self-promotions in social media, and this is just another. This article and its earlier rejected draft are also from a single-purpose account, raising suspicions of a conflict of interest. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, and WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources, except for the AllMusic, which is necessary but not sufficient. We often delete rappers, DJs, songwriters, and YouTubers as being too common. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mere promotional article with phishing websites and, if not, article entirely based on primary sources and created by a possible SPA. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 01:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson (ODNI)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not everyone who was an associate deputy director fifteen years ago is notable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too low of a post to make someone notable barring actual significant coverage which we do not have. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of everyone who had an administrative appointment in the US government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 16:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriu Turea

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

Ambassadors are not notable by default, and this one is a very undistinguished ambassador. Only one foreign post, to Portugal. Moldova–Portugal relations are trivial and there exists no article on said relations. No sign of Turea meeting WP:ANYBIO. Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to have lead a rather standard diplomatic career. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable. Of course, if actually applied I am sure there are several other articles on ambassadors that need to be scrapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lam Nguyen

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

A Trump nominee to the Superior Court of DC; the nomination has expired, as should this article for failing WP:JUDGE. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing notable about his career at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very precise wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability: "Nominees who withdraw, die, are withdrawn by the President prior to a vote on the nomination, or are returned by the United States Senate without being processed are not inherently notable". BD2412 T 15:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per guidelines in WP:JUDGE. Marquardtika (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete a nominee page that's still pending? Yes, his nomination was returned, but then resubmitted that same day. Source: https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/16?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Nguyen%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1 I just hadn't had a chance to update that article to reflect this. Snickers2686 (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:USJUDGE, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet how many articles and created for nominees the minute they're announced? Now it's wrong? Snickers2686 (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong now, wrong then. Also an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So why not wait to see what happens to the nomination considering it's still pending before rushing to decide that it's irrelevant? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Want another reason? WP:CRYSTALBALL. Who knows if or when he/they will get the office. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does that apply given their nomination is still pending? Snickers2686 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make the article into a draft and then if he is confirmed and does achieve notability, the article can be recreated in article space? Would that be a good compromise here? Marquardtika (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika: So by extension the Elizabeth Shapiro, Rahkel Bouchet, Mark Robbins, Carl Ezekiel Ross and Sharon Goodie articles would meet the same fate, right? Or do they have to be separately nominated for the same reason? What happens to the placeholders in the vacancy table then? Snickers2686 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless he is confirmed he will not be notable. We need to stop preemptively creating articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not wait until his nomination is either confirmed or withdrawn before deciding what should happen to the article? Snickers2686 (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not the way it's supposed to work. The notability horse comes before the article cart. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These two judges' nominations (Nguyen and Truong), along with a long list of other appointments/nominations, were withdrawn by Joe Biden's administration on February 4. The result of this AfD should also apply to the other 5 articles linked by Snickers2686 above. Natg 19 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn after unanimous keep !votes. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of hybrid vehicles

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

Nowadays the list is impossible to keep up to date as there must be hundreds of them. Even if you could keep it up to date it would be far too long. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This doesn't fail either WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:LISTCRITERIA. Notability is blatant, the criteria for inclusion are well-defined, and it's easily reliably sourced. We don't go "oh there's hundreds of entries, we can't have a list!" as there are much longer cromulent lists out there. What this leaves is a set of arguments for deletion that are not; WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NEGLECT, WP:PLENTY, and WP:OUTDATED are just a start of the points relevant here. In short: there is no policy-based reason to delete this article, and no policy-based rationaile for deletion is articulated in the nomination, so therefore WP:SK1 should apply. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, No valid reason for deletion, the article can easily be maintained. JayJay^{What did I do?} 08:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure whether to close this via WP:BOLD or not. I'm going to also say Speedy Keep per the others, but maybe we could compensate by only including hybrid vehicles that have reasonable coverage? Foxnpichu (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean only include those with Wikipedia articles (there are over 200 articles so far) that sounds good and I agree and please go ahead and amend the lead and close. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don’t think I can close the AfD since I’m involved. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Encyclopedic subject. LearnIndology (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid navigational list article, plenty of blue links. Dream Focus 16:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Nightfury 14:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way we can request an early close? I think it is clear that everybody wants this kept and it is very unlikely for somebody to !vote otherwise now. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to Islamist militancy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to Islamist militancy (2nd nomination)

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

This was an expired prod with the rationale: "This page does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Its notability has been contested since 2011, and it does not appear that the page has been edited in over three years". Alas, it has been at AFD before with no consensus. Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link to prior AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy. StarM 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really sure what the article is about. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning I provided in the now-expired PROD tag. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Uyghur guest house is not an article, so I don't see how this could possible pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nom. Mosesheron (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:SOAP. The page is not written well, with footnotes that go into excessive details, and is sourced too heavily to opinion pieces. I reads like a propaganda hit. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 16:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wifipicning

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

This article is unsourced, and after some search, I've concluded that it is completely unsourceable. A books search found a single book that mentioned the word while saying nothing at all about it, and news searches found nothing, while standard web searches found nothing that counts as a reliable source.

This appears to have been a short-lived passing fad that disappeared with the popularity of mobile internet. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could at best be a short mention under internet fads or some such article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the term. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citrona, California

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

there's a grain elevator there, and going all the way back to 1915 we have the ever-helpful Railroad Commission of California discussing the Citrona Warehouse for storing grain. That's all the topos and aerials ever show here, so I'm going to say that this is yet another NN rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- an easy enough one I'd have recommended prodding it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another NN rail spot. Fails WP:GEOLAND just like the hundreds of others of these that have been processed through AFD and PROD. Hog Farm _Talk 05:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Yolo County GIS viewer, has "Citrona, California," mislocated to the east in the right of way of Yolo County Road 26. Searching Internet Archive, Google Scholar, and JSTOR yielded nothing about Citrona, California. As Mangoe noted, searching Google Books found a brief note about this place in the Decisions of the Railroad Commission of the State of California, Volume 7, p. 78, Railroad Commission of the State of California, 1915. This place is an insignificant grain warehouse that completely fails WP:GEOLAND. Paul H. (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

360Learning

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

360Learning is a startup company involved in professional development activities, but what this firm did with his product is unknown. This article has been created by the chief marketing officer of the time. The only interesting thing I found was his book and this interview, but he left the company in 2017 to set up his company. Unfortunately, I didn't find anything in books to improve this article… Genium . 04:14, Feb 1, 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Genium . 05:19, Feb 1, 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Genium . 05:29, Feb 1, 2021 (UTC)

Delete seems non-notable, largely promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP --Devokewater (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ridin' (ASAP Rocky song)

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

WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. An unreleased song without commercial availability. No in-depth discussion regarding the song's music and lyrics. Has not even charted. While I could have assumed WP:BOLD and redirected it somewhere, it appears there is not really an appropriate target page to redirect this to (should it be ASAP Rocky discography--while this is not at all mentioned there; or List of unreleased songs recorded by Lana Del Rey--although Lana Del Rey is only a guest artist?). That is why I have proposed this for AFD. HĐ (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to List of unreleased songs recorded by Lana Del Rey as the song appears to be most notable for featuring Lana Del Rey. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deeming it notable because of Del Rey would constitute undue weight and OR. I have also thought of it, but do not think such redirect would be neutral and plausible, given that the title explicitly says "ASAP Rocky song". HĐ (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's not notable on its own, and I don't think it really fits List of unreleased songs recorded by Lana Del Rey as those are songs where she's the primary artist. InsuranceLovers (talk) 1 February 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The song wasn't even released, I don't see why there should be a separate article for it. No point in redirecting to List of unreleased songs recorded by Lana Del Rey per the nominator's reasoning. Ashley yoursmile! 13:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hamleys. Daniel (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Hamley

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." (outside numerous mentions that he founded Hamleys) It was deprodded with no meaningful rationale. I couldn't find anything else in my search to suggest he is known outside this single event (founding of a company named after his family). I couldn't find even his dates of birth or deaths, and the location of birth given in our article may be an error, although "a William Hamley", born there, was a father of a Royal Navy officer: [40]. Unless we can find better sources, I think the best non-hard deletion option that can be justified would be redirecting to Hamleys where the subject is mentioned. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's quite easy to find more sources such as this. Per WP:ATD. "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, There is one and a half-sentence dealing with the subject there: "... Cornishman William Hamley who grew up in Bodmin. William Hamley left Cornwall for London in 1760 to open his first toy shop in the High Holborn area. ." Nothing useful to improve this sub-stub to even a stub size. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Something is not nothing. The subject is specifically commemorated by an official plaque which may be seen at London Remembers and I will take a picture myself when I'm down that way. They therefore pass WP:ANYBIO. Our policy WP:IMPERFECT specifically welcomes small, tentative starts on a topic and stubs are specifically permitted. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andrew Davidson, I think we can both agree on something (which is nice), that is, it will be good to have a free picture of the plaque. And as usual, I expect we will remain divided on whether two sentences on a plaque (and nothing else in any other sources) are sufficient for notability. A redirect to the company he founded, where the name of the founder is mentioned, seems all that is sufficient in light of WP:GNG. Imperfect articles are fine - IF they can be expanded, and no sources suggesting such a possibility have been shown to exist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hamleys. Additional biographical sources with actual substance would be needed for notability warranting a separate article. A small plaque about the company does not exempt a person from needing significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 05:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hamleys. Not enough info to have a page on its own.Peter303x (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not enough sourcing, and as far as I can tell, all the content is already on the Hamley's article. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Rescue Plan

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

I believe this should be merged into the Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration page or should be draftified. The page, on its own, does not appear to be written in an encyclopedic format (a large portion of the page is a bulleted list), and the page is focused on a piece of legislation that does not yet appear to have been written nor introduced in the congress. The first source is not an RS, but instead a website dedicated to providing a "easy, convenient way to find financial advisors in your area." The other two sources appear to refer only to Biden's outline of the plan and refer to a speech that Biden gave rather than to the text of any actual document. The article needs work, and the details of the plan do not appear to be public yet. Thus, I see two options: draftify the page and work on it before republishing it, or merge it into the more general economic policy page associated with the Presidency of Joe Biden. I am looking to see what others think. Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with your statement. Biden hasn't even proposed his $1.9 trillion stimulus package through Congress yet, and every major stimulus package that the President and Congress passes needs its own page, similar to Obama's Recovery Act and Trump's CARES Act (among others). Once it has been introduced into congressional committees, published, and reported on the news, Biden's stimulus package will get much more traction and information available. Draftifying it is a possible solution, but deletion or merging when it becomes a major topic of reporting is not. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. This will become legislation soon.Farcaster (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been moved into the draft namespace by Phillip Samuel. (diff: 1) Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page was both moved into draft space and tagged for an AFD discussion, apparently through a race condition (edit conflict). The AFD should be allowed to run, and moving the article to draft space is a valid conclusion of the AFD (but not the only possible conclusion). I am moving the page back into article space so that the AFD can run. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This plan has extensive media coverage (even if it's not always called the "American Rescue Plan" in the media) and meets general notability guidelines. It's a core proposal of the Biden administration. He campaigned on it. It's the Biden equivalent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Missvain (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; seems like an expansive enough subject to warrant an article on its own. Perryprog (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very notable and is expected to become law. --AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very significant piece of legislation. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the largest pieces of legislation, ever. In addition, likely to be a central news story until passage in early March. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good solid skeleton for editors too build on. ―Buster7 ☎
Keep I don't see a reason to delete UnknownM1 (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Create multiple links, so people can find this, a/k/a "Biden's Covid-19 relief package", "$1.9 trillion coronavirus relief plan", "2021 Covid relief legislation." Senate on 2/05 51-50 passed a budget resolution directly related to this. Known as "the nuclear option" it allows Democrats in the future to push through the package with only a simple majority (vs. needing to convince 10 republican senators to cross the isle.) 1.9t is a significant sum, demanding wikipedia coverage with at least some level of detail. Great article on process from here (substantial work left to do): https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/03/budget-reconciliation-congress-senate-covid-19-relief/ Once the "budget resolution" passes in the House, expected very soon, its sausage time! No less than 11 Senate committees will start drafting the actual bill, insuring that it includes the provisions of Biden’s "more conceptual" Covid-19 package and adding all the devilish details. That process and results deserve full sunshine WikiPedia coverage. Remove the "delete page" banner ASAP that discourages editing and back to work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.200.231 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So is the WP community in agreement then? I created the ARP page knowing it would get significant publicity for at least a year, and definitely now since it's all over the news these days. If this discussion is closed, can we remove the banner ourselves, or does an admin do that? Phillip Samuel (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Phillip Samuel, we're just waiting for a closure from an uninvolved administrator (or sometimes a user)—see WP:GD#Closure. You don't need to do anything :). Perryprog (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this even considered for deletion? I mean seriously, this is probably the most important legislation of the year. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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