Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 17	February 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masumi Chino

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Amkgp 💬 05:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. No English language WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. However, from ja:知野真澄 it would seem that he has been successful in Japan, so there's probably something there. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sourcing to prove notability.Polyglot Researcher (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having reviewed the Japanese article, I can't see anything there that amounts to notability either. I can see that he's released a darts DVD, which is sort of interesting but no actual coverage with any depth and no indication of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 26 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jackson (darts player)

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have, and one small very local article [1]), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:18, 19 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Jopling

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Amkgp 💬 05:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievement does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OnlyThenDidI (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 11:42, 23 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Brown (darts player)

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Amkgp 💬 05:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:33, 19 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jodrill

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Amkgp 💬 05:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have, plus some very local low-level league/ko stuff), and lack of significant achievement does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:39, 19 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Crawley

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm — Amkgp 💬 05:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievement does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:41, 19 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 and salted. No need to AfD this article, with its (unspaced) misspelled title, anyway. Please report any further incarnations for similar treatment. El_C 01:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine Carbone(Founder of Garden Foods)

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

This article has been deleted several times this week under all sorts of different names. It has also been sent to draft a couple of times but tendentiously moved back so I don't believe that continual draftifying is an appropriate solution. My searches are not finding anything to suggest that Carbone was notable enough for an article; he seems to fail WP:GNG. This is his obituary which is the only thing that comes close to being a source. As he very recently passed away, I suspect these attempts are the efforts of a relative to create an article as a memorial, unfortunately WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: seems to be A7, weak support on salting Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 01:10, 19 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 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subharmonic modes of the climate system

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

Appears to a non notable fringe theory. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Concerns_about_editing_of_Milankovitch_cycles_related_articles for previous discussion of the issue. The author of the article Jean-Louis Pinault has the same name as the author of several papers cited in the article, which appear to account for the main bulk of the text. These papers are published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, a MDPI journal. MDPI publications are considered to have low peer review standards. I can find no independent coverage of this theory other than this 2014 blog post by climate change denialist Denis Rancourt. The blog post states that Pinault had been met with sufficiently significant resistance from the dominant scientific cabal, know as "peer review" Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even setting aside any questions about MDPI's standards, the references are either to background material (rather than the topic of the article) or to primary sources that have had no discernible influence in the wider scientific community. For example, reference #3 has been "cited" 13 times, but only in documents by the author himself on his own website. Likewise, reference #6, the most-used in the piece, has 20 "citations", 19 of which are by the author himself, and 13 of those are on his own website again, while the one exception is in another MDPI journal and barely mentions that the paper exists, saying nothing whatsoever in detail about it. Reference #8 again has 20 "citations", 19 of which are by the author himself with 12 on his own website, and the one exception is a non-peer-reviewed document that only brushes past Pinault's paper and doesn't discuss the paper's conclusion, only taking a few numbers that Pinault (2018) took from NOAA. There's just nothing to work with here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this thorough analysis, I concur that the references are either to background material (rather than the topic of the article) or to primary sources that have had no discernible influence in the wider scientific community Pinault himself even admits that his ideas are largely ignored here stating that: it is a theory unknown to a large part of the scientific community. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Leaving potentially fringe considerations aside, the first problem I see is that the article uses Wikipedia like a journal, using primary sources and synthesis, rather than summarizing secondary sources that are immediately about the topic and its conclusions (WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTJOURNAL). The second is that such secondary sources appear to be lacking, meaning that it's too soon for Wikipedia and indicating that the theory is non-notable (WP:GNG). —Paleo Neonate – 08:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is climate change denial. The author is saying that the Earth is warming due to changes in its orbit and solar activity. It's not. Tercer (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to indicate the wide acceptance of this theory or its impact on climate science. Dimadick (talk) 12:31, 24 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Meaney

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

I could not find any in-depth coverage of this player that would allow us to expand this biography beyond its current form. He does not appear to pass WP:GNG. In addition, his achievements in darts do not put him along the elite players that would warrant an article based on importance. He has only once been involved at any stage of a Major and, on that one occasion, was eliminated in the preliminaries. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waving delete Has been at two World Youth Finals, but nothing else and no real coverage even in darting press.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. --John B123 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Practically no sources, and does not pass gng ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 04:43, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Whittingham

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

Short pieces in the local paper like this one do not amount to passing WP:GNG. According to Mastercaller, he has not even competed in the preliminary rounds of a major tournament, let alone the main draw. Far from being an elite darts player. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than win tour card coverage, and a local story a few years before nowt coverage and no impact on tour.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have, and one local-interest piece), and lack of significant achievement does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Devoke water 17:17, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cornwall

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

I can't find anything that even comes close to passing WP:GNG. He owns his own darts company but he doesn't derive any notability from that. His career is not that significant that we need to have an article on him. He has played in the preliminary round of a major once but never got beyond that. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to Dartsdatabase he got to the last 32 at the Dutch Open which is something but other than that nowt coverage.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. --John B123 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 17:28, 25 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. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 09:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Clare

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

Fails in meeting WP:NAUTHOR Tbyros (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tbyros (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The user Tbyros is known for trying to shake down users for $$ to eliminate the delete nomination - it is a scam. 2601:588:C100:6260:15B2:AB12:25D4:2D17 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2601:588:C100:6260:15B2:AB12:25D4:2D17 - this is a pretty big allegation to be making against another editor. Do you have any proof of this? ser! (let's discuss it). 01:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy is notable as both a writer and an activist. He has significant coverage in college papers, was selected as a Distinguished Visiting Scholar at the University of Buffalo and has been the subject of radio interviews. And that's all without looking too hard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He won Randy Shilts Award in 2018 and was a finalist in some other events. The article meets WP:ANYBIO. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:24, 21 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Lil' Mama

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

Non-notable release per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Coverage goes seldom beyond the release's existence and is almost entirely self-published tweets from the artists ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a quick Google search came up several album reviews and multiple publications covering its release. I just added 3 from Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork, and Vulture. Carbrera (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: The links from Twitter, SoundCloud and IG should be removed. Other than that, the other sources seem reliable, including the ones indicated by Carbrera. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 21 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bousfield

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

This player doesn't seem notable to me. Contested PROD by article creator with comment Has played in a major, he's notable enough.

The best two sources that I could find were name checks here and here. In terms of darts achievements, he has never won a title, never achieved a nine darter and only played in a preliminary round of a major. Most importantly, he doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was in last 64 of Scottish Open, a Major on old BDO tour, but no coverage other than Local.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. --John B123 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have, and local league stuff), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't have an SNG on darts players, so doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 20 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Arts

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

No evidence that there's anything notable about this organization. They distribute movies--great. But there is no secondary coverage that actually discusses anything about them, just mentions that they exist (and I just removed a press release saying how good they were in Wikipedia's voice). Drmies (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable since they have been covered directly in industry periodicals. It looks like this article got fluffed up in the past week and can be reverted to before that as a baseline. Some articles where the company is headlined are:

Edlead, Eleven Arts partner on pics
Eleven Arts and Edlead Linking for International Co-Productions
Eleven Arts goes for the gore
Filmart: Can Japan Make Anime Great Again? (not substantial, but a good bit to weave in with the rest)
Eleven Arts acquires 'Maquia: When The Promised Flower Blooms' for US (covers what else they've distributed too)

I'm not as familiar with anime-related sources, so not sure which ones can be considered reliable. I get that the recent puffed-up nature makes the topic look improperly promotional, but I think there could still be an encyclopedic version with a few solid, neutral paragraphs and a list of distributed works. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Arts (the page I added to) is a production and distribution company with prominent anime and live-action titles. There are a number of similar pages for similar companies. Aniplex of America, Funimation, gkids are all notable, respectable, and detailed examples of existing distribution pages for anime films that have similar content to the edits that were made in the past week. Users who access Wikipedia in order to use it as an open resource for all information and knowledge for U.S. anime distribution would not be able to have their educational needs fulfilled, and deleting this page would not serve the purpose that Wikipedia was intended for. It is confusing as a public user when a dispute is being made with no preface to what a "notable" distribution company would entail. There are several dozen sources cited within these recent edits that show every statement has a press release to verify that it is a major contributor to film distribution and production.

It has been mentioned in every post on this topic that no mod with professional knowledge of the validity of "anime news sources" has weighed in. In order to have an unbiased and informed discussion on the validity of this page's recent contributions, a moderator with a surface level of knowledge of anime news sources weighing in would be needed.

The recent changes to the page, and the current existing changes that are still public, are all lists of films that are associated with Eleven Arts. A list of films and which year they were released theatrically (or re-released in a different country) is public information and valuable information for people pursuing knowledge about film. This information not only has various citations in each section from a variety of news sources (not just "anime news sources" but reputable film websites.) However, all of this information about production and distribution is also displayed on end credits for these film titles. I believe that films at festivals like Sundance should be accessible as public knowledge.

In terms of the recent additions to the Wikipedia page, the previous Wikipedia page was not at all fact-checked, correctly written, informative, or detailed. There was only one short description line that was copied directly from a 2017 press release. (That, in my opinion, felt like more of an opinion than a non-biased statement.) My additions were to add details that were cited by multiple sources and give a better description overall.

I understand and respect any interpretation of my writing that would lead mods to decide to omit phrases, sentences, or details. I am completely open to any changes with my entry. However, the decision to delete or prevent my changes completely to a previous (poorly fact checked and biased) version of the pages doesn't seem to make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.123.60.146 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and and WP:PROMO, especially the part that says, "Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." Furthermore, the previous version is closer to the ideal version because there is not a lot written about the organization in the first place, though a list of films distributed would work. WP:REFSPAM is also a concern with this draft. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that if the article is kept, I will restore it to the more straightforward version here and incorporate the above-mentioned sources and a limited list of distributed films. I find that coverage does exist, but definitely not 8+ kBs' worth and not 30+ references' worth. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a list of the films they've distributed, we need to see why they're notable, not just what they do to stay in business. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does "why they're notable" even mean? WP:N says topics should be "worthy of notice". The above sources notice the company conducting business and write about it. You're going beyond the guidelines, it seems. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*We need to see how they satisfy the notability guidelines. Simply having an article about what they do isn't enough. We need to see discussions in reliable, third-party sources such as peer-reviewed journals, newspapers of record, prominent industry journals or the likes of a Time magazine talking about how the business had made an impact or detailing the history of the company, interviews with individuals connected with the business in such sources... This is basically what you would write on the back of a napkin to briefly explain it to someone. Notability implies they are more than a run-of-the-mill business, the article doesn't provide this. I'm not sure there are sources that can provide these facts; if there are, please provide them. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is too overly specific. We want significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You can personally insist that the coverage needs so-and-so details, but the guidelines do not require that a business be extraordinary to warrant its own article. It needs to be worthy of notice, and the above links indicate that noteworthiness with not just one-sentence mentions or partial discussion, but especially direct and headlined. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for companies/organization are listed at WP:NCORP. The criteria for establishing notability is strict, take a read of the requirement for "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND and for "Significant Coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH. It is the same criteria for all companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b, you seem to be judging notability on the basis of the current version of the article, which is not how notability works. Did you look at the five sources that Erik posted above, or search for any sources yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hard-pressed to believe that Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and ScreenDaily do not qualify as high-quality reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking. Their articles cover a wide swathe of film-related activities that encompasses reviews, production updates, wider critical and audience reception, controversies where they appear, and what film-related organizations are doing. With their history and their breadth even within the scope of film, it is dubious to claim that that these sources are not independent of the content. And here, these sources are literally headlining the organization, so claiming lack of significant coverage is incorrect. I understand and support the need for caution to ensure that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and we should ensure that articles about organizations are "written in an objective and unbiased style". Wikipedia also combines features of general and specialized encyclopedias, and topics will be more covered by topically-related reliable sources than general ones. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Much as I'd love to say "The result was delete. 1) Drmies is always right 2) When Drmies is wrong, refer to 1)" .... but I think we need some more input to determine whether or not to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Erik. I chuckled at that relist notice, but ultimately it looks quite overwhelmingly like notability is indicated here. I have some passing familiarity (although nothing resembling expertise or even, honestly, much interest) with anime and found heavy/extensive coverage on Anime News Network, which is a reliable subculture source, in addition to the reliable overculture sources given. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. They have been involved with licensing and releasing many notable films, like the Sound! Euphonium and Laughing Under the Clouds movies, as well as A Silent Voice (film). They also have significant coverage from ANN. Link20XX (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I concur with the assessment made by other users on here. The article should be improved, but it should also be kept at the same time. Historyday01 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've overhauled the article using the film-related reliable sources that write about the company. I redid the filmography tables and dumped a lot of the promotional language and press releases used. See before and after. Please review to ensure that it meets WP:PROMO. There may be coverage in Japanese-language news sources too, though I wouldn't be able to look for that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much better, this is what we were looking for in the first place. I'm neither for nor against at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs improvement as a whole, but I don't think its notability is questionable. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Forget about PROMO, the crucial piece that's missing are references. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Coverage of the movies does not confer notability on this company. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above. Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Screen Daily are reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It is absurd to claim that these periodicals should be disqualified because they cover film, which a film company is inevitably involved with. It implies that no subject-specific publication should be allowed to be a reliable source for being topically related to the entity at hand. Contrast that with something like Kodak being actually affiliated with the cinematography products used in The 40-Year-Old Version here, which should not count toward notability. That's a key difference. Are you saying that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter have an affiliation with the topic because they cover film, or because they benefit fiscally from reporting on this entity? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the sources are "reliable" but you seem to be ignoring the fact that a source needs to be more than simply "reliable". You are also mis-interpreting what is required by "independent" and "significant". Since this is a company/organization, we therefore we need to analyse the sources using WP:NCORP which has two particular sections - WP:CORPDEPTH (which defines significant coverage) and WP:ORGIND (which defined "Independent Content". You mentioned three sources, lets look at the first mentioned in the article from each one:

This Variety reference is about the Pusan International Film Festival Asian Film Market but the contents relative to this company are based entirely on an interview with its CEO Junichi Suzuki. That fails WP:ORGIND.
This Hollywood Reporter reference is based on an announcement that the company picked up the rights to a movie and then goes on to discuss the movie. There is no in-depth information on the company whatsoever which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, this also looks very much like is was based on a company announcement and if that was the case the reference would also fail WP:ORGIND as not containing any "Independent Content".
The Screen Daily suffers the exact same problems. It says nothing about the company (other than they've "picked up" international rights to a movie and "taken over sales") and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the detail is about the movie or details around the movie, nothing about the company.

CORPDEPTH states that what is required is "deep or significant" coverage which mean we require an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis on the company. This "deep coverage" also cannot be "echo chamber" coverage - we need more than regurgitation of information provided by the company. You're trying to excuse the lack of coverage and saying that coverage of the movies can be used to establish the notability of the company. No. Notability is not inherited. If this company was notable, somebody would have written something "in depth" about the actual company using "Independent Content". If you think a reference is out there, link it below and we can check for yourselves. Nothing I've seen and nothing I can find meets the mark so far. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:46, 21 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. The only !vote was expressed weakly and no interest expressed for deletion. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Douglas

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

notability Robingunes (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robingunes (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a few sources of Hürriyet: [2], [3], [4], though I’m having trouble to understand what this is. Is it a stage name for VEYasin or is it an album? Because one of the sources calls him "DJ Hey Douglas" while this article says its a project. We need to look into WP:ENT or WP:NALBUM depending on what it is. Also a note for the nominator: nominations on the English Wikipedia tend to have more than one word in it. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 11:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more additional source in the ongoing AfD on the Turkish Wikipedia. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if the third time is a charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 21:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the sources above. Also has been selected the "Best DJ of the year" in the 46th Golden Butterfly Awards as seen here, which is a pretty big thing in Turkey. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:28, 19 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.

I put it up - interesting music but hard to pin down since it is a 'dj project' of an individual. But anybody approaching 8m views of a track on Youtube is obviously a substantial artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batterbu (talk • contribs) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IAR. This is not and never will be an article. We do not need seven days of bureaucracy. StarM 22:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Location Error

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

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE applies here. I could not find any independent sources covering this topic to establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Primary Fatal Module Error, where the same user is doing much the same thing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The user has now been indeffed, and this article has been nominated for speedy deletion under an impressive three criteria. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obviously non-notable trivia. It looks like the user was indef-blocked specifically for creating these two articles ... It would be crazy to not also speedy-delete the articles. ApLundell (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Indeffed and NOTHERE creator that I had CSD HOAXed other articles by them today already JW 1961 Talk 22:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Completely unsourced, WP:GAMEGUIDE at best, and likely a hoax. IceWelder [✉] 22:05, 18 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) 10:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanya Ananya

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

Non notable actor who doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR as she hasn’t won any prestigious awards neither has she taken up significant roles in the movies she has featured in, generally, a before search shows she lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her, thus this is also a GNG fail Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My WP:BEFORE gave me 79 results only in Google News, several mentions in Times of India, Film Critics etc., meets WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @CommanderWaterford, please see WP:SIGN & do so each time you make a comment for the sake of clarity(please do so immediately) Furthermore, I’m afraid your knowledge of policy pertaining to notability might be inadequate & I do not believe you possess sufficient knowledge on WP:GNG. The number of sources google news popped up isn’t relevant but what matters is the quality of those sources. Mere mentions do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV thus such sources are of zero relevance to WP:GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore per WP:NACTOR she doesn’t meet the threshold as no criterion is satisfied as she is yet to be featured in lead roles neither has she won prestigious awards for actors. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable actor with no major roles. There is no significant coverage in RS.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the threshold of multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage from reliable sources addressing her directly and in depth, does not meet WP:GNG; Celestina is correct Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 26 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 14:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Kelly (darts player)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it doesn't meet WP:SPORTSPERSON.MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 22:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. --John B123 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of meeting any inclusion guideline Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 25 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) 10:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Main (darts player)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Think maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Current refs are not enough. However he has been at several PDC World Youth Championships, and has been interviewed on Dartsplanet.tv and has had enough coverage to get a profile on German darts website dartn. Possibly could scrape by as WP:Basic #2, but as he just won his tour card and not competed at a major senior event yet makes me question if it is too soon. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of WP:SIGCOV found, only results and profile pages (which all players have). No significant achievements to date, so unlikely that any can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 19 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 per WP:SNOW as there has been enough discussion to establish that nobody agrees with the nomination. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Griddy

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

Fails WP:GNG woefully Jenyire2 20:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jenyire2, why does it "fail WP:GNG woefully"? And did you look for sources before nominating the article, as required? The company is all over the news recently. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6. As the article's creator, DavidFarmbrough, said in the edit summary creating the page, "Added power supply company - people will be looking it up here." That seems likely, just as the subject of the article seems notable. Incidentally, you should have left a talk-page message for DavidFarmbrough. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, per the comments of User:Usernameunique above, and a WP:TROUT to the nominator for a woefully misguided nomination. Not only is the company very much in the news now, but even a cursory GoogleNews search shows plenty of earlier coverage, much of it in depth (e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). Certainly passes WP:GNG by a long Texas mile. Nsk92 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. obvious keep per comments above. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage clearly predates the current situation (I just added a 2019 source), and it doesn't sound like the current moment will give it less attention. So it meets WP:GNG; WP:NCORP is a bit more of a struggle, but looks likely to clear that as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like consensus to me, but just in case: This article/company is not only notable--meets WP:GNG--but also a part of a significant event and will make any question of failing WP:NCORP moot. Any motion to delete is misguided. Improving this article and illuminating its significance/role in the Feb 2021 Texas storm and ensuing crisis serves Wikipedia's Mission as a service to inform, empower and engage. Wikipedia can be, should be, must be, helpful and accretive to the current emergency and to the longer term analysis, discussion, and policies to protect citizens, property, and general welfare.

CmdrDan (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — notable energy supplier that, regrettably, didn't have an article until it made the news for its actions during the February 2021 storms in its home market. This article should be kept and expanded. White 720 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — notable energy company with now in-depth coverage and seemingly, more coverage coming.Mazurkevin (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it up. This company has been a over US news lately. The person who flagged it needs to not be so narrow minded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsdtk (talk • contribs) 05:22, 22 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart White (darts player)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claim to Notability is losing to Fallon Sherrock which got some coverage www.bbc.com/sport/amp/darts/51347291.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 00:22, 19 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 14:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Walters (darts player)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was semi finalist in 2016 at BDO British Open, but other that some Local and just run of the mill results, mainly defeats when he was on the tour.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom --John B123 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 19 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Brown (darts player)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Case of WP:TOOSOON.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 19 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) 10:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Heaver

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 18 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Richardson (darts player)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than a last 32 in the BDO World Masters back in 2000, which was some ask back then, not much else.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 00:24, 19 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Hammond

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, fails WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable darts players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 19 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. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 14:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NGTS-1

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Mentioned in the discovery paper of its exoplanet and just about nowhere else. Some secondary coverage of the exoplanet discovery from a few years ago, nothing since. Faint, nothing particularly unusual about the star or its planet. Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable because of its relative size compared with its exoplanet, as reported here. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it needs a substantial rewrite. Phrases like "which is usually impossible" are more sensational than informative. Instead of citing the "factslegend.org" webpage, the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.11099 should be cited. But I think notability can be established for this systemPopePompus (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple writers are covering this so passed WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 24 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 Shades of Blue (TV series)#Cast and characters. Daniel (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harlee Santos

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

I don't feel this article passes muster for WP:GNG. It's a very brief page, with only two sources of baseline character observation. Generally, it's not too common that a character is notable enough to merit an individual wikipedia page. Walter White, Buffy Summers, Tony Soprano, these characters had significant coverage to warrant their own pages. This does not. Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I can't even get a preview for González (2019) so it's hard for me to assess if the discussion of the character in that source is trivial or in-depth (if anyone can do so, preferably with quotes here, please ping me). The coverage in Slate has maybe 2-3 sentences that go beyond plot summary at best and as such, I think it is close to trivial than in-depth, and therefore the sources shown here seem to fail GNG/NFICTION test for stand-alone articles. Nonetheless, it would be a waste to just delete that referenced paragraph on reception - I suggest merging it to Shades_of_Blue_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters since I don't think we have a List of Shades of Blue characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Piotrus to find common ground. This is hard to expand without more coverage but it can be preserved. Archrogue (talk) 19:33, 21 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 14:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beryllium chlorate

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

One of several unsourced or poorly sourced inorganic compound stubs recently created by Keresluna (talk · contribs). Deprodded without explanation by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). The original rationale, by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), read:

This compound does not appear to exist. Chemical book and pubchem do not prove that it can be made. The only reliable reference I can find is [|10.1135/cccc19290377] from 1929, where it could not be made.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quick search in Google Books gave me several good hits, e.g. here https://books.google.es/books?id=yZ786vEild0C&pg=PA79&dq=%22Beryllium+chlorate%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMouPJmvTuAhWRUcAKHZ8qD2QQ6AEwBHoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Beryllium%20chlorate%22%20-wikipedia&f=false CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination attacks myself and the good-faith creator but fails to provide a reason to delete. The prod was feeble too – the difficulty of making the compound is not a reason to delete – see unobtainium. Apart from what's in the article, the source cited by CommanderWaterford – Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds – is the clincher. This is easy to find – I did so when deprodding. The failure of the nominators to mention this demonstrates that WP:BEFORE was not followed. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The before was definitely done as there was a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Beryllium chlorate. There is a section in Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds[ https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_the_Alkaline_Earth_Compo/yZ786vEild0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Beryllium+chlorate%22&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover], but that section also calls it chlorite, and has a formula for perchlorate, and suggests it is a hydroxy compound. The melting and boiling point look extremely dubious, as the compound would be expected to decompose with high heat. It also claims that actinium is a halide. There are no references anywhere near this section in the book. So I am strongly suspecting the book is wrong and an unreliable source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I will also retract my claim above that 10.1135/cccc19290377 is about this substance. After checking more carefully it is actually about Beryllium chloride, for some reason here called "Beryllium chlorat". So it means no reliable references found by me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While we can have articles about substances that haven't been synthesized, we need to have something to say about them — significant coverage, even if only speculative. For example, unbiunium is conjectured to lie within the island of stability, and there's plenty to say about it despite the fact that no laboratory has managed to produce it. That doesn't appear to be the case here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that raising the quality of WP has to mean increasing the proportion of good articles, which necessarily involves deleting bad articles. And I think that experts (pace the idiot Gove) are the people to determine whether an article is good or not. Unfortunately my grasp of chemistry is very weak, so I can't really tell what would be wrong with reacting beryllium with hydrochloric acid to make beryllium chlorate. So actually I would be very happy to have my opinion entirely disregarded, on condition, of course, that opinions from other contributors who surely know even less about chemistry than I do are also disregarded. I refer, of course, to members of the "rescue brigade" or however it is that they style themselves, whose grasp of just about anything appears to be limited to string matching. ¶ Meanwhile, it looks like we may have another Cardarelli on our hands. R C Ropp was born in 1927 (according to his own, actually quite interesting memoir) and thus created the 1200-page "Encyclopedia" referenced above at the age of 85, some feat only a few years after completing the 630-page "Handbook of Glass Fractography" (from the publisher's blurb: "Every soul is a labyrinth and a riddle. A soul is a collection of fragments, moments and memories glittering like jewels upon a web. Every piece has connections to all the others.") The latter does seem to be more about glass than souls, but has its own fascinations. The author, born in Detroit, Michigan, naturally writes in American English, and his trademark typographical curiosity "i.e.-" is apparent throughout, but around page 6 he switches to British spelling for a change of air, I suppose. Some sections of the book use Fahrenheit temperatures, other sections Celsius, while Microsoft mock-ancient ordinal superscripts dance in and out around regular ones. What an oddity. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this compound exists, it has had no significant coverage in reliable sources and is thus not notable enough for Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike Turnbull and the fact that we do not reward "trivia bombing." Non-chemists do not appreciate the deluge that Wiki-chem could be subject to if we encourage this activity. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry, topics about chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia, but this one appears to not meet the criteria. Reba16 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regarding the coverage in Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds mentioned in previous comments, I am a bit skeptical; to start, the claimed formula Be(ClO3)2 and the claimed 92.4632 g/mol molecular weight seem to be contradictory. (Perhaps I misunderstand.) I concur with some of Graeme Bartlett's concerns about the source. In any case, I am not convinced there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. The molecular weight for magnesium chlorate later on the page also looks wrong [13]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The claimed 92.4632 g/mol molecular weight is supposed to be Be(ClO₃) and the pubchem entry CID=57502505 quoted as a reference in the article even has this drawing with unmatched charges (i.e. 2+ for the Be and 1- for the chlorate) — but is marked as "Non-live". The "correct" pubchem CID=129631187 is also quoted in the article but has no useful reliable sources associated with it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 21 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. (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 17:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Recife

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

Article is completely unreferenced and I can't find any reliable significant coverage. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (medium-ish). Google books has lots of coverage (example), and he has been mentioned in books by important design folks like the Smithsonian's Ellen Lupton. Possibly (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview in Juxtapoz magazine, and coverage in a book on illustration. He is included in this book on Brazilian design by the Museum of Modern Art, Sao Paolo. Let's also remember that there may also be sources in Portugese.Possibly (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Judging by this WP:PRIMARY source, we should expect a GNG pass because it looks like he has arguments under WP:NARTIST 4 b) and 4 d). Turning directly to GNG, here are some independent and in-depth Portuguese or Spanish RS that others might have missed: 1, 2, and two that are not very in-depth but give indirect evidence of his notability, 3 and 4. This is on top of a bunch of coverage of his books, some of which was given above, which gives further credence to the signs for an NAUTHOR argument too even if the NARTIST direction isn't sufficient. Note that I have just included Portuguese or Spanish sources; there are lots more English sources but I assume others can find those. Some of these sources directly attest to his notability (a good sign for, say, NARTIST 1), with for example the Hoje em Dia article calling him "bastante procurado" — really sought-after. This article needs better sourcing but in terms of notability it is a comfortable keep. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:34, 19 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) 20:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahar Kol

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

Playing 30 mins in a Champions League qualifier against Minsk is probably about as close as she ever got to meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. I also believe that Kol fails WP:GNG. I found nothing better than what was already provided in the article in a WP:BEFORE search. Source analysis to follow below. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis - no evidence of any WP:SIGCOV; see below Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=30&kisiId=1252177	This is just a profile page on the national FA website that every player has	✘ No
https://www.haberhurriyeti.com/haber/3324553/sampiyonun-hocasi-kaptani-kim	mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.sondakika.com/haber/haber-konak-uefa-sampiyonlar-ligi-hazirliklarina-devam-4812803/	mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.uefa.com/womenschampionsleague/match/2017231--konak-vs-minsk/?referrer=%2Fwomenschampionsleague%2Fseason%3D2016%2Fmatches%2Fround%3D2000669%2Fmatch%3D2017231%2Findex	no coverage to speak of	✘ No
https://www.milliyet.com.tr/yerel-haberler/osmaniye/osmaniye-kadin-futbol-takimi-sampiyonluk-parolasi-ile-kampa-girdi-11612629	a name check	✘ No
https://www.milliyet.com.tr/yerel-haberler/hakkari/hakkarigucunde-transfer-atagi-11853756	another name check	✘ No
http://www.silivrihurhaber.com/alibeyspor-tekirdag-da-zorlanmadi-5-0-65992.html	yet another name check	✘ No
http://trakyasporgazetesi.com/m-haber-48470.html	mentioned only once	✘ No
https://www.futbolamator.com/2020/03/akdeniz-nurcelikspordan-gol-yagmuru/	again, mentioned just once with no analysis	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20151122185852/https://www.cihan.com.tr/tr/u17-kadin-milli-takiminin-aday-kadrosu-aciklandi-339807.htm	yet another passing mention, no depth	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above MaskedSinger (talk) 11:09, 19 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HTL Buses

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

Another WP:NCORP failure. SK2242 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In GB Bus Magazine (though can't read what it is) and has a section in the British Bus Handbook: Notable Independents 7th Edition ISBN 9781912063550. As I can't see either I can't really say if they meet gng.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only found one news piece which failed LOCAL, No significent coverage, Book is probably a mere mention and IMHO that alone wouldn't be enough to keep the article. –Davey2010^Talk 20:07, 18 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. IAR per reasons below and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Location Error. We do not need bureaucracy StarM 22:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Fatal Module Error

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

Part of this article reports some sort of error in Minecraft (see WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE), and part of it is inexplicable drivel about mailmen, pizza, lawnmowers, and Happy Meals. None of it is encyclopedic. I'm tempted to just speedy it as a hoax, but it seems there might be some kernel of truth underlying the article. In any event, sending it here should put a permanent end to it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the obvious reasons of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and failing the WP:GNG. I'd almost argue this could be Speedy Deleted as blatant vandalism. Rorshacma (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:GAMEGUIDE violation and no evidence of any significant coverage about this Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obviously non-notable trivia. It looks like the user was indef-blocked specifically for creating these two articles ... is that not cause to speedy-delete the articles? ApLundell (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per ApLundell above, problem user creating other Hoax articles today JW 1961 Talk 22:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Completely unsourced, WP:GAMEGUIDE at best, and likely a hoax. IceWelder [✉] 22:06, 18 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 per CSD G12. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operational BIM

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

Article subject matter could be merged into the main building information modeling article. Also article is not written in encyclopedic style, subject matter notability is debatable (less than 5000 Google search engine hits), it currently has no references (apart from a vague list of external links) nor links to other Wikipedia pages, and as some content is seemingly sourced from a software vendor, there may be a conflict of interest. Paul W (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:41, 18 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Road of Memory

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

Lacking independent, non-promotional sources. Anything mentioned here could easily be in the main Patriot Park article. Initially redirected but reverted without explanation or improvement by user who previously used bad policy rationale to remove a CSD tag. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:52, 18 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) Guinness323 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul F. J. Eagles

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

The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics), having only two citations, neither of which address notability. Guinness323 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics), having only two citations, neither of which address notability. Guinness323 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar [14]] shows more than 20 article with more than 100 citations and an h-index of 41. Clearly notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes PROF-C1 with citations, easily. Possibly also PROF-C5 as a distinguished professor at University of Waterloo.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 18:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NPROF #1. Doesn't meet #NPROF #5 as he is only Emeritus Professor, and as per his own Linkdn page it looks like he was a lecturer or reader, and not a chair.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets ��WP:NPROF, h-index of >40. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:47, 18 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 Bodo-language films. Consensus is to redirect the article. The article history will remain if any appropriate content can be merged. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bodo films of 2021

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

Not quite sure what to make of this one. For starters, it's not much of a list. Secondly, the scope ("some films [of] 2021") seems vague and random, to put it mildly. It's barely referenced, so can't establish notability. Could be also a pointless fork of Bodo (?) films, or Indian films of 2021, or something else. The point is, there's no real point to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Bodo-language films, no need for any further action or discussion as to whether there's a "point". Whether that list should contain only notable films is a matter for talk page discussion there. Regarding sourcing, a distributed film (as with any published work whether printed or audio-visual) is a reliable source for its own content. postdlf (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bodo-language films. Redundant Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Donald. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the single cited film to List of Bodo-language films. No need for separate list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No need of a list for every specific year. Tessaracter (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bodo-language films. Kolma8 (talk) 20:03, 21 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) 10:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Public Arts International/Free Speech

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

This festival certainly occurred, no question about it. And the Between the Covers source is good coverage. The issue is, that's the only in-depth source provided, and the only one I could find in searches. Several mentions on Books, but like the other sources currently provided, they only show the existence of the booklet, and don't speak to the notability of the event itself. Might be due to when it occurred, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see very minimal coverage for this event. Possibly (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a huge name checking exercise and the coverage appears to be routine and doesn't meet the inclusion criteria based on event notability guidelines Graywalls (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment: - there's some serious sourcing and notability issues with some of the articles linked in the long list of name drop. Graywalls (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage isn't there. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain I created the page because this arts festival was formative in the career of many notable artists, so is therefore notable. As it took place in 1979, during the pre-digital era, there was not a lot of references available on the internet. But more may appear over time. For art historical purposes, I strongly advocate for maintaining the page and improving it.Valueyou (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low profile four day event does not inherit notability from the participants. It can be mentioned in their articles if it's relevant to their careers and sourced. Pre internet is a red herring for notability as offline sources are adequate StarM 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Maintain~~ Strike dupe !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC) I will just point out that this page seems comparable to the Howl Festival, which is well established.Valueyou (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Other Stuff exists, but HOWL Festival ran for ten years. That's a very different scenario. StarM 13:29, 20 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy

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

Other than the reviews in the Skeptical Inquirer, which speak to its lack of accuracy, there is nothing to establish notability for this book. StarM 16:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the man said. I'm not finding any further reviews - any likely candidates turn out to be about the similarly named Shermer book instead. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this one is curious, although being held bay around 500 libraries, have been unable to find much in the way of reviews eg. here is a tiny review from The Physics Teacher. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have informed the paranormal wikiproject about this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 20 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. Tone 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Hempel

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

Non-notable darts player, non-ranked and has not won any major contests. ... discospinster _talk 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Just got his tour card.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage goes little beyond 'Hempel gets his tour card' and since he has never played in a major tournament, I would have to agree with WP:TOOSOON Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 24 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. Tone 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan, Edmiston Group

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

I can't find sources that would demonstrate WP:GNG, only press releases and passing mentions. A run-of-the-mill consulting firm. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: searched google under the name of the article and "JEGI". Nothing of note was found. Existing sources do not prove notability. Only one possibly could (min magazine), but it was pretty short and did not mention the company. In addition, the magazine is not around anymore. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even the Min magazine puff piece (such as it is) is about the CEO, not about the company. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 19 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. Tone 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EForward

AfDs for this article:

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

A 2006 no consensus close. While searching is a challenge due to the number of e-forwarding services, I cannot find any sourcing on which to write an encyclopedia article about this transport protocol. It's possible it could be part of a list (of protocols?) but what that would be is unclear. StarM 15:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the website. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 25 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. Tone 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kinjal Dhamecha

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

The person fails WP:ENT. Started professional acting in 2021 and WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMOTIONAL — Amkgp 💬 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concern. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:52, 24 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Assault (2017 film)

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources thus does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some coverage such as a review from Nerdly and an article about principal photography ending from HorrorNews.net, both of which are usable to establish notability. However that's all I'm finding so far. There is other coverage, but it's almost entirely local, which isn't the best establisher of notability since local papers are likely to cover local people (present or former) and local productions. I'd need at least another review from a RS or more coverage of production from non-local sources to really make this a firm keep for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure we should use Nerdly as an indication of notability either. According to their About us page, anyone can submit a product for them to review - meaning any product no matter how notable could be reviewed by them and we don't have any indication of knowing. That with the fact that almost no other RS exists makes me wary. BOVINEBOY2008 10:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that's not much different from most outlets as most have some form of submission guide. It's not really a guarantee that they review everything or that every review will be positive, which are two of the things that would weaken a site's ability to be used as a RS. An argument in the site's favor as a RS is that it's been used as a reference in this book from Taylor & Francis, this one from Bloomsbury, and has managed to get directors of notable films in for interviews. It's not the strongest RS out there, but I'd consider it to be generally reliable as far as horror and pop culture is concerned. I wouldn't use it for political commentary or potential BLP claims, however. In any case, if they were accepting payment, reviewing everything under the sun, or had a history of only giving out puffy praise (coughcough*AICN*coughcough) then I'd be more skeptical of the site. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as article notability goes, Nerdly isn't so major of an outlet that a review from them would merit a keep on that basis alone. Not that I think that any outlet has that sort of power, mind you. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 18 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. Tone 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Anderson (darts player)

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

The person fails WP:SPORTSPERSON — Amkgp 💬 15:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, Ian Walters (darts player), Tony Richardson (darts player), Liam Kelly (darts player) and Joe Davis (darts player) seems non-notable too. — Amkgp 💬 16:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stuart Anderson fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything other than match results for him. Dougal18 (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG, or WP:SPORTSPERSON. According to dartbase never got beyond last 128 in a PDC tour event, or 80 in BDO World Masters.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From WP:SPORTSPERSON-"A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". Pretty much all existing sources about him are NOT independent of darts. Has definitely NOT won any significant honor in darts.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's also worth mentioning that the page creator is currently going on a spree of creating articles about similiar non-notable darts players.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. --John B123 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable darts player, not even close to passing GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devoke water 11:44, 23 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. — The Earwig (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zig (programming language)

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

Not enough coverage in RS to establish notability. The theregister.co.uk and SD News citations are just mentions in passing. Infoworld gave it a page in 2016 but IMO that not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Several WP:SPS and lack of WP:SIGCOV.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kieran207, please ignore the crappy sources when assessing notability. Did you not find any WP:RELIABLE sources with WP:SIGCOV? ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, True, the project is recent and has not received a lot of coverage due to its volatility. Yet https://lwn.net/Articles/833400/ on LWN.net has not been written by the developer group and is quite recent. Not sure if this counts as significant, though it's certainly not low effort. --User:LuckyStarr 09:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Zig is an open-source project (We relax our criteria for these projects). When looking at GitHub it looks like a serious work (over 12K commits, 8K stars, and 300 contributors). After deep search (I checked all of the links provided by Google search engine after search using "Zig programming") I could get the next resources

(1) https://fosdem.org/2021/schedule/track/zig_programming_language/ - Four lectures by different authors in FOSDEM - (I don't know if this is good for notability or not - Can we use videos as reliable references? I guess Yes)

(2) https://www.gingerbill.org/article/2019/05/13/a-reply-to-the-road-to-zig/ - An article by Ginger Bill - Author of Odin programming language : https://odin-lang.org/ - (Maybe useful for notability)

(3) https://itscomputersciencetime.netlify.app/zig-thoughts/ - Written by an author who published many technical articles in different topics through many years. (I know, We can say it's a blog article - Not Reliable)

(4) https://sudonull.com/post/3683-Zig-programming-language

I expected to find more/better references (After checking it in GitHub) but I can't find many of them.

Kvng I am interested in your opinion. Charmk (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established under WP:GNG by [15], [16] and [17]. ~Kvng (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng Thanks, I vote to Keep too, Also this reference is useful. Charmk (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: The above makes me doubt my original conclusion. I am going to wait to see if there are more comments, and then will most likely go with the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, LWN and Infoworld are reliable sources and have significant coverage - plenty of detail and context to be the basis of an article. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:01, 24 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 Gender neutrality in English. Creating a redirect, the content is available so the editors are free to merge whatever content they feel fit (not much content in the article). Tone 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People who menstruate

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

Fails WP:NOTDIC as an article solely about the definition and use of what is essentially a noun, WP:NEO for being about a neologism rarely seen in reliable sources, and WP:GNG for lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources". Even the article's creator admits there isn't "much to expand this with".

Going over the sources in the current version:

1. Trivial definition from the open access megajournal PLOS One. Worth noting here that PubMed turns up 0 results for the phrase "people who menstruate", [18] 1,294 for "menstruating women", [19] and 14,663 for 'menstruation women' (no quotes). [20]
2. Trivial mention from Radical Teacher, a journal which according to Scopus received 0 citations from 2016-2019 and is ranked as the 1,214th journal out of 1,254 in the field of Education.
3. Trivial mention from an unpublished preprint.
4. Trivial definition and use from another open access megajournal.
5. Trivial definition material and claim from a journal so obscure it is not recognized by Scopus, Scimago, or Google Scholar Metrics.
6. Trivial defintion from a book on "critical menstruation studies"; as far as I can tell, this field has almost no existence outside of this book.

Regarding J. K. Rowling, no, this was only a small part of the controversy; see Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people and sources therein. That is where material related to her belongs; it does not add to the case for this to be an article.

7. Blog post which adds nothing of substance. (and is also full of bizarre claims like "medical knowledge on biological sex is based on chattel slavery")
8. Passing mention in another obscure journal completely ignored by the indexing services mentioned above.
9. Trivial definitional and Rowling-related material from someone's dissertation.

What scraps have been pulled together from the far reaches of academia is not enough to support non-dictionary, non-redundant content on this phrase. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Added and renumbered because a source was added. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gender neutrality in English. When I started working on this I thought there'd be more but it's hard to string more than a few sentences about it. The term is new and seemingly gaining some traction but it may be the case of WP:TOOSOON indeed. Do ping me if anyone can find more in-depth coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's enough even for that. These are still not great sources. Even if we go by the only source that's somewhat reliable and about this phrase, I don't think a definition in a disclaimer from a PLOS One article is worth merging. And that destination article is about neutrality between men and women, as is the vast majority of the gender neutrality topic. This isn't worth cramming in there. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Crossroads, I think you dismiss the sources and extent of coverage too quickly. For example, the "book on "critical menstruation studies" you dismiss because of its title is nonetheless The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies' published by Springer Nature. It's a very well known and reputable series and publisher. And said book mentions this term quite a few times. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also the searches don't cover menstruator which picks up a fair bit. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The vast majority of those Google results are unreliable sources, which goes to show how obscure this neologism is. As for this book, it hardly uses the term; I found only a handful of results, which is very low for a 1,000+ page book entirely about menstruation. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gender neutrality in English, per Piotrus. "People who menstruate", "people who are pregnant", etc., are fairly recent terms, arising out of gender neutrality, and somewhat controversial, provoking strong reactions from some. Coverage will only increase and a standalone article may be merited at some point, but for now, certainly appropriate for coverage in Gender neutrality in English. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the idea that coverage will increase, WP:CRYSTAL applies. It does indeed get strong negative reactions, so increase is by no means a given. On that note, per WP:NEO, Wikipedia is not to play a part in increasing the visibility of neologisms. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gender neutrality in English, i.e. redirect this page to that one and move (probably in condensed form) any relevant, reliable-secondary-source-supported content from this entry to that one. The term seems to merit a mention in that article but not to be notable enough for a standalone article at this time. -sche (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the idea that this should be merged not into "Gender neutrality in English" but into ~"Gender neutrality in English, but trans", I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that replacing "women who menstruate" with "people who menstruate" is somehow a fundamentally different category of phenomenon to be handled in a totally different article than earlier replacements of "chairman" with "chair", nor (to look at some of the other terms suggested as candidates to be put in such a fork) that proposals like "fronthole" are somehow fundamentally different from earlier, non-trans-related, equally-uncommon feminist proposals like using "germinal" instead of "seminal" ("relating to semen") to mean "influential". ("Womxn", mentioned below, is exactly the same kind of thing as "womyn", and neither is gender-neutral.) -sche (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere, but probably not Gender neutrality in English - somewhere more trans-related. Btw I have changed the blatently wrong initial definition, which contradicted all 3 refs given (from "do not" to "may not")! Actually there might be more to say on this term, which is a double-edged sword that can be used either to include or exclude, or I suppose both. Isn't there a trans project who can be pinged? Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnbod, We have the sexuality and gender delsort, already included. I don't think there is anything more specific, but if someone would like to create an LGBT-specific one, it's a free wiki... usually :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, much of what is under the sexuality and gender delsort covers LGBT topics and that's how people use it. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This should be merged into a relevant article. I don't think this is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. --CanadianToast (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to something like Draft:Trans-inclusive language and write an omnibus article about proposed language reforms and their reception within and without the transgender community. (Just as person-first language and euphemisms like differently abled have been criticised by some of the people they were intended to benefit, so also terms like womxn and front hole have received mixed reactions from transgender people.) gnu 57 20:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a trans-related article. This relatively recent trans-related gender identity terminology may be circulating within gender-speak influencer circles and Gen Y social media, but not in the general core Anglosphere and other English-speaking populations. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:NOT#ADVOACY, WP:NOTDICT. If there's a trans-related article at which this phrase can be mentioned, and it can be reliably sourced as being in common enough usage and with enough independent, reliable sourcing material about it to write not-just-dictionary-definition (i.e., actually encyclopedic) material about it, then fine, but that doesn't require a merge. There's nothing particularly special about the trivial amount of content presently in the page. If someone thinks otherwise, they can always WP:REFUND the page to their draftspace and merge from it, if/when there's a good merge target. I have no objection to draftifying, to serve as the first entry in a "Trans-inclusive language", or "Glossary of trans-related terms", or whatever it might be titled. But again, this is a trivial amount of content, and it need not be kept if there's not going to be a concerted effort to produce such an article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be to merge this somewhere trans-related, but I can't close this until somebody has an idea what the merge (or redirect) target could be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The phrase should not just be viewed through the narrow prism of recent controversy. We have substantial pages such as Culture and menstruation which provide a broader historical and cultural context and the reader might be looking for such. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMCandlish, or as a second choice merge to some appropriate article, per other merge recommendations above. I don't have a specific target in mind yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gender neutrality in English, per the other merge arguments above. I dispute that it belongs somewhere "more trans-related," as the definition of gender neutral language given in Gender neutrality in English is "language that minimizes assumptions about the social gender or biological sex of people referred to in speech or writing." That is exactly what the term "people who menstruate" does. Gender neutrality in English could do with some reorganization, perhaps adding a section like "Examples of gender neutral terms," but in any case the information in People who menstruate fits neatly into the scope of that article. Aerin17 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "people who menstruate" maximizes biological sex, while ignoring social gender entirely. That's rather the point of it, isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the quote of the lead of that article shows why it cannot be the destination. Some matters are inherently sex-specific and this is one of them. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote says "social gender or biological sex." There's a distinction between gender and sex. The term "people who menstruate" is used to refer to people of all genders, just like the other terms in that article, even if it's specific to people who were assigned female at birth. Aerin17 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to a trans-related place. The term "people who menstruate" is not mainstream enough for its own article. And if merged, it's better to be merged into a transgender related article than into Gender neutrality in English, because the usage of this term is virtually always directly or indirectly trans-related. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:6975 (talk) 07:34, 21 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) 13:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography

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

In effect a duplicate page to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, created by an editor in the teeth of presently ongoing RfCs at the original article, as a WP:POVFORK. Should be swiftly deleted (and the creator should be made to understand that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable). Smerus (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is there a speedy category for this? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, for obvious reasons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If so obvious, why did you create it? And by merging it as it stands, you sidestep the ongoing RfC disucssions, which is not acceptable.--Smerus (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the discography article at a point in time when *obviously* there was not a single editor objecting against a separate discography article for Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, that is, nor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions, nor at Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53#RfC: Inclusion criteria for recordings list (nor at any other part of that talk page) – on the contrary, the sentiment, expressed by among others Smerus at the project page, was that once over 15 recordings, the discography should be split to a separate page (the discography list of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde currently has 30 recordings). So I was following advice of my colleagues, and initiated the separate discography article. Personally, I do think that a table of 30 recordings at the Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 article is not excessive, so, if it depended on me, I would merge the full table of recordings (and surrounding text) back to that article ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. There is an ongoing RfC about inclusion criteria of the embedded list in the parent article. Since we're having an RfC, it's better not to radically cut down or extend the list there, but there is a chance of it resulting in a short embedded list and a link to this more expansive one. It would be beneficial for this content to be editable for those 30 days. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tidy up both this, and the main article accordingly depending on RfCs there (see Finnuerstop above). I am generally in favour of separate discographies where there are more than ten or so entries, our content guidelines prefer flowing text to lists or tables in non-list articles.
I have "accepted" the updates from Francis which move in the direction of this article being just a discography, since this will help newcomers to this AfD discuss the disposition of the article as it should appear if kept. As far as I am concerned further updates in that direction will be welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Completed the previous by now trimming the "sources" list too (according to the current references). Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These discographies tend to be clunky and are certainly unencyclopedic. Often the recordings included therein are thrown in willy-nilly, making mention of recordings not available commercially and therefore difficult, if not impossible to obtain. No need to turn Wikipedia into the old Schwann Opus catalog anyway. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#"Recordings" vs. "discography". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read it and respect your opinion, but still disagree. My opinion remains the same: in favor of deletion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say/prefer merge, but frankly given the entrenched positions on recordings amongst some editors, I have no doubt it would just result in more argument. If there was any real way of making a merge work without disruption I would say do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – how about "keep for now and decide about merge later"? "Later" meaning: after conclusion of the "discography" RfC at the parent article's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK and the fact people cannot agree on its contents is no reason for a fork. If BWV 53 was a long article then there might be a case for a WP:SPINOFF but BWV 53 relatively short so that argument is weaker. If there is a need to merge some of the content back in once the RFC has concluded the article could be userfied. --Salix alba (talk): 12:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy, clearly unnecessary content fork. —Kusma (t·c) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Salix alba and Smerus. Aza24 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerus, Salix alba, Aza24 and others. As created,[21] this is forked content for an alternative version of BWV 57. Although it advertises itself as a discography, the RfC on recordings of BWV 53 is still ongoing. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Alster

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

Certainly accomplished, but doesn't meet WP:GNG, and I can see nowhere where he passes any of the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR. The response on the article talk page when the prod was removed is interesting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's indeed an interesting response, in that it demonstrates how throwing unexplained terms at newcomers can be deeply unintuitive. If half the claims here are accurate, this guy should sail past NPROF. I would not expect particularly mainstream coverage from someone in this man's position, and that would be exactly why the SNG exists in this case. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He does have some highly cited papers, which seem to be published under "J Alster". He however appears to typically be middle author on a papers with a large number of coauthors, but it is hard to separate this J Alster from others. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. I have the same reservations as Russ Woodroofe regarding relative authorship contributions. This field of physics also gets high citations--many of his publications are multi-collaborator measurements of nucleon form factors, which then get cited by every experimental and theoretical paper that touches on (e.g.) proton internal structure (at least until someone measures a slightly larger (e.g.) Q2 range). Perks of having access to an accelerator, I guess. I've compiled the Scopus values for total citations, total publications, and h-index for Dr. Alster and 97 coauthors of his 5ish most cited papers. Citations: median: 8370, average: 15972, Alster: 3698. Publications: med: 136, avg: 265, A: 98. h-index: med: 46, avg: 49, A: 36. From these data I would say he is a pretty run-of-the-mill physicist for effective field theory, and so wouldn't meet PROF C1 criteria. I certainly wouldn't say the measurements provide important breakthroughs in QCD understanding. I don't know if any of the positions he's held would bring up the slack in the other PROF categories, though. JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Some of the complaints about my citation analysis are valid, for example the issues with analyzing the top-cited works (which might be more likely to have older and more prominent coauthors). However, most of the alternative methods of evaluating C1 are much less appropriate as they assume uniform citation standards across the sciences, which inflates the importance of high-citation fields and diminishes that of low-citation fields. See, for example, the issues highlighted in this AfD by myself and others regarding interpreting cite counts and h-indices and the necessity of contextualizing metrics with within-field comparisons. Inasmuch as citation analysis can be used for C1 assessment--and it seems it is the #1 method here--the reliability of generalizing to every field one's personal, intuitive preconception of what constitutes "high citation number" will inevitably have much worse predictive value (re: predicting a subdiscipline's average citation count) the further one gets from one's specialty. So, I try to get a feel for a subject's subdiscipline by looking at their coauthors' metrics, and when there aren't many coauthors, I look at coauthors-of-coauthors. This provides the most practical control group for an academic's body of work--you don't have to blindly estimate impact by artificially reconstructing what constitutes a person's "field", which is usually difficult to nail down and even more difficult to make adequate comparisons within it; you just have to look up a sufficient number of coauthors across a sufficient range of time and article prominence. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm interested by the talk page comment that an invited review in Physics Reports on your own work is a major honour. I think that's likely to be true (it is true of certain Annual Reviews in my fields), but it doesn't fit well into our models of significance. Perhaps one of the physicists editing here could comment? The article seems to have been written by academics who know the subject is notable, and therefore don't bother to try to demonstrate it according to our (to them I suspect ridiculous) rules. The top Google Scholar citations (somewhat confused by what looks to be another J Alster), 594,491,379,216,203, seem to me enough to meet WP:PROF, even though I agree the water is muddied by some multi-author papers in there. Taking another approach, and looking at the papers the article author(s) have highlighted where Alster is the first/second author, there are some high citations here: 216, 86 and three others around 50, although others are lower (or don't actually have Alster as 1st/2nd author, at least with the limited information I'm getting from the online abstracts; it seems possible Alster was leading one team of researchers, but the authors are listed by institution: without seeing the actual publications, which are paywalled, one can't tell). Per comments elsewhere and on JoelleJay's talk page, I fear their method of citation analysis is systematically flawed. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Scopus reports citation highs of 315, 265, 186, 164, and 103 (none first author). Dividing the total citations by publication number for him and his 97 coauthors shows an average of 71 and median of 59 citations per paper and Dr. Alster at 34. This shouldn't be used as a major criterion to assess notability of course, but it does demonstrate how much citation goes on in this field. Another important aspect to note is that often (but def not always) in physical sciences authors are listed alphabetically, so you have to make sure the "first-author" refs actually use weighted contribution since he will very often end up alphabetically first. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The citability in GScholar [22] is sufficiently impressive. His faculty profile page [23] also lists a couple of prizes, Batsheva Rothschild prize, 1970 and Helena and Philip Spitzer Award, Israel Science Foundation, 1996. They seem to be from mostly pre-online era (and probably one would have to search in Hebrew anyway), but I am inclined to AGF this info. I think there is enough here for a pass of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's a high-citation field but the citation numbers from Nsk92's search look good enough for me. (I had previously looked for him as author with spelled-out first name and didn't find anything highly cited that way.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a good number of citations which justifies the creation of the article. Looks fine to me. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 12:34, 19 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 per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aapki Nazron Ne Samjha

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

ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChunnuBhai, you need to justify why it should be deleted, see WP:AFDHOWTO CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:08, 18 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. Tone 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Singh Thind

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

This article has been deleted a couple of times, and here it is again. There might be a possible redirect per WP:ATD-R, but otherwise I think we need to have a proper discussion about this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In response to proposal for deletion re: sources, I have added references to The Times, The FT, Drapers, and other British media. Happy to discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirsaan.jatt (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC) — Kirsaan.jatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I’ve only been on Wiki a short while, I would like to rubbish the above claim

Only the Drapers article mentions him at all. We need more than one source to show notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Follows from point 3 of WP:BIO, ie, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." I think there is a strong argument that Thind qualifies for this under impact / contributions to UK fashion. User:Kirsaan.jatt 15;09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Drapers puts him in the young rising stars category, not all the people on list qualify, but he is also the founder & owner of the company, worth £25 million according to The Sunday Times. Seems difficult to me to say he isn't notable. Reference: https://www.drapersonline.com/people/drapers-30-under-30-2021-aman-thind-ceo-missfiga Wiki-drapers (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)(talk

That says 'Nitin Passi' Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user:spiderone Aplogies for the wrong Refference Link, this has been changed. Wiki-drapers (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the Drapers article again. He doesn't get mentioned in any other news source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a 30 under 30 "rising" anything is generally a sign the person is not yet notable, just that they may become notable in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from an article in Drapers, which Wiki-drapers is continually referring to, there is no other reliable source giving this guy coverage so he clearly fails WP:GNG. Searches of "Aman Singh Thind" and "Aman Thind" come up with nothing useful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Spiderone Please see 2 Articles just from drapers attached below. Drapers is a reputable source and the links as below. (It also has it’s own Wiki article page)

https://www.drapersonline.com/people/drapers-30-under-30-2021-aman-thind-ceo-missfiga https://www.drapersonline.com/people/life-in-the-fast-lane-with-missfiga

Delete - Hinges on the Draper ref. Little to no other third party coverage. -KH-1 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In terms of notability, this individual is certainly ranked in the upper echelons of recent influential people on the UK fashion scene. There are several articles which also seem to be locked (need to purchase a subscription) to view. All in all seems worth the article, with lots of coverage.User:JessiekLCFC 00:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)— JessiekLCFC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete This article has been subject to the edits of sockpuppets in the past (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-drapers/Archive). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Not casting a double vote here)I certainly think the individual falls in the same category as Tarak Ramzan Umar Kamani All British owners or CEO’s of fashion retail companies. Most articles will be on fashion related media such as Drapers or Business Inside. I think there is a line of notability especially with the Thind’s awards, achievements. Even though they seem to be lessened in this discussion page, ranking in top 30 of the UK’s most influential & top rising stars does show credibility. comment added by User:Kirsaan.jatt

Delete There is no news article about the subject at the moment, fails WP:GNG. Mjbmr (talk) 11:45, 21 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 games on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue#Sound Charades. No independently notable, redirecting to List_of_games_on_I'm_Sorry_I_Haven't_a_Clue, where it is mentioned. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Charades

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

I can find no evidence to suggest this topic is independently notable of the radio show it appears on. The lack of any references is a strong clue to the fact this is original research and fan generated content which is unlikely to ever be sourced or verifiable. ℕ ℱ 09:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete unsourced from 2008. -Cupper52^Discuss! 10:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. It's not notable enough for it's own article and seems to be mostly original research. Suonii180 (talk) 16:07, 18 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) 08:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berowra FC

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

Non-notable. Poorly sourced, and search finds nothing beyond the usual social media sites and listings etc. (NB: The club appears to be neighbourhood amateur one, playing in a local league only.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTY. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY. Deus et lex (talk) 04:49, 19 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. Tone 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Whipple

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. The only notability claim here is that he's had acting roles, and the only source is his own self-published website about himself as a real estate agent after quitting acting. As always, however, actors are not given an automatic free notability pass just because acting roles have been had -- the notability test does not hinge on listing roles, but on showing some evidence that some of his roles got him coverage in the media. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 10 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, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't say I'm stoked to soft-delete an unsourced BLP, so relisting to seek further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is one in a series of 20+ articles created by 4 SPAs that contains trivia about minor actors and is basically a republication of imdb. CUPIDICAE💕 19:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not IMDB. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:05, 24 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) 10:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cor Scorpii

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

Does not quite met WP:NBAND. One album on a small label and one album on a somewhat bigger label without a Wikipedia article. WP:NOTINHERITED from former band Windir. Not really any prolific festival appearances. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is actually crappy: corscorpii.mysites.nl, metal1.info, corscorpii.net, lordsofmetal.nl, metalunderground.com, corscorpii.net, reflectionsofdarkness.com. It's ridiculous, actually. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cupper52 --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of good sourcing is blatantly false. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to meet any criteria in WP:BAND. If I am wrong let me know and I may update my vote. Metal Hammer is a notable publication, the rest are not. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly third relisting as this could do with more input to analyse commentary regarding the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage of Cor Scorpii in Metal Hammer ([24]) and NRK ([25]) cited in the article is from reputable sources and cannot be dismissed as insignificant or unreliable. (Note that in the NRK article, the main topic is one of the band members, but it has significant coverage of the band itself - WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") Adumbrativus (talk) 02:35, 19 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained, and that this company meets notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCH Software

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional and non notable. Half the refs are mere notices, others are short mentions in books or general articles (like the NYT). the rest are non authoritative brief reviews (like PC magazine). DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to remove this page. Please cite specifics regarding alleged 'undisclosed paid interests.' That contention seems spurious. NCH long-standing pages merely contain factual product info that no one need pay to outline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosnafone (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC) — Krosnafone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It would be easy to fix if it could be referenced from a reputable source, rather than replying with bluster.--Grahame (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible its program VideoPad is notable, but that does not mean that the firm necessarily is. DGG ( talk ) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Keep. Updated position: On review of Cunard's contribution to this discussion I believe the page satifies GNG. (My previous comments just for completeness: I've just seen that this page has once already survived an AfD: the arguments in that discussion to keep do seem compelling. Looking at it afresh, the issue here is whether the subject meets WP:NCORP: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I could not find any significant IRSS via Google; nor via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (which is deeper and wider than Google); nor via a search of Australia's Trove newspaper archives. Having said that, Unscintillating's previous argument to keep the page has weight: "the topic has been in business since 1993, which is almost pre-internet, which shows great longevity"; as does Cunard's: "There is sufficient coverage [1, 2, 3]". Certainly IRS do NOT need to be live on the internet. While it seems NCH Software is a significant company--and as an inclusionist I have a history of attempting to save articles where possible-- based on my research it fails WP:NCORP. I would also note that objection above by Krosnafone is spurious; and his account history looks far from bonafide--including this objection he posted directly on the page. Cabrils (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous afd was in 2014. This is now 7 years later, and standards have increased for this type of articles. That doesn't mean we should start revaluating everything, but perhaps it does mean we should start re-evaluating the borderline. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this position, seems sensible to me. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping, Cabrils (talk · contribs). Also pinging the only other Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCH Software participant who has been active in the last year: Mrjulesd (talk · contribs).
Cabrils, would you review the two sources I posted below? Thanks,
Cunard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have done and am persuaded, now voting to keep the page. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. May, Scott (2011-06-28). "NCH Software offers fantastic, affordable apps". Columbia Daily Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
  The article includes analysis of NCH Software: "Unlike many publishers that charge high prices for all-in-one suites that do more than you probably need, NCH Software takes a modular approach, designing smaller apps that do specific tasks, usually for a lot less money. It’s simply a smarter way to work."
  The article discusses NCH Software's history and products and the author intersperses his commentary throughout the article.
2. Fernandez, Edgardo (2014-07-25). "NCH Software: Los mejores desarrolladores de herramientas" [NCH Software: The Best of Developer Tools]. NeoTeo. ABC. Archived from the original on 2014-09-30. Retrieved 2014-09-30.
  This article begins with the following paragraphs:
  En esta nueva sección hablaremos de las mejores empresas de desarrollo de aplicaciones, centrándonos en sus servicios no comerciales. En este estreno hablaremos de NCH Software una empresa que desde Canberra nos ha ofrecido muy buenas aplicaciones.
  Destacaremos sus herramientas más populares, su aplicación destacable y por supuesto, hablaremos un poco de la historia de la compañía.
  La Historia de NCH Software
  NCH Software fue fundada en el año 1993 en Canberra, Australia y en el año 2008 abre su oficina en Colorado Estados Unidos de Norte América.
  The article then discusses four of NCH Software's products: WavePad, Prism, Express Invoice, and Zulu.
  NeoTeo is published by the Spanish newspaper ABC. A NeoTeo article was republished at http://www.abc.es/20120202/tecnologia/abci-juegos-machine-201202020939.html and the ABC.es logo is on each page of NeoTeo.
  According to https://www.facebook.com/NeoTeo/info, "NeoTeo es una revista online sobre Tecnología" (NeoTeo is an online magazine about technology).
  See more articles from journalist Edgardo Fernandez at http://www.neoteo.com/author/edgardo-fernandez/.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow NCH Software to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCH Software passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says:
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.
Columbia Daily Tribune and ABC's NeoTeo both have profiled the company in discussing its history and its products.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
NCH Software is based in Canberra in Australia. It received significant coverage in international sources in an American source (Columbia Daily Tribune) and a Spanish source (ABC's NeoTeo).
Cunard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I always love it when USER:CUNARD posts these detailed evaluations, helps save lots of time in review. I agree with his keep arguments. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:43, 19 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. There is consensus that the subject meets notability guidelines. If the subject would like to have their article deleted or changed, they are welcome to avail themselves of the options listed here. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 10:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmukh (yoga teacher)

AfDs for this article:

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

There was a misplaced deletion request on the page claiming to be from the subject and the edit summary had contact details (deleted) but I'm bringing it here for evaluation. This is part of a large walled garden created around 3HO but a cursory look at the refs looks like they check out. I'm bringing here for evaluation. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable publications. Example, example. Possibly (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets notability for WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES --Whiteguru (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. Gurmuhk is very well known in the yoga realm (and outside of 3HO). There is a lot of sustained coverage in reliable sources such as: L.A. Times, Yoga International, Yoga Journal, L.A. Magazine, New York Times, etc. It's all in the article. Netherzone (talk) 13:32, 18 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 14:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watafuk?!

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

Non-notable and non-charting track, with no significant media coverage. aNode (discuss) 09:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a collaboration of two otherwise notable rappers, but not from an album, there is no good place to redirect. Therefore the song article could stand alone if the song is notable in its own right, but it is not. It was mentioned briefly at a few promotional sites plus some social media chatter, but it does not have the significant and reliable coverage needed to pass WP:NSONG. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a song by somewhat notable rappers, but no coverage could be found. No appropriate redirect target as it is not from an album; redirect to either of the artists' article is not a good choice. HĐ (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Russian article at ru:watafuk?!#Чарты (that seemingly nobody seems to have bothered to look at, or at least mention here) has a long table entitled charts, suggested the sort did chart in many places, and ranked as high as #2. Assuming the cited charts/sources are significant/reliable, this should be enough for this to meet WP:NMUSIC, no? Do ping me if there are any replies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: None of the charts at the Russian Wikipedia satisfy chart requirements (WP:BADCHARTS discourages Apple Music and Spotify charts, because they are not record charts). HĐ (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to understand Russian, could you also remove the Apple Music/Genius/Spotify charts at the Russian Wikipedia? HĐ (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the charts are WP:BADCHARTS. I have no information about Deezer and Genius (website)'s notability and seems like we have this article for most of the charts. Also, there are lots of WP:RS sources in Russian, however, the coverage is only about that the "single is out". Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NMUSIC which applies to rappers. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:19, 18 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narayanganj Club Ltd

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

Lacks WP:GNG Jenyire2 11:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG RationalPuff (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The article has been improved since nomination; it was nominated soon after being created and I can understand why it was nominated looking at the original version of the article. Some context: The club is located in the 6th Largest City in Bangladesh, with a population of more than 2 million, and is almost a hundred years older than Bangladesh. The article passes GNG for that I refer to these two articles; নারায়ণগঞ্জ ক্লাবে আর্থিক অনিয়ম? (Published by Prothom Alo) and নারায়ণগঞ্জ ক্লাবের ১২৫ বছর পূর্তি উপলক্ষে আনন্দ র‌্যালি (published by Bangla Tribune). The articles are in-depth and published in reliable sources. I would request the nominator to review the new sources added to the article and reconsider.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per @Vinegarymass911:-Hasan (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider the improvements in the context of the nomination. No prejudice to this being closed inside 7 days from this relist if a consensus quickly forms.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Majority of the references are mere mentions and not significant, reliable sources. As per above, fails WP:ORG --Whiteguru (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If the vote is for deletion will the closing admin consider making it into a draft. I would like to work on it further.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:33, 26 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 Procedural keep. I'm not sure we are going to get anything out of this bundled AfD, there seems to be some coverage but I think this is best discussed in separate AfDs. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina national under-15 football team

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

A few U-15 football teams without claims to notability, and in some cases not maintained at all (e.g. the Slovakia one has a "current squad" from 2010). While some players in some of these countries went on to acquire fame, notability is not inherited.

Also nominated are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence that these national teams are notable. Having U21, U20, U19, U18 and U17 is usually sufficient, maybe down to U16 at a stretch. Giant Snowman 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, we normally don't go below Under-17s to 16s. Govvy (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Schoolboy football. Nigej (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the reporting at this age level is limited and trivial in nature. As can be seen from some of the articles, some of the players did go on to become professional footballers but a very large number did not. Whilst the fact that the pages are out of date is not a valid reason to delete them as such, it is perhaps a symptom of the fact that there just aren't enough suitable sources available to keep these up to date even if one tried to. We would also need more than just squad and fixture lists to show notability and that simply is not available for schoolboy-level football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~(possibly all)~~ — Returning from a hiatus...I just had to give my vote on this. It is my honest and humble opinion, that even though this nomination may have been well-intentioned, the nom is entirely abusive. Kosovo national under-15 football team for example has 6 well-sourced references cited (even if they may no longer be current; see Wayback machine). It is literally impossible henceforth to fail WP:GNG without an innate bias or well-based reasons to delete as per the rules for deletion for the lack of notability, which I simply do not see here I’m sorry. It seems like they all have been written off already, especially when the availability of additional references could in fact further establish the article(s). The lack of maintenance tags are also concerning giving my reasoning more validity. Doesn’t seem like these pages have had its fair shot. It is easy to start these discussions years down the line when the creators of these articles aren’t as active as they once were to strengthen them. Perhaps it is all merely too many articles for WikiProject Football to keep up with? Is this the actual concern here; the disinterest maybe among its members? This isn’t meant to be accusatory but I do beg these questions.

The reasons that I am reading in opposition for their existences are extraordinarily opinionated such as “maybe down to U16 at a stretch” (opinion #1 @GiantSnowman), “we normally don't go below Under-17s to 16s” (opinion #2 @Govvy), “some of the players did go on to become professional footballers but a very large number did not” (irrelevant as per deletion proposal @Spiderone; this had been true for players or clubs not passing for notability based on youth-status or semi-professionalism but much less for internationally-acclaimed organizations, tournaments, participants et al; they have always been placed on a higher scale. The same reasons why we have youth teams as even being notable in the first place!). Even if this did matter, one has to wonder if there is that big of a margin for would-be professionals post-U-16 who are merely just a year older and if it is by a wide margin, would it just be because of overall numbers? After all, it would make sense for the U-16 team to have had produced more professionals since inception considering they have participated in more tournaments historically. Though while both were active, what are the numbers for those years? This statistic might tell a different tale. The fact that “some may end up playing professionally” decimate the very sense being used here to oppose notability.

“There just aren't enough suitable sources available to keep these up to date even if one tried to”. @Spiderone. So this warrants a deletion or simply begs a defunct selection in the article? Should we prefer to just ignore their existences and accolades for their respective time periods? Is Wikipedia not a encyclopedia for both the old and the new; the pastimes and the trending?

I sincerely urge you all to reconsider your position as most of these tournaments are FIFA-backed and thus in itself NOTABLE, along with its respective international participants, especially if the citations warrant it. Loaded opinions aside, going through with such deletions are a major disservice to the entire community and just begets mass deletions across the board with little regard to the principles laid out before us.

My question for you all is simply this, “if I could add 40 independent citations to each article, would it change your minds?” —If the answer is still no, is there not a bias? How about a domestic tournament that has only had a single round-robin competition that only garnered 3 citations, would your answer be to keep? —If your answer is yes, is there not a bias? Would there have even been a nomination? This is my point precisely. Let us get this right. Thank you all for your time concerning this matter. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You claim "Kosovo national under-15 football team for example has 6 well-sourced references cited (even if they may no longer be current; see Wayback machine). It is literally impossible henceforth to fail WP:GNG without an innate bias or well-based reasons to delete as per the rules for deletion for the lack of notability, which I simply do not see here I’m sorry.". The problem is that when we analyse these six sources, we get the following:

Source 1 is a database of FIFA country codes[26], so not a significant source and not a source about the Kosovo U15 team
Source 2 is from FIFA.com, so not an independent source, and is about Kosovo football in general, not specifically about the U15 team
Source 3 to 6 are from the Kosovo Football Federation, so even less independent.

Contrary to what you claim, these 6 sources are nowhere near what is required by the GNG and don't establish any notability at all. Fram (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Fram's analysis of the sources provided. Of course, if independent sources can be presented that specifically focus on the under-15 teams for any of these nations that clearly demonstrate significance, then I will change my stance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Kosovo U15) — Comparing Kosovo U15 with other teams like Bosnia and Herzegovina U15, Slovakia U15 and Vanuatu U15, which have not been active for years with Kosovo U15 that is an active team which every year (from 2018) plays international friendly or competitive matches (tournament or match organized by UEFA) is unacceptable, references which are used to Kosovo U15, most are about matches and tournaments in which it has participated and more references are expected to be added soon after updating the Football Federation of Kosovo's website. While Italy, Portugal and Spain are entitled to an article about national U15 teams, why Kosovo is not has this right, a team which is among the most active teams in this age group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krelana (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Italy team is definitely not notable either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure what makes U15 so different from U15s. They have less tournaments, sure, but they do have on occassion and generally pass WP:GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If they generally pass the GNG, then it shouldn't be hard to find sources showing this surely? Oh, and I think you have a typo in your first sentence. Fram (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Only if someone is willing to give this article a serious seeing-to and update the kits, squad, and maybe find out if they ever actually played a match. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Surely these are just school level players? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per arguments made above. BalkanianActuality (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does that matter though Lugnuts? What exactly is the difference between U15 and U16 and U17? Your reasoning isn’t at all valid for determining WP:GNG. They are playing in an international competition in their respective FIFA-backed regions (in this case UEFA). Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Savvyjack23 - please can you provide WP:THREE good sources for one of the four teams that is listed in this discussion to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV? Any of the 4 teams will do. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone - With great pleasure. Here’s coverage for Bosnia and Herzegovina which headlines this group. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Home sources

Reprezentacija (articles from 2017 to as recent as July, 2020, even within a pandemic)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pages to 35+ more articles...

Sportsport (2020 +more) [27]

Bhfanaticos (2018) [28]

Dnevno (2017) [29]

Fksarajevo (2016) [30]

Fokus (2015) [31]

Jelah (2012) [32]

I think you get the idea; well established in own country.

Elsewhere

1 (UEFA editorial, English, pg 45, April 2016 edition)

2 (U.S., English, 2018)

3 (U.S., English, 2018)

4 (Zambia, English, 2020)

5 (Zambia, English, 2020)

6 (Sarajevo Times, for English-expats in Bosnia & Herzegovina, 2020)

7 (Lithuanian, 2018)

Spiderone; Here's coverage for Kosovo U15. In these two links that I will publish, there are two, let's say folders from the two main sources which report on the activity of Kosovo U15, in the Football Federation of Kosovo's link you can find all the activity of the team from summer 2016, which includes all gatherings (call-ups), training camps and matches, while at the Telegrafi's link are the competitive activity of the team. These links are safe as they follow the activity of the team step by step. Krelana (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Football Federation of Kosovo (since summer 2016; all activity coverage): [33][34]
Telegrafi (since 2019; competitive coverage): [35]

I think that there is enough here to suggest that there might be some significant coverage. Perhaps these teams would be best discussed in separate AfDs. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 20 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. Tone 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Bothongo

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks good Refs, and some parts have flowery wording. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a lawyer, a businessman or anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a lot of the references cite his CV and some of the references look like promotion and/or advertising his businesses. So I am inclined to say this is a case where WP:GNG is not satisfied. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:30, 18 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. There is a weak consensus that the article can be improved instead of deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Forward

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wonder if sources can be found regarding the tour of Namibia. In any case, information for X Cricket Board cricketers may be significantly harder to come by than for X county (not County Championship, necessarily) cricketers. Bobo . 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notabilty. scope_creep^Talk 17:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did try for the Namibia MCC tour, but "Namibia" + "MCC" produced only one unrelated response for 1st July 2000 to 30th June 2001 in both The Times (runs up to 2014) and The Guardian and Observer (runs up to 2003) digital archives, so he has no claim to notability based even on that. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Fails NCRIC, but there are sources with significant coverage which makes this a borderline GNG pass. Article expanded. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the expansion by Wjemather.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing List A cricket. Although this is a pretty minimal pass. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DevaCat1: Sorry but that is incorrect. CRIN is a project essay that has no community standing, especially in AFD discussions. The guideline is NCRIC, which unfortunately enjoys very little community support in respect of domestic cricketers due to being overly permissive. It is also merely a presumption of GNG-level coverage. Offering a WP:VAGUEWAVE at such weak guidelines carries very little weight at AFD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Wjemather, I think you're wrong here, and what you have said in your reply does little to support your contentions. WP:VAGUEWAVE is of literally no relevance, as that would require that I haven't said why WP:CRIN is met. Rather, you will see that I specifically said that it is met by virtue of playing List A cricket. Please don't cite guidelines that are clearly of no relevance against me. Moreover, WP:CRIN is both on the front page of WikiProject Cricket, and states in terms that "his is the expanded detail of the agreed guidelines, that are summarised in the Cricket section of the Notability (sports) guidelines." It is also of no importance whatsoever whether you think that NCRIC enjoys community support- the notability guideline exists (albeit that this is a summary of the full guideline in WP:CRIN), and is the relevant one here. If you can say why I have incorrectly applied the guidelines, then please do so, and that would be appreciated by all concerned, rather than us getting dragged into irrelevant points. DevaCat1 (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DevaCat1: It isn't me saying it, it is the wider community: this; this; this, to list just three – there are also dozens of recent AFDs to confirm this. Passing NCRIC (or pretty much any of NSPORT) is not an automatic pass to a standalone article, especially when that pass is trivial, nominal or illusionary. You are also drawing an equivalence between List A and "highest-level" that simply doesn't exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjemather: I could point to the same discussion and note a wide range of comments in support of WP:NCRIC; in any case, your comment breaches WP:VOTE if you think that simply counting comments supports your view. The number of AFDs would not even pass the criterion of being a vote, as 80% of recent AFDs in cricket are from a single user, and therefore indicative of nothing. First class and List A matches are defined as such by the ICC Classification of Official Cricket document, which provides a clear, objective and independent criterion which is followed around the world. There is no domestic standard above those levels, irrespective of which sides the match is between. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt that, but if you do find such a discussion outside of WP:CRIC, let me know. You are misunderstanding the ICC's role, the criteria they lay down and how the various national bodies apply them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: 1 List-A match and a few bits mean it just scrapes on WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:27, 26 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. Tone 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. Devapriya

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - another initial-only cricketer which has slipped by over the last however many years. Strange, given that they're all within the same categories (not an attack, by the way, just an observation). Bobo . 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even any where near even remotely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I realize it's outside the Internet age but it's strange that information about players even from the early 1990s is significantly less available than that from a previous generation... Bobo . 21:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet the requirements of WP:NCRICKET --Whiteguru (talk) 09:32, 18 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjub Botawala

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet requirements of WP:NCRICKET --Whiteguru (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notable content not found for this cricketer. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers - lacks the evidence of notability for a stand-alone article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 18 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. Tone 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D. Liyanarachchi

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't even know his full name, fails WP:BASIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no cricket experience, and have no opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted. However, "we don't even know his full name" is a culturally inaccurate statement. The subject is Sri Lankan, and Tamil and Sinhalese Sri Lankans frequently use initials (including in official government records) to represent patronymic or given names, similar to how it is done in in Tamil Nadu. I will continue to reiterate this until people stop making this off-the-cuff "argument." Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I didn't realise, struck that comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it; this isn't meant to single you out (it's come up a lot over the past few days since for whatever reason there has been a spree of Sri Lankan cricket AfDs recently), and this isn't a keep argument, just something I've noticed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you know nothing about cricket than you should take your defense of these junk waste of space nothing filler "atricles" and go and get educated on what it requires to create an article, which is a lot more than knowing that one one day once someone played a game of cricket. These articles are utter and complete junk, and your obstructionist attack on the deletion process is making Wikipedia worse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you missed the fact that I neither mentioned the word "keep" nor advocated for keeping the article, anywhere. I do not care about this article either way, and I am not defending it. What I am defending is the basic fact that Western naming conventions are not adhered to everywhere in the world. A person in Sri Lanka being named in Sri Lankan fashion is not a referendum on his notability either way, arguing otherwise is culturally ignorant, and cultural ignorance is not a valid argument. You are free to find other, valid arguments.

Example: A. R. Rahman is an extremely well-known individual. He was born A. S. Dileep Kumar, and our article on him states as much. This is not because "we don't even know his full name," it's because that is how naming conventions work in his country. Again, you are free to "educate yourself" on this matter. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we know literally nothing about this guy except that one time he showed up and played in a cricket game. This is not enough to build an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject does pass WP:NCRIC by playing in a top-level domestic match, but passing NCRIC does not guarantee that a subject should be included. NCRIC is intended to allow people to determine quickly whether the subject is likely to meet the GNG. In this case I would be very surprised if GNG-passing coverage does in fact exist given that the subject only ever played in one cricket match at that level. Hut 8.5 08:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG; a (marginal at best) passing of an SNG cannot outweigh this, unfortunately. ——Serial 12:00, 19 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innovacom

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

Since June 2017 Innovacom fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies and organizations. --Dirge Jesse (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completing nomination on behalf of newly-registered account--above text is copied from article talk page. As for my own view, provided references are press releases and/or passing mentions. They appear to be a quite active company, but my initial searching didn't turn up any reliably-sourced material about them which would satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. @Dirge Jesse: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 22:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The firm is notorious mainly thanks to the ventures it supports; which is the purpose of a private equity firm. Its inherent notability is more obvious from French reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulu (talk • contribs) 08:15, February 11, 2021 (UTC (UTC) — Zulu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Zulu: I found lots of mention of the company as part of material about other companies, mainly (as noted above) press releases which carry little weight here. Can you point us to a non-PR article about Innovacom in English or French or any other language? --Finngall ^talk 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Innovacom page in French fully respects Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Innovacom page in English remains useful for Non-French speaking members (Disclaimer: I work for this company ; yet it remains an honest comment!) Frederic Humbert (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fhumbert: As different-language Wikipedias operate independently of each other and each sets its own policies and guidelines, an article's existence on fr-wiki does not in itself justify an article on en-wiki. --Finngall ^talk 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and the French Wikipedia doesn't have the equivalent of WP:NCORP either. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nearly closed this as delete but could do with another 7 days to see if a clear consensus forms either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, most are announcements and PR and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:09, 21 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saloni Chopra

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

I have declined a bunch of speedy tags on the article, as there are too many sources to make a clear and unambigious delete, but I'm not sure what else to do with this, so I'm bringing discussion here. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was speedily deleted then it was revived again. I could not find anything that could satisfy either WP:NMODEL or WP:ACTOR. RationalPuff (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, including due the #MeToo coverage; based on a quick search, there appear to be more sources than are currently listed in the article, and this article does not seem like it would easily merge into the Me Too movement (India) article. Beccaynr (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:HEY, I have cleaned up and revised the article, and added many additional sources; the additions and revisions help confirm WP:GNG notability due to the significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluations of the newly revised references against the notability guidelines by others may help with determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 05:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Constantly speedy deleted. Indication of COI. Fails WP:NACTOR. Timberlack (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTOR, the MensXP profile features Chopra as a model, discusses Chopra's roles as an actor, and specifically focuses on her role in the MeToo movement in India, which constitutes "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment," and is further emphasized in the Buzzfeed News profile of the MeToo movement in Bollywood, which includes a focus on Chopra, as well as the SheThePeople.TV report describing Chopra as one of the "significant pillars" of the MeToo movement, and Cosmopolitan India honoring her as the 2019 Editor's Panel Feminist Voice of the Year. Beccaynr (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also added references from The Indian Express (2016), SheThePeople.TV (2016), and India Today (2018) that focus on her work as a model and activist, before her involvement in the MeToo movement, which helps add encyclopedic content and context for her role in the MeToo movement. Her role in the MeToo movement was also reported in the India Times, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, AbpLive, The Indian Express, NDTV, ZeeNews, The Economic Times, and News18. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Reuters also reported on her activism in 2019, after and separate from her involvement in the MeToo movement. Beccaynr (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Times of India and other things listed a reliable sources and give her significant coverage. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/metoo-movement-saloni-chopra-feels-that-it-is-about-time-we-address-the-sexism-that-exists-in-the-industry/articleshow/66308246.cms https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/saloni-chopra-makes-a-strong-point-about-rape-sexuality-and-slut-shaming-with-a-bold-photoshoot-see-pics-2994329/ prove she meets the general notability guidelines and are already in the article. I see a lot of the article was created after the nomination, Beccaynr doing a lot of work on it. Dream Focus 07:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Beccaynr's improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:08, 22 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 and move to 2021 New York nursing home scandal.. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cuomo's response to nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic

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

Too narrow a topic for a stand-alone article, should be discussed at COVID-19 pandemic in New York (state). My attempt to redirect there was reverted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The COVID-19 pandemic in New York (state) is huge with 382 references and counting. This article should be broken down into smaller articles. Andrew Cuomo is a higher than average profile governor. His administration's response to nursing homes has bi-partisan condemnation. This issue has international news coverage. This has been a growing controversy and will likely get much bigger now that his administration is being investigated by EDNY and the FBI. The article is broadly referenced by at least 9 reputable news outlets. BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56091682 Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/15/cuomo-mistake-not-providing-nursing-home-death-data-faster Yousef Raz (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like 2021 New York nursing home scandal. I think there is enough factual material to spin this out, and it is being treated as an independent news event by the press, but the current title makes it look too close to a POV fork. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've started an official move request to this name; feel free to chime in there. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename: The name of this article is absolutely awful, one of the worst I have ever seen on a serious page; but the content is a major scandal that has received national investigation and extensive international coverage. It is also a relatively long-lived scandal that is well past WP:RECENT/breaking news territory -- this has been covered since last spring -- and will undoubtedly receive continued coverage given the FBI investigation and the upcoming New York mayoral election (so far most of the candidates haven't weighed in but it's bound to happen eventually given the strained relationship between the De Blasio and Cuomo administrations). It's also plausible that people besides Cuomo will be implicated -- more plausible than the alternative, I would guess, it's kind of already started to happen -- so the subject most likely stands alone in a way that a hypothetical Cuomo campaign gaffe would not. 2021 New York nursing home scandal seems like a good enough name. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and tag with Template:POV - A notable subject, but the article only includes sources where Cuomo defends his handling of the situation, if that argument is subsequently refuted. Cuomo's other statements on the subject should be included for balance, such as reported here and here. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename As per above. Notable, the the current name is bad. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Andrew Cuomo. I will be the first to admit that I think Gov. Cuomo has blood on his hands for his criminal order to force infectious Covid-19 patients into nursing homes, all the more so because the excess hospital space created was never adequately used so there was no actual need to rush sick patients out of hospitals to where they could infect more people, but I do not think this issue merits a seperate article, I think it needs to be in the article on Cuomo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Especially since the story is just unfolding. I'd hate to see censorship on Wikipedia by trying to cover up these death. Prins van Oranje 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article for Andrew Cuomo is not enough for this recent controversy, and it'd be inappropriate to fill half of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York article with this. CaliIndie (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, renaming is in order, the current title reads like a run-on sentence. CaliIndie (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Andrew Cuomo or rename. I think the two paragraphs already in Cuomo's main article does a good job summarizing the scandal and its own article is currently not needed. Kyjama (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the past year, the New York government response to COVID-19 has received a massive amount of coverage (including Cuomo in particular). Looking at the very long COVID-19 pandemic in New York (state) article, I have a hard time seeing spinning out this sub-issue as the ideal way to break that article up (which isn't to say we shouldn't cover it, of course). The ideal would probably be to spin out New York state government response to COVID-19, which would certainly contain a subsection on this subject (and could also be home to another article that doesn't seem like it needs a stand-alone article yet, Matilda's Law). That said, starting such a page would be a big project, so in the absence of that route... I'm torn between merging into the main article, redirecting to the Cuomo article (where there is a section), or leaving it be to see what happens. Probably weakly leaning redirect, but not enough to bold. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Merge any relevant information to Andrew Cuomo. KidAd talk 22:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, a big scandal, and widely reported in the news. It deserves its own article. CountyCountry (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the COVID numbers in New York are some of the worst in the entire world, perhaps in no small part because of Cuomo's nursing home actions. The initial response and coverup is entirely appropriate and DUE for a standalone article. I would agree that the rename suggested above is better. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The story is unfolding and the content is already too much for Andrew Cuomo's page. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major news story. The coverage of the scandal is far too significant for just a paragraph or two on the Andrew Cuomo or New York COVID 19 Pandemic articles. Thriley (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. X-Editor (talk) 03:26, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tellurian Inc

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:COMPANY. All I see beyond routine announcements is a couple of Motley Fool articles.[36][37] Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Timberlack (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I really am not sure what you are looking at because this company has been extensively covered in business publications, coverage that generally is not promotional -- quite the opposite, actually, they're not doing so well. Examples: recent coverage in the Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/824ce0f4-e014-48e5-80fb-95beede80398; googling site:ft.com "tellurian" brings up much more), Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-02/u-s-gas-exporter-tellurian-thrown-into-turmoil-amid-market-rout; again, site:bloomberg.com "tellurian" brings up a great deal of news). These seem analogous to "news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger" per WP:CORPDEPTH (merger, no, prolonged controversy, yes) The company was also the subject of a lawsuit Bloomberg described as "a bitter, multiyear dispute between major players in the nascent U.S. gas-export industry" (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/days-before-trial-of-the-year-gas-exporters-settle-feud -- this is about the end of it but there is plenty of coverage of the suit prior). The original creator of the article appears to be affiliated with the company, which would explain the omission of such sources given that they are unflattering; however, they exist, and seemingly en masse. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

Analyst reports

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/TELL/price-target/^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
1/21/2021	Wolfe Research	Upgrade	Peer Perform ➝ Outperform	$5.00	Low	View Rating Details
7/5/2020	Morgan Stanley	Reiterated Rating	Sell		Medium	View Rating Details
6/10/2020	Roth Capital	Initiated Coverage	Buy	$5.25	High	View Rating Details
6/1/2020	Stifel Nicolaus	Downgrade	Hold ➝ Sell		Low	View Rating Details
3/12/2020	Credit Suisse Group	Reiterated Rating	Outperform ➝ Neutral		High	View Rating Details
3/12/2020	Raymond James	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Market Perform		Low	View Rating Details
3/9/2020	Robert W. Baird	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Neutral	$5.00 ➝ $2.00	High	View Rating Details
3/3/2020	Seaport Global Securities	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Neutral		High	View Rating Details
9/17/2019	Evercore ISI	Initiated Coverage	Outperform	$14.00	Low	View Rating Details
8/23/2019	Bank of America	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Neutral		High	View Rating Details

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tellurian to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://ir.tellurianinc.com/analyst-coverage^{Internet Archive} has a list of firms and analysts who publish analyst reports about Tellurian:

Firm	Analyst
Bank of America Merrill Lynch	Julien Dumoulin-Smith
Cowen	Jason Gabelman
Credit Suisse Securities	Spiro M Dounis
DNB Markets	Joergen Lian
Evercore ISI	Sean Morgan
Morgan Stanley	Devin McDermott
Raymond James	Justin Jenkins
ROTH Capital Partners	John M. White
Scotia Howard Weil	Alonso Guerra-Garcia
Seaport Global Securities	Sunil Sibal
Stifel	Ben Nolan
Tuohy Brothers	Craig Shere
Webber Research & Advisory LLC	Michael Webber
Wolfe Research	Sam Margolin

Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added the above sources mentioned, as well as some more. It needs a review and expansion, ideally from someone more knowledgeable about business news and/or the gas industry; I also worry that I overcompensated for the puffery that was there by skewing too negative. At any rate, though, it should now more than demonstrate that it meets WP:CORP. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list of brokers covering this company, alone, indicates notability --Devoke water 17:26, 25 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeyan Shafiq

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Covert advertising from a blocked sockpuppet account. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A piece of advertisement. references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timberlack: I would invite you to reconsider your reasoning. There are several references on the article with extensive coverage of the subject. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timberlack: As per your contrib history, you've been commenting on indian businessmen related AFD's, within 9 minutes you passed comments on 3 AFD's, Can you share how did you check the references so quickly? Hums4r (Let's Talk) 06:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 13:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you name the blocked sockpuppet account and point out the covert advertising? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, AfD nominator here. The article was published on 12 January by Zeyan, a blocked sockpuppet of Hums4r. The concern regarding covert advertising is for the company KashBook and Stalwart Esports. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Again MrsSnoozyTurtle, I’ve already clarified the part of using “Zeyan” account to publish it on the SPI page, moreover it was not published, they moved it back to draft space and then the page was edited and published by Fences and windows, you should perhaps have a look at the edit history, also point out the part that looked as “covert advertisement” to you, i am very interested in learning about it and removing it, since i was the major contributor to this article.Hums4r (Let's Talk) 22:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle. I see your concern about advertising, but I'm not sure what the solution is if the subjects pass WP:GNG and the articles are written neutrally. You would have a point if Stalwart eSports is not notable; Zeyan Shafiq would then only be notable for a single event (founding KashBook) and the article would have to be rewritten to focus on the event (i.e. "Founding of KashBook") rather than Shafiq. But as I mentioned, this depends on Stalwart eSports not being notable (and would be grounds for an AfD on that article too). Are you suggesting that? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since i have a COI, i won't suggest to keep or delete, i would just mention this comment. The Article was written by me and then reviewed by experienced wikipedians like Fences and windows, TheAafi, Kohlrabi Pickle and many more, the article was properly check and reviewed and was even posted to 'DYK' section. There has been a discussion earlier regarding the references as well and they were reliable as per wikipedia policies. I don't see 'Covert advertising from a blocked sockpuppet account' on this article because i've been a major contributor to this and apart from me all other editors who have edited this aren't sockpuppets/ blocked.Hums4r (Let's Talk) 06:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it carries much weight if it was published by your account, Hums4r, rather than that of your sock account Zeyan. Especially since the Hums4r account has now been blocked as the sockmaster. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article wasn't created by Zeyan, rather by Hums4r; see diff. Hums4r also appears to be major contributor of this article, and he is not blocked as a sockpuppet. The AfD nomination rationale is vague and not a valid reason. This article would remain because it merits a standalone article. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We may say for a while, Zeyan account was compromised, "but nonetheless this account was only used to move the article from draftspace to mainspace, and that action was subsequently reverted". This article has been moved to mainspace through the procedural process of AfC. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~This is nothing but a bad-faith AfD! ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

changing to Keep: Per significant coverage that we find in a number of sources available in the article. Note: I've struck my earlier speedy keep comment after Hums4r's global block. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then please amend your comment instead of double voting. CUPIDICAE💕 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a piece of promotion and advertisement. References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Even the details provided about subject are baseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HACKER KASH (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HACKER KASH is a sockpuppet account - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali

Keep. I edited the draft after it was raised on a noticeboard to ensure it was neutral and based in reliable sources and then I moved it live. I'm confident with subject is notable for more than one thing - starting KashBook and Stalwart eSports - and that the article is not unduly promotional. The coverage is indepth, specifically about the subject and in multiple independent reliable sources, mainly from India. The blocked account, which may be the article subject's, has not been identified as a sockmaster or sockpuppet for the article creator, who disclosed contacting the subject to get a photo - AfD is not SPI, so this is the wrong venue. p.s. I've been mentoring the article creator since then. Fences&Windows 13:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fences and windows, I do not get any indication from the sources that they are independent and reliable. Ultimately, all but one of the secondary sources appear to be part of a PR campaign. Each article essentially parrots the others, with all being published (for the most part) days apart. Perryprog (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources being similar doesn't necessarily mean it's a PR campaign; Indian press seems to copy each other even more than do Western media. These are the earliest sources I can find: [38][39][40]. KashBook then fell apart a few months later through jealousy and squabbling: [41], a source I'd missed before now. Fences&Windows 19:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the Stalwart esports is an international gaming organization, why it is not registered? and Kashbook isn't working also because that was also the act of Anti National activity. HACKER KASH http://www.catchnews.com/science-technology/kashmir-s-social-network-kashbook-is-no-more-and-not-because-of-the-government-76694.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by HACKER KASH (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HACKER KASH is a sockpuppet account - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali

We've discussed the same here, kindly read this fully to understand. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zeyan_Shafiq#This_page_must_be_deleted. Hope it helps, also sign your comments. Hums4r (Let's Talk) 14:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HACKER KASH, whether Kashbook is still operational is irrelevant, because notability is not temporary. Whether Stalwart is "official" or not is also irrelevant - we use reliable sources to inform our inclusion decision, not such personal decisions about merit.
Note to closing admin, I suspect some Kashmiri rivalry is affecting these !votes. Fences&Windows 16:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fences and windows, I suspect a similar thing. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that some of the votes are probably being influenced by rivalry, because their reasoning is suspect. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article seems like a promotional one. Even though the subject has been covered, it clearly fails to the relevance of existing an an independent article Me and Hums4r discussed this on my talk page and I have changed my mind. RegardsKichu🐘 ^Discuss 09:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Its now only that I only noticed Hums4r was just a sock account. So I had a detailed study on this person Zeyan. He even shared this wikipedia article on social media for promotional purpose. So I would like to strongly stand with my early opinion. 'Delete Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmorwiki: Wikipedia considers the Hums4r account to be a sockmaster – the Shahzada Iqbal, Zeyan and Prakrutiprajapanti accounts are considered to be sockpuppets – see WP:SPI/Hums4r/archive and block log.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The reason for nomination isn't clear, but in any event, I don't see anything that can't be fixed with a little rewriting. Certainly nothing that warrants WP:TNT. Separately, a couple of other editors have suggested that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG without explanation or reference to the several independent news articles that profile him in depth. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or merge~~ Merge into KashBook. On further reflection, I am modifying my vote. I have been uncomfortable with how, despite the subject ostensibly passing GNG, the article reads so promotionally. I don't think the articles were paid for, but they have a human interest element to them (a precocious Kashmiri teenager creating something techy to work around a ban by the big bad government in Delhi). KashBook is not a revolutionary piece of software, nor did it take Kashmir by storm (it was in the top 22 social media platforms in the valley alone - very far from the top), and Stalwart Esports are not some wunderkind team. Both of them derive their notability from the circumstances in which they were created. I think the repeated wording (which Perryprog references in their vote) is a sign of poor journalism, not payment – I've encountered the same in sources for other India/Pakistan related articles I've contributed to – and it indicates that they've all copied off of each other. But this is good enough reason for me to doubt that these articles generate notability value. I'm also uncomfortable with how the subject is openly using the Wikipedia page for self-promotion on his social media platforms. People who pass GNG on their own are seldom bothered by whether or not they have a Wikipedia article. I am not persuaded that he is notable yet. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Amended vote from "Delete or merge into KashBook" to "Merge into KashBook" on 00:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

There is no article on KashBook to merge into.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had expected that one of the original contributors to this article would have created one by now... but if not, then I am happy for it to be deleted or draftified and rewritten as an article on KashBook. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the deletion votes claim that references in third-party sources are just passing mentions. I checked four of the third-party citations and all of them were significant coverage.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this deletion debate has been going on, the article has been expanded and improved. There are enough citations to good quality independent sources that an editor could even remove two of them on the grounds of WP:CITETRIM, and he/she was probably right to do so.

There have been dubious editors on both sides of the AFD debate; some of these have been blocked for sock/meat puppetry. Personally I wish a checkuser could be run on every account/IP address that participated in this AFD, as I am sure it would catch a few more. In addition, there is an editor on each side whose activity on Wikipedia consists mainly of participating in AFDs or editing articles subject to AFDs. The pro-deletion sockpuppets argued that there was no evidence of not significant coverage; this was untruthful. There is an argument that Shafiq's companies used press releases - and the Indian/Pakistan press used these to write articles (just like Western newspapers use press releases from government organisations and from companies). There is nothing wrong with the press receiving press releases, doing some fact checking and then using information from the press releases.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1 Personally I wish a checkuser could be run on every account/IP address that participated in this AFD, as I am sure it would catch a few more. this is pretty gross and egregious and I'd expect an editor of your tenure to WP:AGF. The implication here that anyone beyond blocked sock puppets are participating in some nefarious game is pretty disgusting on all counts. CUPIDICAE💕 21:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strongly supporting the the comment of TheAafi. –Kammil ⟨talk⟩ 05:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly support to keep this article live as the subject is covered in various reliable sources. The article was even on DYK section. An article that was in the Main page section of Wikipedia must be enough notable, as it made its way there, I wonder why is this discussion going on. I also came across a delete comment from a user who forgot to sign the comment. Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Must be deleted~~. I strongly support to delete this article . Because it like to be promotional. I follow up this person and find he use this wiki page for verifying social media. Is a simple thing is notable for news reference? Beside wikipedia should not promote any thing like that, which break countries law. . Do something by keeping national thing first.Some person acted like they connect to this article in any condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.163 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your account name? On 17 February, you were canvassing for people to get this article deleted.[42][43] -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that Hums4r has been globally locked for xwiki spamming on multiple accounts. CUPIDICAE💕 17:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most indicative thing here is the wording repeated across multiple sources, which makes me think they were PR-campaigned articles—every single source that was published in 2017 seems to be a part of this. Just look at how many have incredibly similarly worded paragraphs on how they "learnt HTML tags by himself at the age of 11". The rest of the articles look similarly spammy, often with dubious red flags like image credits being from "special arrangement". The only source that could really possibly be considered reliable would be to Vice and Business Insider, neither of which are terrible good. The BI article also looks to be a part of the PR campaign due to its content. I'd encourage the participants to throughly read through some of the sources listed, as they all appear to be very sub-par. Perryprog (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my several previous analysis of the sources - this is a stellar PR job, but ultimately unencyclopedic as it's not organic coverage (it's paid for) and are regurgitated press releases and user submissions to shady media outlets. CUPIDICAE💕 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Shafiq is promoting himself, but so do many other people. If India Today, The Economic Times, The Times of India,[44] The Nation (Pakistan), Vice India, and Ravi Agrawal are all shady sources that publish for pay then we'd best bulk delete most articles about India and Pakistan. For the esports story there was an Agence France-Presse newswire,[45] which is how many stories find their way into the media. Fences&Windows 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and windows Actually, most Indian (and Pakistani) news sources indeed do exactly that, which is why a lot of them aren't regarded as reliable sources (the Times of India failed a discussion at RSN and editors are advised against using it, also see The_Times_of_India#Paid_news). Having said that, your link looks like an actual story as opposed to advertorial. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're talking about this, Black Kite, that appears (to me) to be a regurgitated press release as opposed to organic journalism, which is par for the course for TOI. CUPIDICAE💕 14:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fences and windows, I trust @Praxidicae's judgement on sources & tbh I think I trust them on this also. @Black Kite is also apt when they say most Indian sources do just that(I would know, I’ve lived in India and I’m part Indian) The aforementioned sources you listed save for TOI are actually regarded to as reliable sources in India but we must keep in mind that reliable sources and reliable pieces aren’t one and the same & reliable sources also publish unreliable pieces(more prevalent in Nigeria though where I reside currently). Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have just removed a "Keep" !vote from the page as I have indefinitely blocked the user for threats against others, and attacking an editor who has commented "Delete" here. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article has completely advertising taste and no doubt it’s a part pf a PR work. I checked the Zeyan Shafiq’s Social Media platforms and found that the article is a paid edit. Because on 14th January the user User:Fences_and_windows moved the Draft:Zeyan Shafiq from Draft space to main space. On the same date after the article done he posted screenshot of Wikipedia article on his story on Facebook. Also yesterday their Facebook page Stalwarts eSports connecting Stalwart Esports got verified and he shared it on his Facebook account. In my conclusion both of these Article Zeyan Shafiq and Stalwart Esports are well planned PR paid edit for social media branding and advertising. Also the edit history of both articles looks spam Ravishingstar (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We knew the article subject was aware, the article creator admitted contacting him to get photos. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalwart Esports. I advised Hums4r not to work on that article but he ignored me. If Shafiq's article is kept then I'd favour merging it into his bio, but I won't comment there. Fences&Windows 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I want to keep some question

1.If any one open a esports team which not yet participate in any notable competitive game even not win a compitision how may it notable?

2.If i issue some paid or free pr or news in this simple thing is it notable?

3.If everyone start to do this cheap thing like zeyan for verifying their social account in future it could be more bad.

4. If one create a app seeing youtube cheap course he is not a web develoer or else respective member said zeyan.

5.Last month i crate a video chatting app if i submit some news article by paying money can I will be eligible for wiki page.That's nit fair with the greatest person of the earth because :Wikipedia is the place where great people get approved.

Do something like this cheap thing.

In pubg championship many indian team won and perticipate but they don’t di this types of thing for social handle verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.163 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added multiple more reliable source references to the Zeyan Shafiq as per WP:RS and WP:BLPRS and WP:SIGCOV. It should meet the basic WP:GNG to fit in. Regarding paid release, Indian articles usually copy from other sources and post them. They're not likely to be paid and all the Paid Releases usually come with warning's or are labelled as brand posts so doesn't look like paid releases but they can be removed and the article could be edited accordingly and saved. Also via talk page this article has been nominated for DYK and shouldn't be removed on the basis of unreliable sources rather should be edited and those Unreliable sources should be removed or used as primary references to enrich the article. Subject's work has been widely covered as well can be checked by simple search over google. The esport organisation has been in print/TV news for their collaboration. I'm posting this to save the article because this AfD has been influenced by Bad-faith votes and Rivalry. If required I'll remove the unreliable sources. 2409:4050:E9B:4CE2:495C:1A7D:80DB:8083 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to redact your egregious personal attack, read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. CUPIDICAE💕 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks i just replied with my knowledge of organic/reliable and paid sources, why did you think it wasn't in good faith and it was a personal attack? Let the closing admin and the community decide and my response wasn't for anyone specifically it was general for the Closing admin.2409:4050:E9B:4CE2:495C:1A7D:80DB:8083 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Praxidicae. Your comment "this AfD has been influenced by Bad-faith votes and Rivalry" is at odds with WP:AGF towards other editors. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The sources appear to be paid for & based on that I cannot and would not support an article based on unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO paid sources are clearly labelled as 'brand posts' or 'paid' on the website's, these articles are organic I've added few more, maybe have a look and decide. Commenting in good faith only.it's your opinion afterall. 2409:4050:E9B:4CE2:495C:1A7D:80DB:8083 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Commissioned sources are, at best, primary sources and as this is a biography such sources are pretty much worthless for anything. Whether or not the outlet has EiCs that do their job and disclose the paid-for articles is immaterial; if it's a commissioned article being cited for a biography, it needs to hit the bricks. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is this «notable for more than one thing - starting KashBook and Stalwart eSports»? Really? Perhaps the leading paragraph should mention what these two things are, concisely, then? In the current revision I am not convinced that the notability criteria are met. --Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea - I have done it for Kashbook (because the citations explained in simple terms what Kashbook is).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just dropping in to add that there is at least one reliable source: India Connected: How the Smartphone Is Transforming the World's Largest Democracy, a book published by Oxford University Press, that acknowledges the significant attention Shafiq received. It does so in this line: That evening, I met Zeyan Shafiq, who had become something of a tech celebrity in Kashmir. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: This is WP:BLP1E, He can’t be notable just because of one event that has happened years ago. The reason for not voting Del is to confirm:- Since Kashbook has had extensive coverage, does it qualify as notability? Can someone explain? -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep or weak keep few sources about e-sport work , so isn't BLP1E. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge the biography for which it has received media attention is Kashbook (a non notable app with no historical records and popularity). The available sources do not discuss the app or its developer(s) independently, but they have covered Censorship in Kashmir for which the app has received media coverage. In general terms, it fails to satisfy WP:NSOFT and WP:BIO. None of the sources discuss the subject separate from government bans. I would also suggest merge the article to Censorship in Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep requires some writing.looks to meet wp:gng wp:rs easily with many secondary sources,books and was on main page as per talk page.also wp:atd says if editing can improve the page,it should be edited rather then deleted. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk · contribs) joined here just a day ago. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Gentle

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Only coverage seems to be announcements when she took over Tellurian Inc and later resigned. I've also nominated Tellurian for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Tellurian assuming it's kept -- the company itself has substantial news coverage, but she doesn't seem notable outside of it. The only coverage I found was routine announcements of being appointed/resigning from various boards. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the references are about Tellurian. The two references that speak to her don't encompass WP:GNG, general notability, as per above comment. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:39, 18 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. Procedural close given that the nominator is checkuser blocked. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Penttinen

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

This page is a BLP, does not have sources, and have a lot of other issues. Larryzhao123 (talk | contribs) 19:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Larryzhao123 (talk | contribs) 19:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While indeed a BLP with a number of issues, AfD is not cleanup. I have done just a couple chronological, punctuation, and wording fixes, as well as added headings/subheadings just to make it easier for other editors to review. I am not familiar with racing or racing-related sources in the least, so in the spirit of WP:CIR will leave it to editors who know more about the subject. There are Swedish sources solely about the subject here, here, and here. --Kbabej (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 03:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the subject is notable (ALMS/ELMS are fully professional series, NSPORT is satisfied) but this is an all but unsourced BLP. Can someone with more time (and, likely, non-English skills) locate sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He appears to be driving at a motorsports level below that of WP:NMOTORSPORT. There is an indication that he will likely join the European LeMans circuit later this year, when he may well qualify for WP:NMOTORSPORT. Until then, it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:44, 18 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. Tone 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Smith (singer)

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

I don't believe this artist meets the standards set out in WP:NMG. Was "compared" to Britney Spears, appeared in un-aired TV specials. I can't find much coverage of her albums or singles. Article's sources include multiple broken links that I don't see replacements for, and links to facebook. Just overall, I don't believe this article stands up to the guidelines. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough references to satisfy notability, as given in WP:NMUSIC. Too many dead links among the references. Agree with nom. WP:TNT might be the best thing to do here. A good article about a fellow named Jason marrying Britney here, absolutely no relevance whatsoever. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not in any way notable in any of her many endeavors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of notable/reliable sources and many broken links. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NMUSIC. --IWI (talk) 08:35, 23 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 Hedjaz railway. Daniel (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chemin de Fer de Hedjaz Syrie

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

Fails WP:V. The only online mentions I can find seem to be about the Hedjaz railway (in French: "Chemin de fer du Hedjaz"); and even the article on Britannica (here) does not mention this, although it mentions the other one, Hedjaz Jordan Railway. Absent any sources (and then, even if some where found, that would still not meet WP:N), should be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note If you ask me, a redirect might be okay, but not from this unattested, grammatically wrong and miscapitalised (per my knowledge of French) title; which should therefore be deleted. Syrian Hedjaz railway might do fine. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Attempts at searching with "Chemin de Fer de Hedjaz Syrie", "Syrian Hedjaz Railway", and "Suriye Hicaz Demiryolu" (additional names are from tr:Chemin de Fer de Hedjaz Syrie) yield only a few insignificant book results. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 03:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hedjaz railway, of which this was a component & remaning operating part.Djflem (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered merging, but if the content of this article is completely unsourced, merging will just move the problematic content to Hedjaz railway. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hedjaz railway --Whiteguru (talk) 10:12, 18 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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mastram (web series)

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

Doesn't seems to satisfy WP:GNG. SwashWafer (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwashWafer (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- season 1 of Mastram already released on 30 April 2020. It is one the most viewed Indian web series. shooting for Season 2 is already going. on. It has been covered in major publications. Canadian intimacy co-ordinator, Amanda Cutting was roped in for the web series.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/web-series/news/amanda-cutting-sex-scenes-need-to-be-choreographed-like-a-bollywood-dance-sequence/articleshow/75779834.cms
https://scroll.in/reel/960370/mastram-trailer-anshuman-jha-plays-the-1980s-hindi-erotica-writer-in-mx-player-series
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/web-series/reviews/hindi/mastram/seasonreview/75874034.cms
--Ritabharidevi (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Chutrandi. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 02:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Soft Porn and pornographic actors were merged with WP:BIO - so it is the bio's of the actors involved that has to meet notability. Let's not be swee here, this is soft porn. So we are not going to WP:GNG nor [[WP:NFILM] or anything like that. The references give strong notability to the main actor. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:20, 18 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) 01:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Muslim

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

Being accused of a crime does not make one notable. Furthermore, the article is far from being written in a neutral manner, focusing on the individual's past and also bringing up other incidents that the individual was not alleged to be involved in. Mention of this incident could (if he is convicted) be made in the article Anti-Chinese violence in California. ... discospinster _talk 02:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 02:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 02:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is quite the perjorative article. As per nom, a single event does not make one notable. WP:BLP1E applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:CRIME. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the series of assaults is mostly notable because of the wide press coverage that it garnered. Posing some difficulty, most of it was before the suspect was identified, so his name is lower than expected in Ghits. But the story itself was huge, you can see the media figures commenting and putting up reward money. I am aware of no article covering the crime spree and its aftermath that this coverage would be merged into. Juno (talk) 16:02, 23 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. Consensus is keep. Please note that the nominator's rationale is discounted as they have been blocked as a sockpuppet and Doomsdayer520 has changed from a delete rationale to keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z LaLa

AfDs for this article:

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

Current sources don't pass WP:GNG Woinfosd (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nominator has been blocked as a sock related to a probable UPE and/or extortion scheme. Nomination should not be considered in Good Faith. -- GreenC 16:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Woinfosd (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is the second nom. Fails WP:SINGER. There is some media presence, but mostly related to her extravagant clothing on a few awards ceremonies. Kolma8 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a close call because she has a charting single ([46]) and some media notoriety in "worst dressed" lists. She has some listings for modeling work, and gets noticed occasionally for her gimmick of singing in lots of different languages. Those are minor achievements that the article desperately over-interprets with terms like "controversial" and "pushing the boundaries", or implying that she is a social justice champion because she has LGBT fans. She is present in the media but not quite comprehensively enough for the requirements at WP:NSINGER and WP:NMODEL. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Wikipedia topic fall for WP:GNG, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This topic has everything that is needed to fulfil General notability guideline. According to WP:SINGER second rule (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.) and serval other rules this topic meets WP:SINGER and singing in lots of different languages isn't minor achievements. WP:NSINGER has no guideline for having good third party charting like this ([47]). The topic also falls under WP:NMODEL, with significant roles in multiple notable singles, large fan base and made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. So this topic is nominated the second time, which seemed clear attack as it was last time.Umair Ahmad Butt (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has a enough notability to stay. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Couldn't find any substantial coverage of her music, reviews of it, interviews with her, etc. besides one small podcast -- worst dressed slideshows don't qualify as "significant." Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to WP:GNG & WP:NMODEL with significant reliable reference, should stay on Wikipedia.Arslan Ahsan (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most editors suggesting this should be kept are failing to do so with policy/guideline based reasons and so this is leaning delete. Relisting to see if better consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above: plenty of non-trivial coverage in independent sources, Sadads (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I revised the organization of the article, added a reference from HuffPost, and edited WP:PUFFERY. Per WP:MUSICBIO, Z LaLa had a single on the Billboard chart for twelve weeks, with a peak position of 10, so notability is supported. In addition, she objectively appears to have WP:BASIC coverage of her "notable style" in independent and reliable sources (e.g. SFGate, HuffPost, Business Insider, E!Online) because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My original vote above was to delete, but thanks to the recent work performed by others, I would now support a Keep verdict. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 26 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 22:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney James

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

Non notable actor. All the references mentioned are about the movies. 1 reference in Mathrubhumi appears to be about the actor, but the reference is a broken link. All the roles mentioned in peacock words are blink and you miss roles, and the article is created by a single purpose editor. No better references found in WP:BEFORE and therefore fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 02:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 02:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 02:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, all the references mentioned are about the movies, not the actor. As per nom, created by a single purpose editor. Fails WP:GNG --Whiteguru (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I did a WP:Before. The real problem here is that its hard to find sources because when I search his name, I am getting results about Disney and related subjects in both English and Malayalam due to its popularity. Thus the subject clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no sources available to establish notabilty. But sources may exist because the subject has appeared in some major films in Malayalam movies.Regards. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lean toward delete - Not getting any Google News hits toward GNG. The guy has been in a bunch of movies, and many are presumably notable, but he appears to always have bit parts, based on what the blue-linked articles tell me. It's possible that he is notable, but I can't find evidence of that. The litany of short films isn't compelling, since none appears to have any demonstrable notability. Same with the albums. Draftying might buy the contributor some time to build the case, but if that's not popular, then delete. The editor is almost singularly focused on James, which raises a lot of questions for me about WP:COI and or whether this is an autobiography or not, since there is a lot of career padding. Why would they know that much detail about his life, education and career, yet none of it is sourced and it's difficult to find any content about him? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:27, 23 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 13:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon Lectra

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

I can't see any evidence that this can pass WP:NCORP. My WP:BEFORE search has come back with nothing more than Discogs and the company's own Facebook page. This company is still active and posting on Facebook but I could find no coverage from independent sources that addresses this company directly and in detail. I found nothing on Gnews or Gbooks and a British newspaper search also came back with zilch. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 02:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient references to give notability. Article fails WP:NMUSIC --Whiteguru (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:10, 21 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 Fairfield University. Consensus to not keep, but not consensus to delete; redirection is a compromise that allows mergers if people want that. Sandstein 22:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield University College of Arts and Sciences

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

Sources provided do not meet WP:GNG and notability is not inherited from the notable parent article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion for the same reasons:

Merge and redirect all to the Fairfield University article where this content is relevant, as an alternative to deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amenable to that outcome. ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Atlantic306. Mccapra (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 00:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep academic subdivisions of a university designated as colleges should be considered inherently notable. They generally have seperate commentment exercises, and control their own budgets and staffing in ways that make them clearly notable entities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not in line with either our general notability guideline nor our common practices. You're welcome to open a discussion to propose a change to the guideline but I'm very skeptical that other editors would be supportive of us having articles about subjects for which there are few, if any, independent sources especially since there is already agreement that notability is not inherited. ElKevbo (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to the university's article. There's been a general practice for years here that excepting law and medical schools, individual schools of a university are best covered in the university article. I see no reason to deviate here, and I see nothing to merge, as everything is sourced to the university. 174.254.192.213 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all because there's nothing much to merge, and a redirect is unnecessary--anyone looking for this will immediately find the article on the university We only make these sub-University college articles for the largest and most famous universities, because others will not general have sufficient importance and coverage. All universities have websites, and that's where this belongs. (Fairfield is very decidedly not in the class of ,most famous universities---- see the article on it) DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per DGG. There really isn't anything to merge.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fairfield University. No need for a WP:SPINOUT for the college; however the historical info and notable faculty listed would be appropriate additions to the university article, per WP:PRESERVE 24.151.121.140 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For additional info and guidance on this matter, please see also this past AfD discussion concerning the former sister article Center for Faith and Public Life. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 22:47, 18 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 and redirect to List of Wellington representative cricketers. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Mitchell

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time we stopped being Crickepedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 02:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has not played at levels of cricket given in WP:NCRICKET. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wellington representative cricketers - no evidence of notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Support User:Spiderone to List of Wellington representative cricketers. NCRICKET needs fixing.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:53, 18 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. Tone 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Aronowitz

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

No evidence of notability. Of the two sources cited in the article, one is a dead link for which I could not find an archived version or other replacement, and the other only makes a singe mention of Aronowitzh in passing. Nightscream (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nightscream (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One reference is primary, the Blabbermouth reference seems to be irrelevant, and another is a dead link. Insufficient notability to meet WP:GNG --Whiteguru (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete prop designers are not notable for doing their job. We need actual sustained secondary source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 19 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. Tone 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Womack

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

Highly advertorialized article about a film director, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, every filmmaker is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- the notability test requires certain objective markers of achievement, such as notable awards and/or the reception of enough coverage in reliable source media outlets independent of himself, to establish that his work has been externally validated as significant by anybody besides his own public relations agent. But three of the five footnotes shown here are IMDB, a YouTube video, and his own book's buy-it page on Amazon -- and even the two "media" hits are still not actually real journalism, but just two separate reprints of the same Q&A interview, in which he's talking about his own work in the first person, and they're also both explicitly labelled as "Sponsored Advertising Content". All of which means that none of them are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all -- and furthermore, I also had to strip the article of a large profusion of WP:ELNO violating offsite links to more Amazon pages, Facebook posts, and other pages that still aren't reliable or notability-supporting sources either. As always, people do not get into Wikipedia by creating their own sources themselves so that the article is technically "verified" -- notability is not a question of what the article says he did, it's a question of how much attention has or hasn't been independently paid to the things he did by journalists in real media.
I can't prove it outright, but from what I see here I'd be extremely surprised if this isn't conflict of interest editing by the subject himself or a personal friend, colleague or relative of his. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is based on true facts. Do not delete. Cited, paragraphed and verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastphotograph (talk • contribs) — Lastphotograph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete: No indication of notability, sources are promotional content. ... discospinster _talk 03:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (edit conflict × 1) The first two references are completely the same (so count as one) and are WP:interviews, the last three references are WP:user-generated content, so all source are likely WP:unreliable. Apart from that, a large part of the article is hardly WP:verifiable due to the lack of inline citations (and likely references). A WP:before search with "David S. Womack" produces few results that can be used as references, while "David Womack" yields some result but about unrelated people with the name "David Womack". ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 05:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources updated. Thanks for the heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastphotograph (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly Speedy delete as spam. Per nom , apparent WP:COI. WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:180:B8E0:15C4:2E2D:8425:5AA9 (talk) 17:23, 19 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 Stefan Goldmann. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macro Recordings

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:NCORP. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article's subject meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:NCORP – this is a music label whose releases have been nominated for important industry awards, have repeatedly entered annual readers' polls of relevant media and are regularly reviewed/featured in leading music media and beyond, such as the New York Times, Der Spiegel and the BBC. Several artist articles on Wikipedia link to it. See expanded article.Planetdust (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Several references are primary; others do not satisfy notability for Music/Others given in WP:NMUSICOTHER --Whiteguru (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are no primary references in the article at all – all are either press articles by notable media or official sites of award-granting organisations etc. How do others – which others – not satisfy notability? No pseudoarguments please. As far as WP:NMUSICOTHER is concerned, points 1 & 3 are met. Probably also 5. Planetdust (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:NMUSICOTHER clearly states that it applies to "Composers and performers" (first line) and not companies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Addressed this since the 'delete' proposal by Amanuensis Balkanicus & vote by Whiteguru refer to WP:NMUSICOTHER. Both can be ignored if somebody believes that they are based on wrong premises. Planetdust (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Properly sourced & meets notability criteria. Numerous releases by genre-leading artists.Artur Berkut (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly redirect to Stefan Goldmann) - Despite what the two previous "keep" voters said, the music company is not covered in reliable sources. That's because every time the company is mentioned in the press, the story is actually about a record or musician but not the company itself. In other words, the company is only listed as a piece of data in journalistic coverage of other things. The company has not been the subject of reliable media coverage in its own right, which is required for both WP:NCOMPANY ~~and WP:NMUSICOTHER~~. Everything specifically dedicated to the company really is a primary source and self-promotional at best. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, what doomsdayer writes is entirely wrong. The company is explicitly referred to in the independent sources used in the article. If a release is reviewed, naturally the artist is mentioned too, but it is just as obvious that the release would not exist had the company not released it. Not a single source is "self promotion" or "primary" (like what, the New York Times?). Relevant industry awards are stated and sourced correctly. This label has been repeatedly in readers' polls, which should close the discussion right away. WP articles are not required to quote all available relevant sources, only that whatever is stated in the article must be sourced correctly, which is the case here. Furthermore the label is not identical with Stefan Goldmann since multiple artists release there and he is not the sole owner either. I'd really appreciate if serious statements were presented instead of distortions of WP policies. If you claim things like "primary", be specific about it. Thanks.Planetdust (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You can't vote twice, but here is an analysis of the article's sources as they currently stand.

1. Traxsource is not an objective introduction to the label, given frequent puffery like "catchy razor blade brand", "extreme focus on artistic quality", "highly individual musical expression" and a constant parade of others that would never be used by someone writing reliably and independently. Purely promotional language from the inside.

2. Interview with F. Johnassen in which Macro is only mentioned briefly.

3. Review of F. Goldmann release in which Macro is simply listed as the label.

4. Unknown because I do not have a subscription, but the article's title indicates another review of someone's album in which Macro is likely to be mentioned briefly as the label.

5. Interview with Elektro Guzzi in which their signing with Macro is discussed briefly.

6. Feature article on P. Crowley in which Macro is not mentioned at all. Yes this is reliable New York Times article, but it is not about the company.

7. List of participants at an awards ceremony, in which Macro is merely listed as the label for two nominees.

8. This one might actually help a bit: Links to several feature stories on Stefan Goldmann, but every one of them is about his larger music career and his ownership of Macro is only mentioned briefly.

9-13: Five different year-end charts from various magazines in which Macro releases were listed, but the musicians get recognized by critics in such lists, not record labels.

All of these (except #1), whether reliable or not, are about musicians and releases that are on Macro but not about Macro itself. This does not qualify for WP:NMUSICOTHER which is clearly about "Composers and performers" (first line) and not companies. A record label needs to satisfy the requirements at WP:NCOMPANY, and more specifically its sub-guideline WP:CORPDEPTH requires significant coverage which is not demonstrated by the sources currently in the article, and nobody else in this debate has found anything more. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Stefan Goldmann, it's this guy's boutique label, stand alone article unwarranted, it's a single paragraph, exists solely for promotional purposes. Acousmana (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- doomsdayer: You keep making up criteria that have no base in guidelines. Not one of the sources is "primary", as you previously claimed. What language independent sources chose is irrelevant here as long as they state the facts which they are the sources for. Where did you find that catchy language by an independent media outlet disqualifies the information of the year a company has been founded in? Most sources here state facts such as year founded, ownership, the nature of the music released ("symphonic") etc. The same goes for the awards & polls lists – it is irrelevant that such a particular source "merely" mentions the label briefly. What does matter is establishing that a label's releases are included in such industry awards lists. In your examination of sources above you omit that we are looking at double sourcing of the PDSK award: one is the list of nominations at the award's granting organisation official website, the other is an independent press article covering a nomination. There are more awards nominations for this label, but the point in the article was to source that such nominations exist at all, which for most labels isn't the case.

If you cared to compare to similar techno labels' articles on WP, you'd find that this article is exceptionally well sourced for every single point it makes. Re: Acousmana: It is also not "Stefan Goldmann's boutique label" (where's that a disqualifying criterion in any WP guideline?), since it has released music by 20+ different artists, some of which leading media outlets beyond music press – such as the New York Times, Der Spiegel etc – have deemed worthy of being featured extensively. Since the label is forming those releases by selecting the music, deciding on design and presentation, commissioning remixes and mastering, a review of a release is absolutely about the label's work. By the same logic a feature about a release is only about the release, but not about the artist. I've also added two additional features about the label to the article. – – This is an obviously unwarranted deletion. Close the discussion and move on to something meaningful. Thanks.Planetdust (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Your vested interest in this company is sticking our like a sore thumb no matter how much you bludgeon this discussion with desperate logical overreach. So much so that you don't even know who you're arguing with. The term "Boutique label" was used by Acousmana, not me. "Catchy" was used by Traxsource and I merely quoted it. No further comment, as I will take your advice to "move on to something meaningful", more so than Macro Recordings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'boutique label' simply means independent, it's run by Goldman, my guess is we have a COI here, and perhaps the individual simply hasn't read WP:PROMO, ultimately this is SEO at work, nothing else, trying to distinguish itself from the zillion other Berlin techno labels. Acousmana (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Yes, I have a "vested interest" in protecting my work in WP articles (I've researched & added multiple sources since the deletion discussion was opened) from sloppily argued deletion attempts by people who relentlessly and repeatedly misrepresent both, WP guidelines and the facts relevant to the article. Several statements in, in which both Doomsdayer & Acousmana failed to support their contrafactual assessments or evaluate the current state of the article, they've moved down to ad hominem insinuations instead. This says it all, really.

I'll sum up: the article is very well sourced. Its subject is well covered by multiple independent and relevant sources. The label's artists and releases are featured in leading media well beyond the music industry and multiple award nominations as well as readers' poll entries all show this is a notable subject.

Deletion is clearly unjustified. 7 days are over, no consensus on deletion has formed: admins, pls close discussion. Thanks everybody.Planetdust (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stefan Goldmann as WP:ATD or Delete. This article is about a company, therefore the appropriate guideline to follow is WP:NCORP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company as they're based on press releases and announcements which fails WP:ORGIND and there are no significant in-depth articles on the company which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Entirely wrong: NOT ONE source is merely or predominantly "based on press releases" or "announcements" except for award nominations, by the award granting organizations / the media whose polls we're looking at – not by any representative of the label. Why those are included in the sources has been stated above (What better source for who's been nominated or voted into a poll than the media that publishes these?), BUT an independent source is quoted right next to the one for the awards too. ::Why notability is established has been reiterated above in a way that is beyond clear – also, there are TWO in depth articles focused on the company in the sources (WP:CORPDEPTH). There are no primary sources, and WP:ORGIND is fully met. Please check sources before pointing to guidelines here. Thanks. I repeat: no consensusPlanetdust (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Looked again. I should have said "based on interviews with company execs" and "discussing the music not the company". There's often a difficulty with organizations that are, essentially, entirely associated with a person or persons and this tends to effect "artistic" led companies such as record labels and even architects. You have to ask yourself, which is notable, the company or the people. Which is what I see in this case. If the topic is about the company (as it is here, the topic is Macro Recordings), then we want a reference that provides in-depth information *about the company* and not about the products and containing "Independent Content". None of those references meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at worst redirect, does not meet WP:NCORP. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Planetdust, who has declared "No Consensus" by fiat, tried to place an inappropriate "Closure" tag at the top of this AfD: [48]. Thanks to Daniel and Acousmana for catching it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus Unfortunately "delete" votes have been added recently which do not appear to engage with the actual article and its sources anymore. It seems this discussion has degenerated into a sad personal quarrel between two editors. The discussion should have been closed a while ago. Several reliable and independent sources have been added to the article recently, enough of which cover the company itself in some depth (specifically Ref 3 & 7 – see WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:MULTSOURCES for criteria). I could not identify any sources authored by employees / artists of the company (WP:IS). Ref 1 should be replaced by a better source (it appears to be based on a PR text by a distributor), but that is not a reason for arguing deletion of the entire article. Most of the rest isn't trivial or in passing either (WP:SIGCOV). I tend to agree that awards/polls are significant for company relevance itself (particularly Ref 11 & 12). Repeated invoking of WP:PROMO in the discussion similarly appears to not be based on the actual article, which has no promotional content / WP:PUFFERY. The company is associated with several artists who have individual WP articles and I see more value in having an article which outlines the context of a record label than having to search through another musician's biography (who happens to be part-owner of the company) which would be the case if redirected.

The "delete" votes before Feb 25 were given before most of the current sources were added. The "delete" votes since don't appear to take the new sources into consideration and tend to give blanket statements without elaborating on their assessments. Artur Berkut (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Changes to sources have been made – ref ## given above by Artur Berkut & Doomsdayer may not match current ref ##.Planetdust (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - suspect 'Artur Berkut,' is a sock, being used in an attempt to skew consensus - of the very few edits Berkut made in 10 years, coincidence these line up? Additionally, it appears^[1] Stefan Goldmann, Macro label co-owner, is the son of Friedrich Goldmann. Don't let me jump to any conclusions here, but this extended spat with Jerome Kohl would lead me believe that a certain editor indeed has a WP:COI here. Acousmana (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– Is the nomination of Villa Kamogawa for deletion by Acousmana, instead of, say, French & American Academy in Rome, some sort of personal attack on articles I've created? – WP:VVT. Cos someone genuinely interested in the topic HERE would have looked into the sources & revised previously touted statements re: WP:PROMO etc, instead of maliciously opening deletion discussion specifically to tie up editors into multiple disputes at once – WP:VD. Just asking. One might also want to look into the curious lockstep in the timing of comments by Acousmana & Doomsdayer520. A response time of over a day, then both drop comments along the same lines within minutes – WP:CANVASS. And again: attempts at discrediting other editors instead of assessment of the notability in question. The comments you both posted since Feb 23 pretty much look like trolling. No substance. –––––– Another question: what was wrong with moving towards closure after 7 days? I believe that's what the guideline says? If I was wrong, pls let me know the relevant guideline. Planetdust (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there was an apparent COI, and evidence of WP:SOAP, inquiry lead to another example of a stub, that appeared to be insufficiency notable, lacked quality sources, and had been seeded with a link to suspected COI article. There are other examples, but not all are as egregious. Acousmana (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Planetdust: I prefer to assume good faith but you sure are making it tough. I said far above that I had no further comment, but now there is an accusation against me. (A) Acousmana and I made comments here within a few minutes of each other, which could be an evil conspiracy or it could be nothing but a coincidence. A coincidence is not proof. (B) Discussions like this can only be closed by an Administrator, or in the event of a purely uncontroversial matter, by an uninvolved editor. Go to Wikipedia:Closing discussions and read sections 3-4 carefully. (C) Since you are a relatively new Wikipedia editor, you could take the opportunity to learn about WP guidelines and admit that more experienced editors have wisdom that could be useful. Or you could spew haphazard accusations. (D) None of this has made Macro Recordings any more notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Two editors, Acousmana and yourself, act in perfect unison on 2 articles: The same style of manipulation of the discussion, blanket discrediting and acting as if clearly stated things have never been written. The presence of multiple independent, third party sources are called "primary or promotional" without a speck of evidence. This is repeated blatantly and against better knowledge, probably in the hope of manipulating other editors. I have no problem admitting errors and learning in the process. You are right re: (B) – apologies, won't happen again. I've done quite a bit of work in response to justified criticism of articles/sources. You might be more frequent editors, but two ppl have repeatedly called you out on your refusal to actually engage with the article in this discussion (before & after you claimed to absent yourself). In the meantime all you two do is spending significant effort on trying to discredit other editors and embroil them in further discussions (solely selected for this purpose). Even in your latest comment you couldn't refrain from trying to manipulate the state of establishing notability here. I prefer to assume good faith but you sure are making it tough. Planetdust (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLUDGEON. You've had your say. Let others have their's. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rob Young: “Stefan Goldmann – Close to the edit”, WIRE Magazine, #314, April 2010

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David Dobrik. Tone 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Vlog Squad

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Vlog Squad

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

Does not meet WP:GNG to warrant its own article, though it might be merged with David Dobrik. Throast (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Vlog Squad is a widespread online coalition and enjoys online following on its own merit. The created page in Wikipedia gave opportunity for many successful vloggers to have at least a line or two on the page independent of Dobrik. It is true that the "Squad" was launched by David Dobrik but they run independently of him. It is not physically possible or correct to run everything in the Vlog Squad as to have to do with him. He remains very much respected by the vloggers, but Vlog Squad is far more than just Dobrik you suggest. It serves the purpose of encompassing one of the widest coalitions of online vloggers. werldwayd (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order for this article to not be deleted, you need to argue its notability, meaning significant coverage of the subject by reliable secondary sources. A tag has been in place on the article for half a year and no more sources have been added. So far, its notability has not been established. Throast (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your vote to KEEP. "OPPOSE" is not the correct format. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ELP speaks of user generated content, which is what this is. On the other hand we have videologgers, Vlog squad as it is called. WP:NYOUTUBE tells that YouTubers are Internet celebrities whose fame has come about through their publishing of their own videos on YouTube that they feature in. This is the case here. The applying principle is like so: Per WP:BASIC, the starting point is significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Youtube gives 299 video with 12,099 views. Search results come up with sexual assault claims and who's left the Vlog squad. Notability as per WP:BASIC is not seen. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with David Dobrik. There is a lot more info out there and I added some more content and sources. However, a better option is to merge this with David Dobrik as most content is about him. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Dobrik. There is easily enough sourcing out there for this group to meet WP:GNG, just from a cursory minute-long search I found this in Elite Daily, this in Insider, and this in Seventeen. However, I believe that this is not a necessary WP:SPLIT from the David Dobrik article, and that it could be better covered there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with David Dobrik. This isn't notable enough to warrant its own article. As Expertguywiki said, this article features information mostly about David Dobrik, so merging it to that article makes much more sense. Itsquietuptown t • c 10:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Dobrik: Per reasons above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 24 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. Tone 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imelda Trilogy

AfDs for this article:

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

Article which was soft deleted at AFD due to low participation in the original discussion, then accordingly undeleted on an WP:RFU request by the original creator -- but the creator has not substantively bolstered the case for notability, or even paid any attention at all to the advice they were given about the difference between reliable sources that constitute support for notability and primary sources that do not. The only real media references here are still a minor community hyperlocal that isn't widely distributed enough to singlehandedly vault a topic over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the strongest source on offer, and a Q&A interview in which the filmmaker is speaking about his own work in the first person -- and other than that, the creator has only continued to add bad sources (blogs, podcasts, the self-published catalogues of film festivals) that aren't building notability at all. Again, the notability test for films is not passed just because film festival catalogues offer technical verification that the film was screened there -- it's passed if and when the film has been the subject of media attention (critical reviews, etc.) to show that it's been externally validated as significant, and there still isn't nearly enough real media coverage being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are only two references that meet notability for WP:NFILM. There remainder are as per nom, press releases, theatre notices, and first person interviews. Although the maker has done a lot of work over a trilogy, there is insufficient notablility in this article. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:04, 18 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.

[1] Rob Young: “Stefan Goldmann – Close to the edit”, WIRE Magazine, #314, April 2010

[1]