Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 2

Guide to deletion

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Andreas Evjen

Andreas Evjen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed PROD: "plenty of coverage https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Andreas%20Evjen%22&mediatype=aviser" Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and, I think, WP:GNG. Notwithstanding this vague wave towards some local, routine coverage in the National Library of Norway archives. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - meets NFOOTBALL by some way. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 10:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete not even close to adequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - meets NFOOTBALL comfortably and has coverage [1] [2] which is more than just a name check Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The games in 2001 were in the second tier - so NFOOTBALL is not met. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus but some sources. Needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - per Spiderone. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 07:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fire (Kids See Ghosts song)

Fire (Kids See Ghosts song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it has no secondary independent sources. Almost all the sources are album reviews. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, the song has received significant coverage despite a lack of independent sources, having 25 26 that are relevant to it (not including chart positions). The live performance further constitutes notability because it goes into detail about the setting and the song also charted in six countries, which is a good amount and can help with notability when the previous are all true. --K. Peake 06:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Found adequate sourcing to show notability and song was hit in Top 100 popular list in six countries. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  Chart performance does not indicate notability alone. Notability should be determined by whether or not the subject has received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - chart performance does not indicate notability, no awards or honors, not recorded by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Moreover, mostly album reviews support the article, not a single independent source talking only about the song itself. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per Kyle Peake's comments above. LOVI33 04:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel the Love (Kids See Ghosts song)

Feel the Love (Kids See Ghosts song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it has no secondary independent sources. Almost all the sources are album reviews. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep--I normally agree that chart positions alone do not indicate notability, but this song has charted on national charts of nine countries--including the top 50 on some--which is hardly a feat that any random album track could do. At its core, it does satisfy WP:GNG. HĐ (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep: the article has 48 sources outside of chart positions, plus it has notable media appearances that are clearly independent sources, including an alternate version, as well as having been performed live twice, reaching 10 countries' chart and being certified gold, plus sources like this are independent too if you read, they just don't mention the song in the title. --K. Peake 07:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep: Per Kyle Peake's comments above. Also, the song charted in most major music markets so I would say that alone passes notability. Notability isn't solely based on the amount of sources covering a topic anyways. LOVI33 18:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per GNG. If an article this detailed about a song that had this much chart action can be said to fail NSONGS, then there is a problem with the guidance in NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Per LOVI33 EN-Jungwon 16:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

MCV EvoTor

MCV EvoTor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Endorse redirect to Manufacturing Commercial Vehicles. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep - Found these: however I'm not entirely convinced this model's notable given the majority of sources are all from one news company. The model's been out for 3 years now and that's the best I can find..., No objections to redirecting if preferred. –Davey2010^Talk 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, Route One (which I am assuming is reliable) is the only SIGCOV independent source here SK2242 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• Strong keep per above – covered in notable industry sources. Buttons0603 (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Buttons0603: Except no as Route One is only one source and the others are not independent: the websites of Asset Alliance Group and Volvo Buses do nothing for notability. SK2242 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Solid arguments for keep are given and it makes no sense to delete this otherwise we get an unbalanced encyclopedia.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Solid? The first argument was a "very week keep" which relied on only one independent source. One independent source is not good enough for GNG. SK2242 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Total of three independent sources had been found. SC96 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SC96: I don’t want to bludgeon but if I may ask what are the other two sources? SK2242 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Already listed in the article.SC96 (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Thanks for pointing those out - the first ref is ok and the second one is from a trade mag but should be enough to scrape past GNG. SK2242 (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Go Phightins! 12:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wellingborough and Kettering Urban Area

Wellingborough and Kettering Urban Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The articles name has nothing to do with what is actually in the article. There's no sources about the supposed urban area it is named for. All the sources are instead about local government reform and the new district of North Northamptonshire. Eopsid (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• The reason this article's name doesn't match the content is that the article was hijacked by this edit. I have no opinion about deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• comment Looking at the edit above, it was done to de-PROD the article. The basis of the PROD was the two areas are actually distinct from one another. I cannot attest to the truth of that. Mangoe (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

They are distinct from one another they are seperate in the source for the UK Urban Areas article Eopsid (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Merge with North Northamptonshire given Wellingborough and Kettering are separate BUAs[3][4]. Otherwise possibly delete since they aren't a named urban area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything in the article that isnt already in the North Northamptonshire or West Northamptonshire ones. And the name is problematic too, referring to an urban area that doesnt exist. I see no benefit in merging it. Eopsid (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'd agree delete then, Google doesn't appear to return much that isn't for this article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Devokewater 15:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Science Bee

Science Bee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable education platform. Apart from this promotional news, i didn't find anything. Fails WP:WEBSITE, WP:ORG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Don't see enough coverage for this website. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your suggestions. But i don't think it should be deleted. The sources that are presented here are well established News papers and websites In Bangladesh. And science bee is the biggest Science Platform right now in this country. There are many other organisations with less references. But they are out there. So i think this page should exist. We should try to improve this page more by adding more references and with new informations. Thanks everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annoy Deb (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete it is always hard to judge articles where the primary sources are not English but given the existence of Bengali Wikipedia and no sign of a Bengali article on the subject, I can't see a way to support keeping this article. Jeepday (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete – Non notable -Shakil Hosen ^Talk 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There appears to be sufficiently broad consensus to delete all three articles. Go Phightins! 17:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Luke Mornay

Luke Mornay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Devoid of any coverage that could satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or the GNG. Created by what appears to be an SPA. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also bundled the related articles based on comments in this AfD.

Twenty Five Ten (Luke Mornay album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Luke Mornay discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, Please revisit the page. This page was created 7 years ago, as the subject had a major update on his site and socials and I had time to kill during lockdown I decided to update my previous contribution and from that point things went ballistic after few edits on my side. I've done a couple of other contributions on some other artists with profiles I thought could be updated or improved, I hope these won't get me into the eye of a storm either. So I'm asking you to please reconsider the deletion status or tell me what could be improved. thanks. Hvaillant (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC) — Hvaillant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• delete he is only minorly involved with a notable song and there is no meaningful coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

CUPIDICAE💕 Don't know what you have against this guy but it seems personal, you want to practice censorship to quench your thirst of whatever, go ahead, delete, I found coverage and sources on many authority sources and association with major acts when completing his profile yesterday. Have you not checked my updates, I could eventually agree with you, but with my latest updates, it just looks like a diminishing and motivated unfair trial. Please advise. Hvaillant (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hvaillant If you feel so strongly, you can take it to WP:ANI. AFD isn't the place to hash out your ridiculous and unfounded paranoia. CUPIDICAE💕 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would I do that ? we're using some free time, wiki contributions shouldn't be a battlefield,if that would be the case, I'd better use my time on something else. can you at least check the update? I've used what I learned to improve some other profiles, can you tell me if what I'm doing is heading to the right direction. Thanks Hvaillant (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Your "updates" added nothing of value - no meaningful sourcing and no fixing the tone. He still isn't notable. CUPIDICAE💕 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

CUPIDICAE💕 ABC News, Billboard, IMDB, Variety and official charts not meaningful sources...alright I get it. You also went after another contribution of mine. Listen, I'm not here to get bullied with your unproductive and freely condescending comments.I've had other questions that you ignored to mash up an aggressive answer with a point to make the experience on this platform as unpleasant as possible. This conversation is over.Hvaillant (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Deletion Contested Bad faith arguments. Hvaillant (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually it is bad faith to accuse someone of bullying and censorship just because you disagree with them. This discussion is about the notability of Luke Mornay, and his placement in an encyclopedia where people must qualify for inclusion. This isn't about you. CUPIDICAE is discussing Wikipedia policies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - This one is a close call because the gentleman does have some minor coverage in the genre press, and a robust album review: [5] though it suffers from some suspicious puffery. Otherwise he is only ever mentioned in conjunction with other people when remixing their songs, and such articles are almost uniformly about them, not Mornay. The article really tries to stretch his "achievements" -- e.g. he is nowhere close to a Grammy nomination just because he remixed the Kylie Minogue song. There is not enough reliable media coverage that is specifically about him in order to qualify for the requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN.---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Expand my vote to Delete All - I originally voted before the album and discography articles were added to the AfD (see my comment below). I now recommend deleting those as well, for the same policy-related reasons that you may find buried within this bludgeoned discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - If this article is deleted, similar action should be taken at Twenty Five Ten (Luke Mornay album) (another article dependent on sources that are about the people who got remixed, not Mornay or the album itself) and Luke Mornay discography (no sources at all). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced newsoundsmag is actually RS or at least a source that provides any indication of notability, it appears to me to be more of a hobby review blog and not any of the major players that we'd expect for notable musicians. In fact, it only has 4 uses on Wikipedia, 2 of which are related to Mornay. CUPIDICAE💕 16:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, I did mention that review's suspicious puffery on how brilliant Mornay is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Doomsdayer520 They do make quite a bold claim of 15,000 circulation, which seems unlikely given their lackluster social media engagement...but I suppose this AFD isn't the place for that. ;) CUPIDICAE💕 16:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I like the unfolding of this conversation as it raises a couple of fundamental questions way above this case. Do music collaborators have room to surface on wikipedia yes/no?. Knowing that on every major Artists, all articles will be about the main artist with little to no words about their creative teams. Regardless of the fact that they were hired by their industry for their ability to get notable results.

So, If I follow the logic exposed here, all articles that aren't exclusively about the creators, their references shouldn't be receivable or cited to sit their authority in their field.

And when articles are about them, regardless of the recognition by their own industry as they're obviously hiring those individuals for their skills, recognition through articles should systematically be qualified as biased and puffery. Well, I really feel sorry for these people, being cancelled and buried all across the board. If a precedent is set based on those rules then thousands of articles are in line for deletion.

Same goes for indie bands and non mainstream artists, obviously Wiki is not a fan page but sad such rules are preventing people to learn more about less exposed individuals.

Btw someone mentioned that the article in NS was about this guy remixes, not it isn't. There are only very few lines, the rest is about his album. For the discography,it's close to impossible to cite records without falling into sources issues. if I can't make it complete, best would be to delete, if this article doesn't get deleted altogether. Thanks Hvaillant (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete all - I agree with the case as laid out by doomsdayer520. Does not meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• To improve my article I checked the guy’s website and googled sources, he’s been hired by the biggest labels from Capitol Records, to universal music group, Island records, Virgin, MCA, Sony, Parlophone, they’re not the kind to hire the clown next-door, he had gold certifications and #1 records, shout outs by world renowned artists, collaborations with big names in various fields, maybe you guys can feel comfortable with « whatever » , personally I can’t. Cf. Discography, in countless other cases sources aren’t cited, so per example you could put up to deletion Dr. Luke’s discography too because it has no sources,Despite being 5x Grammy Awards nominee & 2x Ascap Winner.Though he has more citations for Rape allegations which are irrelevant from An authority standpoint, broken links in refs. And barely cited in articles even though in most cases he’s written & produced #1 songs for Shakira, J-Lo, Miley Cyrus, Rihanna, Britney Spears, Nicky Minaj, Pink etc…so based on what is criticized on my contribution, Mornay & Dr Luke should both get the deletion status , because criteria required are identically not met in both cases on this site, like some other hundreds producers & musicians I could submit for deletion for the very same reasons. Hvaillant (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kylie Minogue nomination is mostly about Minogue, not about Mornay remixing. We certainly have better argument if Mornay is the producer/songwriter of the album, but Mornay is not even credited on the album. The producer of the album in question (Richard Stannard) is not notable enough to get his own article, the one that have articles are his company Biffco. SunDawn (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• precision The previous statement is incorrect, Mornay's alias is credited on the album as engineer / producer, the US mix has his alias, Kylie Minogue's website mentioned that version as the one that got her, a Billboard #1 and later led to a grammy nomination , that's the version that she's been performing and the version that is known on the territory where she got nominated. Mornay was interviewed by Billboard Magazine in relation to that version. "Love At First Sight (Ruff & Jam US Radio Mix)" - Am still missing his personal information but I guess I gathered about anything that could be found. Hvaillant (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Stannard should be notable enough to have his own article, he's produced countless hits(like the spice girls first single), probably one I would do, but if it has to be the same hell as mornay here, I guess I'll pass heh.Hvaillant (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• • Love At First Sight (Ruff & Jam US Radio Mix), the one you are referring to, didn't have him as Producer or even Remixer, but as a Recorder and Mixer. While Kyle justly can be included on the Wiki based on this album, I don't think its recorder could be included.SunDawn (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Precision Billboard magazine : With its innovative and catchy remix of Kylie Minogue’s “Love at first sight” (Capitol) riding high on the Billboard dance charts, Belgian production unit Ruff & Jam has made a big step onto the international scene.“Stephen Bass, who is our UK Rep, was given Kylie’s a cappella version of “Love’s at first sight” by Parlophone” Mourinet Explains.“They must have liked how we worked the track because they decided to release our version as the U.S. Single.” Production Credits , Instrument credits, he's also listed in writing & arrangement, along for his work on The Killers, Sugababes and a couple of others, I also missed Scissors sisters in the remixes section (All top 10) based on his interview on Hitquarters Magazine. or even his gold certification for his 5 weeks at #1 on Belgium's version of Idols. I should charge this guy for advocating his case here. As you guys killed the fun, Next for me is to list music producers profiles for you to take action based on the arguments laid out here, make a copy of this conversation that I'll send to the Mornay and then I'll delete this profile myself. Can we agree on that ? Hvaillant (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hvaillant: that's quite enough - you've contributed more than half the content to this AfD and your presence is now disruptive, you're bludgeoning the conversation and your continued edits prevent others from commenting when and where they would like. Your views will be taken into consideration, but you are one person and your comments will only be weighted as one person commenting. Nick (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick: Won't be needed to take any sort of consideration, I zeroed the pages and 'db-authored em. Hvaillant (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you leave them be Hvaillant. They aren't eligible for G7 as this AFD has multiple editors discussing it. CUPIDICAE💕 16:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Ok, I reverted what I've zero'ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvaillant (talk • contribs) 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources from HistoricalAccountings seem to respond to the calls from those supporting deletion to identify sufficient reliable coverage to cross the notability threshold. Go Phightins! 17:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Peppi Borza

Peppi Borza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unfortunately notability is not inherited, having famous friends does not make one notable. Not enough in-depth coverage about them to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet either WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - His friendship with Dusty Springfield is interesting but while notability isn't inherited, I'd argue he has lots of notable and impressive credits by himself. Appeared twice on "The Ed Sullivan Show". Has Broadway credit - Appeared on Broadway in the original cast recording of "Evita"! Roles in several major notable movies and productions - "Man of La Mancha", "Intimate Games", "Peter Pan", "The Pirates of Penzance", "Doctor Who - The Trial of a Time Lord" (First Vervoid!), "Follies". These may not have been lead roles, but it all adds up to WP:GNG at the very least, and should be enough for other requirements too, and the "Doctor Who" stuff plus Broadway/musicals almost definitely gives him some cult status from those respective fandoms too. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @HistoricalAccountings: "These may not have been lead roles" - so did he have a single lead role in his known career? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|reply here} 03:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like acting was his main thing, just one element of his career. According to his bio, he was a dancer, entertainer, songwriter, composer, actor, and circus performer. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Based on WP:Basic #2. Was notable at the time as multiple minor coverage shows. Added further in line refs. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep As per David fullfills WP:BASIC. Cuoxo (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Easy pass of WP:ENTERTAINER as he was attracting attention even in his teenage years. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom- notability is not inherited. There are no substantive references (just one book reference that has been invoked throughout the article) nor which I could find that discuss the subject in detail. The roles though multiple are not significant and does not add up to notability. Hence does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BASIC, and definitely not WP:GNG. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

as per WP:Basic If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak delete. No evidence he passes WP:NBIO/WP:NACTOR. Not every minor actor is notable. Still, I'd be willing to reconsider my vote if someone can show me at least two reliable sources that discuss him for a paragraph or more. Anyone up to the challenge? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Just having a quick look. Someone else will no doubt do a better job. Not sure if any of these are suitable but here's some stuff I found. Will also put these on article's talk page if anyone wants to use them in the article. (If this is all clogging up discussion too much let me know and I can cut it down a bit and link to rest on article's talk page.)

Detailed

These are mostly about him as a child/teenager/young man - but that shouldn't preclude them from being used.

• Mentioned five times (about diving) in this article which also has photos -
• Mentioned ten times here in what looks to be a fairly indepth piece about him and his sister -
• Him and his family/sister/family business discussed here -
• More about him, his sister, father (could they/the family have their own article(s) too?
  • And here with photo (re tumbling act when children)
• Piece about him and sister as "circus kids" -
• And again in these ones - ,, , , , , , , , ,

Later life/career is mostly mentions and credits but all of these and above should give him GNG, BASIC, ENTERTAINER, not so sure about NACTOR but maybe.

Stage/music/movie credits and listings (some of these might already be in article)

Stage

BroadwayWorld

IBDB

Playbill

Theatricalia

Music

AllMusic Listing

Movies/Television

BFI

IMDB

CinemaOne

The Pirates Of Penzance qsulis.org.uk

TV Guide

More on Turner Classic Movies (TCM) - couldn't access, someone else can check?

Mentions

(some could help with GNG/BASIC - As per WP:Basic If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.)

• Being in a musical "Boy Friend"
• Only mentioned in Playbill Evita Anniversary Article but shows still being mentioned in 2020.
• Additional mentions (Books/Journals) - Billboard - 12 Nov 1949, British Musical Theatre, British Movie Entertainments on Vhs and DVD: A Classic Movie, Screen Actor, Volumes 4-6, Doctor Who Episode Guide , several on Dusty Springfield, there's loads more - haven't explored these indepth
• BBC mentions - Dusty, Doctor Who (First Vervoid)
• New York Times - Evita cast
• Radio Times - Doctor Who
• GettyImages Dusty "The Defective Detector"
  

• Note: Was sometimes credited as "Pepe Borza" which brings up more including - at a quick glance - more credits https://theatricalia.com/person/10w6/pepe-borza and more detailed info about childhood circus performances at http://www.sarasotahistoryalive.com/history/articles/the-greatest-show-on-earth/. Probably more but haven't searched indepth under that spelling. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Upper Hammonds Plains, Nova Scotia#Schools. Daniel (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Kingswood Elementary School (Nova Scotia)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kingswood Elementary School (Nova Scotia)

Kingswood Elementary School (Nova Scotia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an elementary school. These are almost never notable. There is nothing in the article to suggest why this might be one of the truly super rare exceptions John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I found some trivial coverage about the school buses but no coverage that satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH. I, therefore, would say that this fails WP:NORG. Please let me know if more sources come to light from somewhere. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect - to Upper Hammonds Plains, Nova Scotia#Schools per WP:ATD and the longstanding precident of doing just that described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.254.193.84 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect is fine with me. Delete struck. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt. Daniel (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Xabier Lezama

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier

Xabier Lezama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clear GNG and NARTIST fail, previously deleted and salted, and discussed at great length. I would also encourage editors to look at the images in the sources given. The images used in the articles are either shots of sculptures in someone's living room or backyard, or photoshopped concoctions. My take is that the sources given are largely paid coverage. --- Possibly (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and salt - We just went through a very lengthy deletion procedure for this article; this permuation is the same article with a slightly different name. It has been spammed across many languages of Wikipedia by a series of IPs originating in the Basque region. The subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST, it is unquestionably a coordinated promotional effort, most likely by a PR firm or another undeclared COI editor. Sources are weak, self-published or user-submitted content. Question, how can we get the former AFD [6] to show up in the box at upper right? Netherzone (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone: old afd now listed at top.--- Possibly (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I also wanted to add that after another BEFORE search there still is no indication of an exhibition record, nor museum shows or collections. Netherzone (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly self-promotion without any basis for notability. Unfortunately we have to endure another Afd to get rid of this, but that's the policy.--- Possibly (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I suspect UPE, but the page is different with more references than the previous deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: the creator does seem to be very skilled, pumping out lots of new articles recently.--- Possibly (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, there was a lengthy discussion in the previous AfD [7] that most of these references are user-submitted content, PR efforts, blogs, or other questionable sources. I'm pretty sure there is nothing "new" here. Netherzone (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Should be easy to prove it is worthy of deletion then. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. How many iterations of this article must be deleted? The subject is not notable, and the salting of the common name was evaded by using this article name. It should be salted as well. --Kbabej (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete (not sure what salt means here) - I was a mild keep for the original page but if that was deemed to fall foul of policy, so be it, it should not turn into whack-a-mole. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Akerbeltz: salt means that the page title would be protected against creation. At that point a user who wants to create the page needs to ask an admin to unprotect it.--- Possibly (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: ah thanks. Yes, that would make sense. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sock
Comment It is necessary to remind you Akerbeltz that your last words were that this article had enough references (more than other articles), and that you did not find any problem maintaining the article.--Gorriako (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Acocunt globally locked for socking after Commons CU, see this.--- Possibly (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I stand by everything I said in the previous discussion. This time I'm fed up enough to support a block and a ban for all involved in the promotion of the subject. Delete and salt all variants of the article title. Vexations (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: most of the related accounts, including the author of this article, are now blocked.--- Possibly (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You must allow Possibly to comment on the subject in question on this talk page and NOT block it and delete its comments.--Gorriako (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Acocunt globally locked for socking after Commons CU, see this.--- Possibly (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd check this IP also: 212.142.199.227 Netherzone (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

and let's add 212.142.205.111.--- Possibly (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

this one also - 212.142.199.120 - they removed the speedy deletion template twice. Netherzone (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete No reason to keep. The analysis was done in the last Afd 6 weeks ago. scope_creep^Talk 12:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

more sock

Comment Precisely you Talk was the person who took this article from the draft to the main page with the help of Akerbeltz because it was well written, with valid sources and references.--Gorriako (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Acocunt globally locked for socking after Commons CU, see this.--- Possibly (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Not Delete Adding and expanding the article, as well as adding fonts, and allowing time for it to occur, is far superior to simply deleting the article. Also with Wikidata, a short description of each topic is now allowed in any language, with the only requirement that an article be in a single language.--Txalaparrta (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)— Txalaparrta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This account has pretty obvious similarities to Sorginak (SPI), in case a checkuser is passing through here.--- Possibly (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and salt generously, at all possible contortions of the name. Theredproject (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

discussion with sock

Not Delete Adding and expanding the article, as well as adding fonts, and allowing time for it to occur, is far superior to simply deleting the article. Also with Wikidata, a short description of each topic is now allowed in any language, with the only requirement that an article be in a single language.--Gorriako (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC) — Gorriako (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Basque-related articles here..--Gorriako (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC).Acocunt globally locked for socking after Commons CU, see this.--- Possibly (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Not single purpose editor. Editor of articles related to Basque here. There are hundreds more written with IP without logging in.--Gorriako (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Acocunt globally locked for socking after Commons CU, see this.--- Possibly (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC) You mean user:Gorriako = user:Ridership?--- Possibly (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Possibly, I wonder if Gorriako understands that they are indefinitely blocked under all the other known accounts that they have used, and that continuing to edit, either logged in under a new account, or logged out and editing as an IP is WP:BLOCKEVASION. That means that anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. Vexations (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Comment The discussion remains open, but Possibly is executing the sentence without a definitive consensus, ordering to delete all wikis with the argument of Spam and crossed wiki. It is necessary to remember that this is NOT Spam and it is NOT a cross wiki. With Wikidata, a short description of each topic is now allowed in any language and wiki, with the only requirement that an article be in a single language and it is not considered spam and not a cross Wiki.--Gorriako (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Acocunt globally locked for socking after Commons CU, see this.--- Possibly (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed that the Italian version of this article has been speedily deleted (for the third time, nota bene). [8] Vexations (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - The Spanish version was deleted yesterday or the day before but a User:Edgeblack recreated it today. It is the only edit they have ever made, and the article was a clone of the one deleted. Seems like Gorriako and Edgeblack are part of the sock drawer. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Amit Gilitwala

Amit Gilitwala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major contests. — Amkgp 💬 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Not pass general notability for Biography. Reliable sources are weak.TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Lihue Christian Church

Lihue Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Jenyire2, as an organization, I think this might qualify for CSD A7, so I went ahead and tagged it. If it gets declined, we could always try PROD too. AFD is the most bureacratic and time consuming of the deletion processes, so in my opinion it's a good habit to try other deletion methods first, when they're applicable. Also, your recent A11 tagging at 2003 Abia gubernatorial election doesn't seem to be invented to me, as Abia does exist in Nigeria. A3 might have been a better tag for that one. Just my opinions though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced article on a congregation with nothing to suggest it is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I see nothing to suggest that this is not merely a NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• 'Delete per WP:TNT. Arguably, this is notable, but a totally new article, not a Facebook page, would have to be created from scratch. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Shaker Nuri

Shaker Nuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lack WP:SIGCOV and GNG Jenyire2 20:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not notable as a writer nor as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 XO-6b. The "merge" opinions have the better arguments. The first "keep" admits that any notability of this star derives from its exoplanet XO-6b, and the second and third "keep" make no sense. Sandstein 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

XO-6

XO-6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Uncited article with no claims to notability. Faint, unremarkable star. Has a known exoplanet, but then who doesn't. Fails WP:GNG. Lithopsian (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 17:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The planet XO-6b meets WP:NASTRO with significant coverage in three papers - [9], [10], [11] - and as I've argued before, if there is an article on an exoplanet there should be an article on its host star. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The page was incomplete, so why bother deleting it now it's complete? 400Weir (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge with XO-6b, as discussed before [12]. @Lithopsian: I really think it would be more productive to discuss a general policy to deal with stars that have exoplanets instead of AfD'ing each one individually. Tercer (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to start such a discussion. I've tried and got nowhere, perhaps you will get further. I suspect the end result will still be the same: articles to be deleted will still need to be discussed and opinions will still be all over the place with relatively little reference to the policy. Lithopsian (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I posted it at WT:ASTRONOMY, let's see if this time people get engaged. Tercer (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In the case of a merge, the merge target should be XO-6 - see comments by me and User:PopePompus at the linked AfD. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No objections. Tercer (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge Jim.henderson (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge for the reasons given by Tercer.PopePompus (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Same reasons as above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge with XO-6b. It is the planet really which is notable here - there are quite literally trillions of stars, but only those with additional features or characteristics that we have detected (e.g. exoplanets!) are notable. Personally I think it would make more sense to have the article at XO-6 to allow for the addition of information about other planets in its system if and when they are discovered, but that is ultimately a minor concern. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We are fast getting to the stage where detected exoplanets are becoming the norm for any star within a distance where exoplanets are detectable, so even that notability is becoming dubious. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

We're way beyond the stage where being or having and exoplanet is in itself notable. However, the case has been made for this exoplanet being notable and nobody seems inclined to argue that it isn't. Lithopsian (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems fairly split between outright keeping and merging. Relist to see if a clearer consensus can emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Please stop relisting. The consensus is clear, the only thing notable is the exoplanet XO-6b, the star itself has no claim to notability. Nobody disputed this. Tercer (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to XO-6b, the star is just a regular one, but the planet clearly meets WP:GNG, so a merge is warranted. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be consensus, here and so far at WP:RSN#Kirkus Indie, that Kirkus Indie reviews do not establish notability because they're paid for and the customer has the option to not have them published. There is no substantial argument for any other basis for notability for this topic. The article can be recreated if and when there is new coverage. Sandstein 13:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Blood of Ra (book series)

Blood of Ra (book series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable series, no meaningful coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 18:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is currently under review as an Articles for creation process. I have added a Kirkus review, where they state "Debut author Sasinowski creates captivating action and an empowered central character that will appeal to many teenage girls, as will her adoring male supporters, who never dominate the proceedings."Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The book series appears to be notable under criterion (1) of Wikipedia:Notability (books), which states "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." A Google search on "Heir of Ra" yields many book reviews from sources independent of the book itself, including Kirkus and Readers' Favorite, appearances in best-sellers lists, and independent media coverage. I have added a citation for a London TV interview with the author about the series, entitled "Best Seller author Maciek Sasinowski on the success of his award-winning Blood of Ra series."Vera3636 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• The "where" depends greatly when it comes to reliable sources. For example, Reader's Favorite is not a reliable source on Wikipedia because they openly charge for "expedited" reviews and have stated that they never give a review below four stars, so they pretty much guarantee positive reviews. The Kirkus review comes from their Kirkus Indie outlet, which a pay service and as such, wouldn't be seen as reliable on Wikipedia because the fee poses a conflict of interest. As far as other reviews go, keep in mind that many of the ones I saw were self-published blog reviews, which almost never count towards notability. SPS like blogs rarely undergo editorial oversight and as anyone can start a blog, it's not seen as selective or a reliable source unless it's routinely cited as a RS by other reliable sources, especially academic and scholarly sources. Now when it comes to bestseller lists, it depends on the list. Amazon bestseller lists are specifically not usable because they're relatively easy to manipulate and are often dynamic, meaning that they change often and are difficult to really verify. There's also the issue of there being so many categories that saying that something is a bestseller in X category becomes sort of faint praise as far as Wikipedia goes. When the bestseller part was added to the notability guidelines Amazon was specifically stated to not be usable. Pretty much it has to be a major one like the NYT bestseller list, a list that is independently notable or through a very well thought of and reliable publisher. Finally, listing Google hits by itself is not a criteria to keep, as not all of the sources that pop up may be usable for the reasons stated above. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

ReaderofthePack Thank you very much for taking time to explain this in detail. Vera3636 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• No problem! The whole RS and notability guidelines on Wikipedia can take a while to get used to, as there is often a lot of fine print and jargon, it certainly did for me! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Although it may be Kirkus Indie, as they state "While we do not guarantee positive reviews, unfavorable reviews can be taken as valuable feedback for improvements and ultimately do not have to be published on our site." Kirkus are highly respected, and I doubt would give a good review for something that was awful just for $24.99.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the requirement for independent sourcing or how paid sourcing works, because, yes, yes they would. Also for the record, the fee for Kirkus Indie review is $425. They'll review anything as long as you provide the manuscript and the payment. CUPIDICAE💕 16:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point I am making. How does this review any different from one in The Times, which is seen as independent? The Times will be barraged by publishers to review the material, which if reviewed and published is classed as notable. Kirkus state any review, doesn't matter if it is paid for or not is independent and can be good or bad. It's no different a review.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it is not independent. If the subject has to pay for someone to write about their book, that is by definition not independent and does not contribute to notability for the same reason him writing about his own book, goodreads or Amazon reviews do not count in the slightest. Whether the review is positive or not is entirely irrelevant. It's not a matter of paying for favorable coverage, it's paying for coverage - period. CUPIDICAE💕 17:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The Times is making an editorial decision about what to cover. To some extent so is Kirkus, but it is doing so as sponsored content which our reliable sources guideline tells us not to be used. Because Kirkus clearly labels such content they can remain a reliable source, but content that itself has been sponsored should not be used. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49 That makes sense about the sponsored content. I had considered "sponsored content" to be ads (i.e., where the sponsor writes the content), as opposed to a review which is not written by the sponsor, but it seems like a moot point since there is a consensus about not using Kirkus Indie as a reliable source. Thank you very much for taking time to provide feedback. Vera3636 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Kirkus would take great exception to your "yes, yes, they would" statement, Praxidicae. And it's not in the spirit of this discussion to make unfounded statements that question an established reviewer's integrity. It's actually the opposite. Because of their reputation, Kirkus is notoriously hard on small publishers and getting a positive Kirkus review as an Indie published book is more difficult. There certainly are many paid review services that guarantee good reviews. Kirkus is not one of them. Vera3636 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Vera3636 It's almost as if you read nothing that was said here. Their own website LITERALLY SAYS it was published for pay. Their pricing starts at $425. This isn't an independent review, its an arm of Kirkus that allows for writers to submit, with payment, their book to get reviewed. It is not part of their standard review system. It is literally a "Author pays a fee, starting at $425 - > Kirkus publishes the review under their sponsored arm." No one ever claimed they paid for a good review. They paid for a review. It is not independent and it is not usable as an independent reliable source as per our policies. Period. CUPIDICAE💕 18:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I would generally not accept sponsored references but as the wording says "Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process." Generally unacceptable does not mean is not acceptable. Kirkus do not review any self published work, and will only accept this via Kirkus Indie. They use many of the same reviewers too. Also if you have worked in the publishing trade you will know how many books get reviewed.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Kirkus do not review any self published work You are dead wrong, Davidstewartharvey. Kirkus Indie literally specializes in self-published works. One need not work in any industry to determine whether a subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. This doesn't. CUPIDICAE💕

Praxidicae please visit the Kirkus website and look at what it tells publishers submitting work= "Kirkus does not review books in the categories listed below in its traditional program. (Kirkus Indie does not put genre or publication date limits on submissions; see more information about that program here.)

— already published books

—reprints of books that Kirkus has previously reviewed

—self-published titles

—print-on-demand titles

—poetry (except children’s and teen)

—textbooks

—specialized technical or professional works

—any work intended primarily for an academic audience

—reference books

—instruction manuals

—screenplays or other dramatic scripts

—computer and technology handbooks

—books of regional interest" Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) And that's here https://www.kirkusreviews.com/press-center/about/ Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Davidstewartharvey Read the link I gave you above, they literally review self-published books through their Indie program, it says as much on their own website. Further, are you trying to tell me that his book is not self-published? Because the first page of his book literally indicates otherwise - it is copyright to Sasinowski and through "Kingsmill Press" which is not an independent publisher, but a self publishing outlet. Did you even read your own comment? It is talking about Kirkus' traditional reviews and only those. They have the Indie program which literally explains that they PRIMARILY REVIEW SELF-PUBLISHED BOOKS. And in any case, your personal (and incorrect) view on this is not relevant, consensus was established that Kirkus Indie reviews are not independent and thus unreliable and unusable for the purposes of establishing notability.CUPIDICAE💕 18:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Praxidicae you have not read what I said. Kirkus does not review self published works. I have never said this not self published. Kirkus Indie is the only way that self published works can be reviewed by them. Therefore any self published works will always be via Indie. As they treat their reviews with the same independence once they do them, is why I believe this should be accepted.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

We are well into WP:IDHT territory now. I literally explained why this is not reliable, and linked to consensus. No one is saying as a whole Kirkus is unreliable, but Kirkus Indie is unreliable because it is a pay-for-publication and not independent. Your desire for Wikipedia to observe some outside belief that it counts isn't going to change anything. Your argument that it counts toward notability is erroneous and not supported by policy, Wikipedia norms, guidelines or established consensus and for that reason, what you're saying is incongruent with keeping this article. CUPIDICAE💕 18:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae Please refrain from making personal statements. I can assure you, I did read every word on this page as it is of great interest to me. Just because I did not agree with your statement does not mean that I did not read it. I said that Kirkus would take exception to your statement questioning their integrity, which was not necessary. I believe that their reviews are independent, whether through Kirkus or Kirkus Indie. There are many examples of scathing reviews by Kirkus Indie for Indie/self-published books; many more so than negative reviews of books published by the few large publishers (which are the only ones that Kirkus will review without a request). Vera3636 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Vera3636 There is nothing personal in my statement. It is a fact, as evidenced by your multiple comments here that you either haven't read or comprehended what has been said here. Per Wikipedia's policy on sourcing and established consensus that I have linked to now twice, Kirkus Indie is not an acceptable source to establish notability. Period. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant and this back and forth is becoming disruptive. CUPIDICAE💕 18:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• "We are well into WP:IDHT territory now." And how's that? I have not been disruptive editing at any time. I have put an argument forward for the Kirkus review. That is what AFD is about - debate. And as I quoted earlier regarding sponsored references "generally unacceptable" does not mean it is not acceptable. That is a debate to be made at AFD. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Because despite presenting you with uncontroversial fact, you are still insisting that you are correct, like saying 2+2=5. I've already linked you to a discussion which established consensus on Wikipedia that Kirkus Indie reviews cannot be used to establish notability. This isn't a debate, this is Wikipedia's consensus. If you wish to change that, go start a new RFC, otherwise, stop with the back and forth unless you can provide actual sources to establish notability. CUPIDICAE💕 18:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae All this could have been avoided by your pointing to the established consensus in your original comment, rather than questioning Kirkus Indie's integrity. For future use, may I suggest you start with pointing to the consensus? It will save all of us time and effort. Whether we agree with the consensus, or whether or not it is true outside of Wiki, is irrelevant for this purpose. If there is a consensus, then this discussion was not necessary. And please, as requested before, refrain from personal statements such as ones discussing my feelings. Vera3636 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There are no personal statements. There is fact, and then there is this wall of text with two people failing to read or understand established policy that I already explained in my first set of comments. Your inability or unwillingness to read is not my responsibility. And as Wikipedia editors, we literally need to be questioning the integrity of sources in line with our policies, which is precisely what I have done. And we agree, this discussion is unnecessary but you chose to ignore my multiple comments on your talk page and disruptively moved this article to mainspace, so now here we are having a ridiculous back and forth about a self-published book from a non-notable author that has zero coverage in independent reliable sources. See ya on the flip side. CUPIDICAE💕

The article was moved to mainspace after edits and additions of more sources. You did not "explain" the policy, you questioned Kirkus Indie's integrity, which is what prompted the discussion. And, as Davidstewartharvey stated, this is what AFD should be about. As I mentioned, if you had provided a link to the consensus in your initial comment about Kirkus, which is something I would expect an experienced Wiki editor to do, this could have been more efficient. And I do consider your referring to my feelings as quite personal, regardless of what you may claim, and inappropriate for a Wiki editor or a Wiki discussion, so you may want to refrain from using that particular language in future discussions. Vera3636 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think that discussing paid reviews is something that should predominantly take place at the reliable sources noticeboard. The main issue with them is one of independence, although reliability is certainly also an issue. I don't think that Reader's Favorite would be usable by any stretch but it's worthwhile to discuss Kirkus Indie since the institution is known and notable. I'll start up a discussion at the noticeboard and link to it here. I'm not trying to stop the discussion, it's just that the usability of Kirkus Indie is something that should take place at RS/N rather than here, since there needs to be consensus and discussing the site's notability can run the risk of derailing the AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've opened it here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Kirkus indie is not a RS, per RSN discussion, other coverage lacking. None of the awards given to the book appear to be notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - The best of the sourcing put forward would have been a Kirkus review, except, the one put forward isn't. It's a paid for review. Assorted blogs don't represent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Chomski

Chomski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Software notability. AtlasDuane (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not notable software. Only sourced to its Sourceforge repo for over a decade. All I find on "chomski" is Wikipedia mirrors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete no sign of notability.78.36.163.169 (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Notability guidelines not meet. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Reginald Davis III

Reginald Davis III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find any significant coverage for this subject, fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally, and WP:NCOLLATH, having had a routine college football career. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as above. All I could find was this single incidental story on him. Newspaper coverage was limited to routine signings/releases. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. In his best collegiate season, and with Patrick Mahomes as his QB at Texas Tech, Davis was the team's #5 receiver with 38 receptions. See here. The article cited by Etzedek above qualifies as SIGCOV, but WP:GNG requires WP:SIGCOV in multiple sources. My searches did not turn up additional SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment About a month ago I was going to nominate this for deletion but I didn't because I saw this, this, this, this, this, and this. There is also another article about his signing, and his college stats. Does anyone think that passes GNG? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • My snap judgement that much of that is routine coverage (signings and releases for example), and recruiting profiles, CFB-reference, and rosters are not suitable evidence of notability. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable college football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete did not have a notable college career and never played professionally beyond his one training camp. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough non-trivial coverage to pass WP:GNG, and no indication of meeting an athlete-specific criterion such as WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The notability question seems to be dispositive here. Insufficient secondary source coverage identified by editors and not refuted by page creator. Georgmichaels: I would be happy to move this to your userspace if you would like to hold onto the article and add to it if new source material comes to light. Just let me know. Thanks to all for participating. Go Phightins! 12:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Peter Wilfahrt

Peter Wilfahrt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable businessman and author. The article is a WP:SPAMPAGE and none of the many sources pass WP:SIGCOV with respect to the subject. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@SailingInABathTub: Thank you for pointing out that the career section didn't have the required [[WP:SIGCOV]. I removed the section accordingly. Georgmichaels (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - The only "thing of note" I could find was that he was a speaker at a major convention, but so were hundreds of other people at the same place. Many of the sources aren't even about him(like Google scholar reference). Looks like a puff piece, well sourced but the sources don't really match the subject. The creator has also made articles about books and companies created by Peter Wilfahrt. Daiyusha (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Concur with 'Daiyusha' looks like a well referenced promotional article. As German author, the lack of German Wikipedia, implies subjects does not rate an article in any language. Jeepday (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Owl Ventures

Owl Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Run-of-the-mill venture capital firm. Article appears to be undisclosed paid editing. Author was asked on 9 February about conflict of interest and has not answered, but is continuing to edit the article.

Previous version was deleted as G11 and G12. This version has twice been tagged by reviewers as G11 and G12, and once as UPE, but author has twice removed the tags: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Owl_Ventures&type=revision&diff=1005793697&oldid=1005283452&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Owl_Ventures&type=revision&diff=1004142333&oldid=1001831188&diffmode=source

(Yes, we know that the author isn't supposed to do that. I was already writing this AFD when I found those actions in the history. So we are at AFD rather than CSD.)

Article is both in article space and in draft space.

Article has 12 references, but none of them are independent significant coverage.

Note number		Significant coverage
1	TechCrunch press release	No
2	Client newsletter	No
3	BusinessJournals client press release	No
4	TechCrunch press release	No
5	TechCrunch press release	No
6	GlobalNewsWire press release	No
7	EdSurge press release	No
8	EdSurge press release	No
9	TechCrunch press release	No
10	TechCrunch press release	No
11	TechCrunch press release	No
12	TechCrunch press release	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - spam article pushed into main space by socks. As per nominator's thorough analysis, the sourcing is not of the standard required for WP:NCORP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable company with trivial coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete As per all above, fails WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom and all above. SoyokoAnis 01:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Could someone give me the diff of where the author didn't respond to claims of COI? SoyokoAnis 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@SoyokoAnis: On their talk page, see User talk:Naktipanchal201 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Kemalcan (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 17:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic (season 13)

Nostalgia Critic (season 13) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable "season" of a web-series. ★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep If the show is notable, then all the seasons are given their own spinoff articles. Dream Focus 17:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Can we combine all these nominations together? Having 13 AFD at once for the same thing, is rather ridiculous. Dream Focus 17:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dream Focus: That's not how TV and web-series work on Wikipedia as far as I know. To have their own articles each season needs to have reliable sources to establish that each season exists and is notable. This isn't a professional series, it's just a YouTube show that releases episodes almost every week.★Trekker (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - merging any useful content into Nostalgia Critic if needed. Individual ‘seasons’ of this series are not sufficiently notable on their own to support articles. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Merge and delete There's no clear notability of the individual seasons of this web series, but the series itself is notable and a list of episodes is reasonable to have. But most episodes do not need full production details nor an episode summaries (only those where he may have collaborated with another YouTuber or a special guest(s) should that be called out). Basically one table row per episode should be sufficient. If that full list is over the SIZE limit, then it could be split to two or more, but that split should not be based on individual seasons. --Masem (t) 15:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete & Merge: Its better to merge all article in one so that readers understand completely about this series. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Individual season articles are not a guarantee for every notable program, as explained above by Trekker, and there are no reliable sources at all discussing this "season". Thus, there is nothing to actually merge. Rorshacma (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic (season 14)

Nostalgia Critic (season 14) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable "season" of a web-series. ★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Merge with Nostalgia critic.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 17:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What is worth merging? It's just unsourced episode cruft.★Trekker (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep If the show is notable, then all the seasons are given their own spinoff articles. You can't just list some seasons and not others. Dream Focus 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No that's not how it works. And these are not real "seasons" anyway, some user seems to have made it up because the lists like List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2009) all got deleted.★Trekker (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - merging any useful content into Nostalgia Critic if needed. Individual ‘seasons’ of this series are not sufficiently notable on their own to support articles. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete & Merge: Its better to merge all article in one so that readers understand completely about this series. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Individual season articles are not a guarantee for every notable program, as explained above by Trekker, and there are no reliable sources at all discussing this "season". Thus, there is nothing to actually merge. Rorshacma (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mir Mohammed Raza

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Mir Mohammed Raza
• Articles for deletion/Mir Mohammed Raza (2nd nomination)

Mir Mohammed Raza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Biography of an astrologer and jeweller; essentially a promotional piece of a person who does not meet WP:GNG. No secondary sources, quite a bit of promotional content (including a list of non-notable awards), and claims about regular appearances on TV – but my WP:BEFORE search only turns up his own websites, his Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Not a single secondary source. The previous AfD had minimal participation (two editors including the article's creator), as can be seen here. The Moroccan Times article mentioned in that AfD as evidence of notability can be seen here (archived version) – it is an opinion piece from an unnamed staff writer which is really not a reliable source or anything contributing to notability. (As an aside, the book mentioned in the article is self-published, has no reviews, and also doesn't count towards any notability for the author.) bonadea contributions talk 17:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Strong delete as per nom: Perfectly created for promotional purpose and the creator of the article is banned globally. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 10:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; WP:VANITY page, failing WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 11:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. --Devokewater 15:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete promotion article! VocalIndia (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic (season 11)

Nostalgia Critic (season 11) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable "season" of a web-series. ★Trekker (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep If the show is notable, then all the seasons are given their own spinoff articles. You can't just list some seasons and not others. Dream Focus 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Please cite where that has been established. Because as far as I know something has to be notable to have it's own article. Hence why List of Nostalgia Critic episodes and it's spin-off pages were deleted.★Trekker (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - merging any useful content into Nostalgia Critic if needed. Individual ‘seasons’ of this series are not sufficiently notable on their own to support articles. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete & Merge: Its better to merge all article in one so that readers understand completely about this series. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Individual season articles are not a guarantee for every notable program, as explained above by Trekker, and there are no reliable sources at all discussing this "season". Thus, there is nothing to actually merge. Rorshacma (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic (season 12)

Nostalgia Critic (season 12) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable "season" of a web-series. ★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep If the show is notable, then all the seasons are given their own spinoff articles. You can't just list some seasons and not others. Dream Focus 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, that's not accurate to Wikipedia guidlines as far as I know (and if it has been decided so recently then I feel it is a huge mistake). Each article needs to establish notability of it's subject. And all these pages have already been deleted under other names such as List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2018).★Trekker (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - merging any useful content into Nostalgia Critic if needed. Individual ‘seasons’ of this series are not sufficiently notable on their own to support articles. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete & Merge: Its better to merge all article in one so that readers understand completely about this series. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Individual season articles are not a guarantee for every notable program, as explained above by Trekker, and there are no reliable sources at all discussing this "season". Thus, there is nothing to actually merge. Rorshacma (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Bekey Mills

Bekey Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't believe that his award nominations are enough to pass WP:NMUSICIAN nor is winning the Graz African Pathfinders Award. The citations used are very brief press releases (e.g. "Bekey Mills is due to release xxx", which is not the sort of coverage that establishes notability) or, in some cases, coverage from non WP:RS. A lot of the coverage appears to be paid-for. Despite all this promotion, he has almost no views on any of his videos, nobody is listening to him on Spotify and he has very few followers on his social media accounts. A WP:BEFORE search did not yield anything better than the sources already presented. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This article meets the criteria for musicians. Reasons given by user Spiderone are baseless and unfunded.

Bekey Mills has no articles written are that are paid for articles user spiderone kindly provide your evidence on this baseless remarks.

His Facebook and Instagram page has above 2k organic followers.

His Spotify year wrapped up he had over 56 countries listening to his songs.

His YouTube videos has suppassed over 10,000 views. This page should be maintained for user spiderone is just a hater and has no concrete evidence of his points raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.118.177.230 (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me which criterion under WP:NMUSICIAN he meets. 10 000 views on YouTube and 2k followers on Facebook is neither impressive nor notable. The sources used are clearly not neutral so are promotional and, even if we did assume that they were not paid-for, not one of them actually shows significant coverage. Routine announcements about releasing a song are not significant coverage. Ever. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like something a hater would say! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to be called a hater in that case. :p Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

We're not haters, we're dislikers of incompetent music managers who try to use Wikipedia for promoting their unknown amateur clients. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage in any reliable sources, and he can only be found in the completely typical African paid promotion services that reprint his management's press releases. Purely in promotional mode so far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. No need to type it out again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Maintain upon all your arguments on Bekey Mills you guys have still not been able to prove that Bekey Mills is not a musician. That is the core fact why this page should not be deleted. All the articles which are about him are not paid promotions. It is very clear on Google that Bekey Mills is a musician based on google search. That qualifies him to have this page and not be deleted. With maximum respect it a single thing written in his biography are lies rather they are truth and are backed by articles Google provides. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbek Entertainment (talk • contribs) 05:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Akbek Entertainment (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

— Akbek Entertainment (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure he's a musician, but that is not a qualification for Wikipedia. Being noticed outside of his and your promotional campaigns is the qualification. See the guidelines at WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:EXIST, none of which Mr. Mills passes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Mohd Afzal Parray

Mohd Afzal Parray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page appears to have been created one of the close associates of the subject. The life section doesn't cite any source (where does information comes from?) and the editor's name resembles with the subject's name. Moreover, the subject's notability is questionable. Please see WP:POLITICIAN. If the page is kept for notability, then every person in India will probably have their own Wikipedia page by the end of 2030. District Development Council members are non notable and its chairperson is headed by an additional district development commissioner (Additional D. C.) which is itself a non notable post. The author has recently changed their username[13] after the article's take page was updated and to bypass COI.

There are currently 280 members in Jammu and Kashmir, including 20 chairpersons. Does it mean we should create Wikipedia pages for each family member of the Jammu and Kashmir.? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment he’s chairperson of Kulgam DDC, and DDC was recently held, don’t know if DDC elected person meets NPOLITICIAN, if it meets then Keep otherwise Delete.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable party functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

HD 59640

HD 59640 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No in-depth coverage of this star in any scientific paper and no popular coverage. Lithopsian (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NASTRO. A SIMBAD search shows no significant coverage aside from being included in several catalogs. Aldebarium (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Redoryxx (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete No nontrivial references, not brighter than magnitude 6.0.PopePompus (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: If a mundane star doesn't even have an Fe_H table on SIMBAD, it's usually not worth the bother. Praemonitus (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

List of longest-running licensed video game franchises

List of longest-running licensed video game franchises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are many problems with this list, but I think the biggest is that it fails WP:LISTN. There's no way a list like this is appropriate, given that it's basically a duplicate of List of longest-running video game franchises, a far better list, just with some entries excluded. This list also doesn't even have a proper inclusion criterion. You could add literally any IP that got a handful of games, thus defeating the entire point of a list called "List of longest-running licensed video game franchises". Namcokid47 16:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:LISTN failure. IceWelder [✉] 16:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• kept possible merge it not a duplicate as you mentioned it a list of licensed games so it’s inclusion is it being based on a established franchise unlike the other list, second you mentioned ‘’’ You could add literally any IP that got a handful of games‘’’ this is why the first list has a threshold of 20 years and the others will also have threshold witch i will add to the page soon Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as a WP:LISTN failure (I don't see any sources discussing lists of longest running licensed video games.) and as a duplicative sub-group of the parent list. Any long running licensed video games would also be in the parent list, there's no reason to call them out in a separate list. -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• reply that what I think best added them to the main list (those that qualify) but unfortunately they are currently not allowed if they are allowed to be added then this list would be pointless until then kept the page Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I do not see why licensed games are special in terms of franchise longevity, such that they need to be listed independently from the all-inclusive video game franchise list. No sources to demonstrate why this is needed. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Essentially a duplicate of List of longest-running video game franchises. Even the other is of doubtful notability. Neither has any references. Nigej (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• comment done a quick count there are currently 55 franchises (witch 43 qualify for the main list that currently not on the main page (witch it self has about 104 give or take) if we combine that to make to give us 147 unless we rise the threshold the last time that was rise was in April 18 if anyone was wondering a 30y threshold would only added 28 franchises to the listFan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:REDUNDANT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete on top of what’s been mentioned I’m don’t believe the multiple video games that are adaptions of a franchise made by multiple developers and handled by several different publishes should be considered a franchise in its own right as the article is currently implying. To put it another way it makes sense to say that Batman (1986 video game) and Batman: The Enemy Within are parts of the overall Batman franchise but considering all the Batman video game together as it’s own franchises doesn’t.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• comment they are still part of the same franchise rights can transfer though the years just like unlicensed games they would be part of the same franchise so that not really a problem Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes they are part of the overall franchise but the list is suggesting they the games themselves are a franchise which is a different thing.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

comment The List of best-selling video game franchises included all the Star Wars, batman, spider man, etc games in the same franchise we should apply same logic here Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per IceWelder. Timur9008 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This list topic isn't notable or discriminate. Archrogue (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

St. Joseph's High School (Barrie)

St. Joseph's High School (Barrie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. I could not find any significant coverage that is not WP:MILL or otherwise helps pass WP:NCORP. See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. JavaHurricane 15:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Delete redirect I would be much more likely to have said keep if any of the claimed notable alumni had actually been notable. DGG ( talk ) 11:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect - to Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board, its administrative body, per WP:ATD. Even when we cannot produce an acceptable article, titles that are likely search terms shouldn't be deleted. They should be redirected (and merged when appropriate) to a related subject; generally either their administrative authority's article or the settlement article for their home community. What say you, DGG? 174.254.193.84 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

of course, that's what I should have said. That is indeed the most practical way to handle these. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Agree here. A redirect should be a good idea, now that I think of it. JavaHurricane 16:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect - to Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board per WP:ATD. This clearly isn't a notable high school. A redirect is fine though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect - to Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board per above.  // Timothy :: talk  14:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mamman Ibrahim Kolo

Mamman Ibrahim Kolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was deleted earlier this year as Ibrahim Mamman and, while this incarnation does have slightly more content, the subject still fails WP:GNG. It looks unlikely that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL either since no databases have any appearances recorded for him. The only thing going for him is this article which makes a vague statement "Ibrahim Kolo, 24, initially joined Niger Tornadoes on loan in October 2015 and went on to make five appearances for the club in all competitions." However, the Tornadoes were not in the 2015 Nigeria Professional Football League but did join the league in 2016. It's not clear that any of these alleged five appearances took place in a fixture between two clubs playing in a league at WP:FPL. More importantly, I'm not seeing any GNG coverage and he is currently plying his trade in the 5th tier of Ukraine so seems unlikely that he will ever be notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Over 30 total appearances in career.-Cupper52^Discuss! 15:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Please can you clarify which inclusion guideline this relates to? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cupper52: also those 27 appearances are completely unsourced Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone: Then we need to find sources for it. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cupper52: the only way that this footballer would meet inclusion guidelines is if he meets WP:NFOOTBALL, which would mean that he has played in a game between two teams listed at WP:FPL. Since the second tier of Nigeria and the fifth tier of Ukraine are not listed there, the alleged 27 appearances, even if correct, would not qualify him. The other route in which he can meet inclusion is through WP:GNG. I have searched for but not found any significant coverage nor is there any in the article. If you have found significant coverage or proof from a reliable source that he has played at professional level, please let me know. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence that player meets NFOOTBALL or GNG. GiantSnowman 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete it was deleted 19 days ago under a different name, so pretty clear consensus that they don't meet GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Taking care to delete the article on the politician and not the novelist! Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

K.surendran

K.surendran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The page was deleted multiple times; see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Surendran (politician). Creation now requires administrator access and to evade this someone has created the article by slightly altering the name. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - As per WP:G4. --John B123 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: The second deletion discussion is more relevant than the first, as is the more recent discussion on the declined draft. However, the article in question here, about a political official, has now been replaced by a redirect to the page about the novelist K. Surendran, so should this AfD be closed? AllyD (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No because the article title does not meet WP:NCP and would have to be renamed ... to K. Surendran. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, per Draft:K._Surendran_(politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Surendran (politician) (2nd nomination) and WP:G4. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - No comments on this discussion. However if this ends in a delete, please re-examine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TG Mohandas as Surendran is the leader of the party in the state, while T. G. Mohandas is one of the supposed intellectual heads (and prominent punchbag on news-hour debates) of the party in the state. Jupitus Smart 17:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - K. Surendran, the writer, the subject of this article, is a different person from K. Surendran, the politician. All the previous AfDs and the declined draft are about the politician. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• It is confusing because this AfD has been opened after the latest attempted article about the political official had been replaced by a redirect to the article on the writer; I don't think anyone is suggesting that the article on the writer should be deleted. This should have been opened at WP:RFD rather than WP:AFD. AllyD (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I see now. Since the re-direct has been removed, I would recommend a speedy delete to the article as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Speedy delete. Its a clear case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I have removed the redirect to the writer's page as it was creating confusion. I accidentally redirected the page to the article on the writer before proposing for deletion. Also, I have removed the AfD tag from the page on the writer. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: An article on a political party official. The rejected draft is more detailed about the subject's unsuccessful electoral candidacies and about some trivial coverage but I see no reason to overturn the deletion consensus from the AfD a year ago. AllyD (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - As per WP:G4.-- Poppified ^talk 02:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G4 and WP:SALT the namespace. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. VocalIndia (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Kelantan F.C. season

2021 Kelantan F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Playing below a level that would give presumed notability under WP:NSEASONS and no indication of WP:GNG at this early stage; nothing has happened yet that would make a separate article for this season necessary and we generally don't have stand-alone articles for seasons at this level. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I see a smattering of coverage so WP:GNG may ultimately be met, but the article currently fails WP:GNG and I can't find enough which makes me think it's obviously notable. Delete, but if better sources are found, someone could probably have a go at recreating this. SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 issue centering on notability appears to have a consensus that the contemporaneous national coverage and the ongoing historical implications pull in that direction too. Conversation as it relates to renaming or reframing to focus more or less on the primary or general can continue outside the context of AFD. Go Phightins! 11:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

2006 Georgia's 4th congressional district election

2006 Georgia's 4th congressional district election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. This article covers a race for a safe Democratic seat, so there's no special notability for this story. Anything superfluous can be merged to the articles of the candidates involved. Love of Corey (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll also have to point out for transparency's sake that this article had been bundled into an earlier AfD, which was closed as keep. Love of Corey (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep While a safe seat, the bulk of the article is about the relatively interesting primary and run-off, which looks like it received national coverage. GNG is met, and while we would typically delete or merge these sorts of articles I think there's enough there that deleting the article would make the encyclopaedia worse. SportingFlyer T·C 14:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - As SportingFlyer has said, there is enough interesting coverage of the primary to warrant an article here. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering the votes as of late have prominently mentioned the notability of the race's Democratic primary, I will suggest an alternative solution should the article be kept: rename the article to reflect the fact that it is talking about the Democratic primary, not the overall election, per 2010 United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania. I think it would be misleading if the article title points to a topic about the overall congressional race when it'll mostly talk about the Democratic primary. Love of Corey (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I support that - the primary is part of this overall election. SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

But the article mostly talks about the primary, while the general is more of an aftermath-like section. Love of Corey (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The article you linked to was a WP:SPLIT. The primary and general are best covered in one article here due to the length of content. SportingFlyer T·C 01:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the information on the general be expanded, then? Love of Corey (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, there's nothing stopping anyone, but none of that has anything to do with deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This seems to be a definite keep. The primary involved what would turn out to be two long-serving U.S. House members, one of whom had already achieved above-average prominence and infamy at the time of the primary. The primary election was heavily covered in the national media and was not just a locally watched race. Go4thProsper (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

National Institute for Digital Security

National Institute for Digital Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT Atsme 💬 📧 13:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete and salt vanity run of the mill company. Also promotional editing. See the creator's edit pattern. Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Spam. JavaHurricane 16:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:PROMO. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete is not notable, prevents a one sided view and is promotional. Skingo12 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Questions asked during the Q&A session of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump

Questions asked during the Q&A session of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Why have a list article of all the questions asked during the impeachment trial when Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump#Question-and-answer session covers it just as fine, with more succinctness, and also when Wikisource is available for this exact information? Also, this sort of article never arose during the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump, which was held under similar circumstances, so there's no special notability in this topic. Love of Corey (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with the nom that is this more akin to primary source content, something we should summarize instead of just copying. Transwiki to Wikisource would seem to be the best result. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Honestly, this article should not exist for multiple reasons, but a Transwiki seems fair enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, just a normal Delete seems fair enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete if the Wikisource people want to include the Congressional Record, they can do it on their own. Clearly not a Wikipedia article topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete total failure of the not indiscriminate guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shaking my head what some people can create on enwiki as an article.--Darwinek (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete As a perfect example of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. KidAd • SPEAK 23:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As SportingFlyer indicates, there is a string of articles on state auditor elections. If the nominator proposes to delete/merge all of them, it probably makes sense to have an "omnibus discussion" of sorts on those grounds. In the meantime, Power~enwiki is probably right that this article is a touch too soon, but with no obvious place to redirect and the fact that this is the next auditor election in the state, keeping seems like the obvious solution at this time. Relisting to let this conversation play out for another week does not seem likely to change the contours of the discussion, so I am going to go ahead and close at this time without prejudice against a renomination if the nominator (or anyone else) wants to make a broader case about this class of articles. Go Phightins! 01:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

2022 Missouri State Auditor election

2022 Missouri State Auditor election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of anything notable about this particular election about this particular position. Perhaps the overall election cycle. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• We have a string of articles on this, so I'm not sure if you're proposing to delete all of them for being non-notable, which is possible but it is a statewide office so probably at worst a selective merge, or if you're saying this is WP:TOOSOON, which is probably true. SportingFlyer T·C 12:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep it's probably TOOSOON, but the obvious merge to 2022 Missouri elections isn't possible. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify I think until more candidates announce they are running it can be draftified. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - election is next year and there's enough information on it already. Not much point in deleting only to recreate soon. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that notability is not inherited, and no secondary source coverage crosses the general notability guideline threshold. Go Phightins! 11:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Raja Karna

Raja Karna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me the reason for adding this article in deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srimant ROSHAN (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete an illegitmate child of a fairly minor ruler. He also died at age 9. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not added the word (illegitimate son) in this article because Raja Karna was one of the legitimate son of Rajaram Maharaj . Because he was born from unknown women who was married with Rajaram Maharaj at Jinji fort.That is why you cannot say it is illegitimate son of great Rajaram Maharaj. There is a word (wedlock )I copyed this word from Rajaram Maharaj Wikipedia article. I don't know the meaning of wedlock therefore I am sorry . Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Notability is not inherited. He was not a Prince with legimate title or status. VocalIndia (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

According readed records by me he is the legitimate son of Rajaram 1. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Brahmavarchas Shodh Sansthan

Brahmavarchas Shodh Sansthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional article, which searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ajay Agrahari

Ajay Agrahari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Earlier speedy template was removed by a mystery IP editor from New Zealand (...), hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable yoga instructor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

please don't delete this page. Ajay Agrahari is a notable public figure. he has been featured in various news articles for his contribution towards promoting yoga. Here are few news links. "Boost for yoga in New Zealand with success of Yogathon 2020" https://www.stuff.co.nz/tarana/122281858/boost-for-yoga-in-new-zealand-with-success-of-yogathon-2020

"YOGA EMBRACED BY MORE NEW ZEALANDERS EACH YEAR - YOGATHON NZ 2020 SURPASSES ALL EXPECTATIONS" https://www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages/ArticleDetails/7/13075/New-Zealand/Yoga-embraced-by-more-New-Zealanders-each-year-Yogathon-NZ-2020-surpasses-all-e

"Yogathon 2020 gets underway on Saturday - 108,000 sun salutations targeted" https://www.stuff.co.nz/tarana/latest/121779651/yogathon-2020-gets-underway-on-saturday--108000-sun-salutations-targeted

"YOGATHON NEW ZEALAND 2020 GOES VIRTUAL STARTING THIS SATURDAY" https://www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages/ArticleDetails/7/12584/New-Zealand/Yogathon-New-Zealand-2020-goes-virtual-starting-this-Saturday

“Yogathon 2019 a success, bigger and better event planned for next year..” https://www.stuff.co.nz/tarana/114072408/yogathon-2019-a-success-bigger-and-better-event-planned-for-next-year

“YOGATHON NZ 2019 EXCEEDS TARGET OF 108,000 SUN SALUTATIONS..” https://www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages/ArticleDetails/7/10924/New-Zealand/Yogathon-NZ-2019-exceeds-target-of-108000-Sun-Salutations

“Yogathon 2019 exceeds self-assigned 108,000 target..” http://www.indiannewslink.co.nz/yogathon-2019-exceeds-self-assigned-108000-target/

“Yogathon New Zealand ushers in Health for Humanity” http://www.indiannewslink.co.nz/yogathon-new-zealand-ushers-in-health-for-humanity/

“Yogathon 2019: Here's full programme of what's on, where and when” https://www.stuff.co.nz/tarana/113483724/yogathon-2019-heres-full-programme-of-whats-on-where-and-when

“Annual 'Yogathon - Health for Humanity' expected to draw thousands..” https://www.stuff.co.nz/tarana/113062371/annual-yogathon--health-for-humanity-expected-to-draw-thousands

His life journey https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/varanasi-city-success-story-of-a-indian-diaspora-in-newzealand-from-siddharthnagar-18840462.html

https://www.amarujala.com/uttar-pradesh/gorakhpur/151549042152-gorakhpur-news

Here you can find so many other news articles on Ajay Agrahari. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_EK3NOhWMnPHpMTNkOm18_4ToQBFqr2R/view?usp=sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.125.168.126 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Same IP address as was behind the speedy tag removal. Just saying. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete:Fails WP:Basic and this is a clear case of using wikipedia for promotion. Sources provided by the IP is a case of WP:NOTEBOMB. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion. If you take away the stuff and other links about yoga, which appear to be promotional in any case, there doesn't appear to be much independent coverage. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At issue here is the extent to which non-routine coverage crosses the GNG threshold. Based on the nominator's withdrawal, the new sources that did come to light, and the fact that, after two relists, there is little momentum towards deletion, I am closing this as keep. Admittedly, it's a borderline "no consensus," but the nominator's withdrawal tipped the balance in my reading of the discussion. Thanks to all participants. Go Phightins! 12:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 Stal Stalowa Wola season

2020–21 Stal Stalowa Wola season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As well written as this article is, I don't actually think that this meets our notability criteria for football seasons. It certainly doesn't get presumed notability from WP:NSEASONS as the Polish 4th tier is certainly not a top professional league. The coverage is also not enough to meet WP:GNG. The season gets in-depth coverage from the club's own website but, from secondary sources, the coverage is fairly minor. I tried searching for some match reports for this season and found that this and this were representative. I don't believe that there is enough evidence of WP:GNG here. Football seasons at amateur, regional level are almost never notable and I can't see this being an exception. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Is well referenced and we shouldn’t be deleting an article when it is about an event which is about to take place. -Cupper52^Discuss! 10:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please show me WP:THREE good references about this season. Please also show me the Wikipedia notability guideline that says articles about events currently taking place are exempt from meeting notability requirements Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of any notability. GiantSnowman 11:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, doesn't have any significant notability. Setreis (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - I am keeping this article up-to-date, with all information well provided. The results are published on global ([14]), national ([15]; [16]) and regional ([17] [18]) websites. In addition, it is the fourth level of the UEFA European league (for comparison: the fourth level of England has all clubs described [19]) and the club is described as a professional club ([20], "Only in that year, the commune supported the Football Joint Stock Company with the amount of PLN 580 thousand and the Zakładowy Klub Sportowy Stal Stalowa Wola with the amount of PLN 120 thousand"). It is a local giant for the Podkarpacie community. Therefore, after reading the WP:NSEASONS criteria and the provision that "national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable", I believe that in this case we are dealing with the article that should remain. Removing this page would bury many months of editors' work. 95.160.103.8 (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The coverage that you have cited as being significant national and international coverage is completely run-of-the-mill. There is nothing to suggest that they get any more significant coverage than any other club playing in a semi-pro or amateur regional league worldwide. The local coverage is perhaps slightly more detailed but it still does not come close to the level of passing WP:GNG. This does show some signficant coverage but it's entirely irrelevant to the 2020-21 season given the date in which it was written. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, according to my information, the club is professional, employing professional players. If it is otherwise, you should indicate it with an appropriate link. But I will make it easier for you - as this article states about the amounts: salary for players for 2020 (during the 2020-21 season) is PLN 1 044 452.38; salary of the coaching staff for 2020 is PLN 226,711.51; the management costs are PLN 187,987.47. 95.160.103.8 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you got any sources to state that III liga is a fully professional league as that would be required? A professional club playing in a non-professional league is still not notable, see here. It isn't listed at WP:FPL but if sources are available then please start a discussion at WT:FPL. By the way, where does it say that the club is professional in that link? Semi-professional clubs still have wage bills as part-time footballers are still paid. Their wage bill has dropped massively in the last year. Are you sure that isn't because a lot of the new players are now part-time? Also, have you got any significant coverage for this exact season? None of the sources that you have provided so far show non-trivial coverage of this club during 2020-21 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There are no clear guidelines (as WP:NSEASONS claims) if a particular season in a semi-professional level should be not notable or not. And that means that we must reach a conclusion in the discussion. As for the payments to the players, the article shows that there are no amateur contracts at the club (the highest is PLN 10,000; in my opinion, a solid contract even at the level of I liga; the lowest PLN 500 can be for a junior; details are missing). 95.160.103.8 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this season should be judged on its own merits. I will happily change my vote if multiple independent sources come to light showing detailed coverage of this particular season. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you are asking for Wikipedia:Independent sources, I will be happy to point them out to you. According to games - match reports can be easily found at the 90minut.pl website (official RSSSF branch in Poland); III liga match descrpitions, transfers and other infos associated with Stal can be found, among others, at the nationwide websites of Sportowe Fakty WP and Gol24PL; e.g player transfer; III liga victory, Stal 2021 training. Stal's Polish Cup games were described at nationwide medias like Przegląd Sportowy [21] or Polsat [22]. In addition, I can add regional independent source of "Echo Dnia Podkarpacia" [23] [24] 95.160.103.8 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - on the basis of some reporting from independent sources that goes beyond just the bare minimum match reporting and transfer news, such as [25] [26] [27] [28] and a few others, I now believe that deletion is no longer necessary as the season article could be edited to show a passing of GNG. I have struck my nom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This still fails WP:NSEASONS, yes you can apply GNG, but I fail to see how sourcing to match reports and transfers isn't still run-of-the-mill routine. There needs to be more something special happening than what is there to make it notable. If anything I've noticed there are no club articles for clubs at this level when there could be. And creating a season page here seems to be going in the wrong direction. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read the WP:NSEASONS policy, which does not indicate if a particular season in a semi-professional level should be not notable or not. Please also see my exchange of views with the user Spiderone, who also had doubts about the encyclopaedic character of the article, but admitted that it meets Wikipedia requirements (independent sources, articles about individual matches, season in general, even training sessions in national media - all links above). 95.160.103.8 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Potentially some non routine coverage and no real discussion of those sources, worth another week to allow that to play out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't think run-of-the-mill match reports are really enough as this is well below professional level. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read the WP:NSEASONS policy, which does not indicate if a particular season in a semi-professional level should be not notable or not. Please also see my exchange of views with the user Spiderone, who also had doubts about the encyclopaedic character of the article, but admitted that it meets Wikipedia requirements (independent sources, articles about individual matches, season in genaral, even training sessions in national media - all links above). 95.160.103.8 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It does. WP:NSEASONS states that "articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues", which this is not. I would add that the references are insufficient for WP:GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Nooo, it just states that seasons in top professional leagues are always notable, and seasons in semi-pro leagues might be notable. As it comes to your opinion about references, the subject of cited informations are notable as cited in the nation-wide medias. I agree that for transfers I add mostly links from the team website (as it is the first source that provides the info), but there are as well cited in other medias; as please look for the last Stal transfer that I referenced with the other website. 95.160.103.8 (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If the policy stated "articles can be created only on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues", it would be EOT, but it is not, luckily. 95.160.103.8 (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep this season has been covered enough by Polish media and while it could use a little more prose, passes WP:GNG. (This may not be true of every third division Polish team.) WP:NSEASONS is not exclusionary. SportingFlyer T·C 12:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Import.io

Import.io (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. My attention was brought to this article through reviewing an unblock request(Marketingimport) from an employee who was blocked for promotional edits. I was just going to tag it and move on, but my searches could find no independent reliable sources with significant coverage, just routine announcements. I had removed most of the blatant promotional information, but removing the basic announcements and unremarkable awards from the article would leave nothing left. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I can find no sources to show that this company meets WP:NORG, certainly no in-depth coverage. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and above delete. SoyokoAnis 00:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ayşenur Büyükciğer

Ayşenur Büyükciğer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No appearances that would qualify her for notability under WP:NFOOTBALL according to TFF, which also has no recorded appearances since Jan 2019, so it would appear that she has retired. Her youth caps do not confer notability and my searches are not digging up any WP:GNG coverage. A Turkish search yields mostly her own social media accounts and football statistics profiles. Digging further I can find her in a squad list on Haberler, an U19 squad list, another U19 squad list and another U19 squad list. The sources are reliable but the coverage lacks depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• DeletePer nomination. Alibilbao (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

V4N5H

V4N5H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Whilst clearly more accomplished than most 15 year olds, V4N5H simply does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. This is an autobiography on a remixer with no coverage in reliable, independent sources. Every source cited is self-published and therefore not reliable. Nothing better found in a search. Bhardwaj has put a lot of effort into his article but he is not notable enough (yet). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well actually, I accomplished rule 11 of WP:NMUSICIAN, as his song was on repeat for several days after its release on CKFM-FM. At the time, A fan told me about it, but couldnt capture the records in time before it was permanently recycled. But the fan said and captured a screenshot, clearly stating that my name was said on the radio station several times throughout that month, As shown in citation number two of the article. One of the sources cited, the Medium news article, was not written by me. It was written by an anonymous user who I do not know. - Vansh Bhardwaj 10:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Playing once on a radio station does not constitute a passing of NMUSICIAN and Pinterest is not a reliable source in any case. Also please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which says Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons. An article on Medium cannot be used to establish notability of a person. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I will wait for your decision. If any other users would contest the decision, then please go ahead. Otherwise, your discretion. At the moment, there are users who wish to add more sources. I request a period of time before deletion to prove notability. - Vansh Bhardwaj 10:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion will last for at least 7 days, throughout which, other Wikipedians will be able to assess the sources available to see whether you merit inclusion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, and I also can't find any coverage at all in reliable, independent sources. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Sorry but you cannot write your own autobiography in Wikipedia or use this site for self-promotional purposes. This is an encyclopedia in which people must qualify for inclusion, and that requires significant news coverage from reliable and independent sources. That has not yet happened, and your Internet notice so far foes not qualify as "reliable" per SpiderOne above. Good luck. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Autobiographical spam. JavaHurricane 16:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Zero, upon zero sources found in Google News or elsewhere. Playing a song doesn't make it notable, it should be charting. To be clear, part of it was used in a remix by a local DJ, not the whole song. The DJ probably just found it online and liked it...Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The content is copied from YouTube wiki— Diannaa (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It was not copied, rather it was moved by the YouTube Wiki team from here to there. - Vansh Bhardwaj — Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete- Completely fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG, Google search turned up notahing to establish notability. This looks more like a self-written promo page. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LG Corporation. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

LG CNS India

LG CNS India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Found no evidence of significance or notability for this defunct software company. Fails NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to LG Corporation. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Tessaracter (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Kelsey Stevenson

Kelsey Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NTENNIS, coverage is routine match reports only. Has not played at ATP level (in qualifying, but not in actual tournaments) or at the Davis Cup. Hasn't won a Challenger tournament, only Futures tournaments, which are not important enough by far. Fram (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, ATP qualifying does not meet the WP:NTENNIS requirements and I couldn't find anything to suggest that WP:GNG could be met here. Iffy★Chat -- 12:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I can only find name checks in match reports myself and the article itself doesn't have any references that would allow a passing of WP:GNG. As explained above, WP:NTENNIS is also failed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and feedback, this is the first page I've created and don't stand to gain anything from it, I just feel it's merited for this page to exist and perhaps the guidelines for what's considered 'notable' in the tennis world need to be revamped. I would like to address a few of the comments made above, "Hasn't won a Challenger tournament, only Futures tournaments, which are not important enough by far". I don't feel this is an accurate nor appropriate assessment of the ITF Men's and Women's tours. Almost all professional players begin playing on these tours and they help mould the players. They are important. By definition, someone who has played in only one Davis/Fed Cup match representing their country is considered a "notable" players, but in this case a player who has won several titles, and is professionally ranked within the top 600 of the world is considered to be a non-notable players who cannot have an article? Lastly, in reference to the statement "Has not played at ATP level (in qualifying, but not in actual tournaments) or at the Davis Cup". Qualifying matches are part of the tournaments. They provide ranking points and monetary rewards to participants, and thus I feel they are indeed sufficient to be used when quantifying what a notable player is. In this scenario specifically, this player has played in the qualifying rounds of no less than 7 ATP Tour level tournaments, including multiple times at the Roger's Cup, an ATP Maters 1000 - level tournament which is the second highest possible after a Grand Slam. Lastly, I feel that if a player can be linked (proven to have played a set number of matches) to others players already identified as 'notable' and with their own articles, then this should be sufficient enough to meet guidelines. Thank you! - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcburk (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC) mcburk (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, since this is a biography of a living person that does not meet the current sports notability guideline, the only way that it can really pass notability criteria is if there is sufficient coverage of him as a person to warrant an article. I'd be interested to know if you had access to any reliable sources documenting him in depth. For example, are there any sources that discuss his style of play, his early career or his personal life? This is the sort of coverage that would be needed for WP:GNG. Results listings and passing mentions in match reports are considered as WP:ROUTINE coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. In this 2017 article written in the Montreal Gazette newspaper, there's a brief mention of his early life and family moving from Canada to Asia:

"Kelsey Stevenson, a Brighton, Ont., native who has spent most of his pro career playing in Asia, lost to 6-foot-11 American Reilly Opelka 6-4, 6-3. “I grew up playing against Milos (Raonic) but (Opelka’s) serve is something else,” said Stevenson.Stevenson moved overseas with his family after his father was transferred to China by Proctor and Gamble.“We spent four years there and then went to India and now my father is in Singapore,” said Stevenson. “I was based in Thailand but I’ve also spent some time in Europe. When you’re a tennis player, you don’t really have a home, but I’m based here now.”

This Japanese article from 2014 which includes a picture of the player, outlines his style of play and the school he graduated from:

"Kelsey is a graduate from Bangkok Pattana school and has extensively lived in Bangkok, Thailand. One of his best friends is Milos Raonic!..... Kelsey has an aggressive style of play with a mean forehand and one handed backhand. He enjoys plays such as 3rd ball strike. .... He will now head to Taiwan Futures to get back with his team led by coach Paul Dale. Kelsey coming off from an extensive eight month recovery is hoping to get back on the Challenger Tour and get his ranking back up. He favours doubles versus singles."

He was also a listed recipient of grants given from Tennis Canada through National bank last spring at the onset of the pandemic, to support Canadian players. Here's an article about that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcburk (talk • contribs) 11:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC) mcburk (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The 1st of those sources is by far the best one, as it covers the subject in a reliable source, the 2nd one is a blog from a tennis academy which isn't considered a reliable source (and may not be independent of the subject either), the 3rd one is clearly a passing mention. One source that just about meets the GNG criteria isn't enough to show notability. Iffy★Chat -- 12:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with Iffy on this occasion. If he met NTENNIS, then those sources would definitely be enough but, since he doesn't, I see no reason to keep the article with essentially only one good source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

National Freight Index in India

National Freight Index in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Sources are not good enough. Fails GNG Jenyire2 06:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 06:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The name sounds as if it should be notable, but it is actually a non-notable index of a start-up company’s own trading platform. "The NFI is based on real transactions taking place on Rivigo Freight marketplace". Fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Web searching does not reveal enough coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP and they seem to revolve around the establishment of the subject only. Considering that the parent company Rivigo is salted, it is even more unlikely for a part of the company's operation to be notable. The words seems slightly promotional, though I would not accuse the creator of WP:COI yet out of WP:AGF. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, SailingInABathTub does a good summary above, fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• delete: per SailingInABathTub, and Aseleste. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mb-microtec

Mb-microtec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, unsourced. Mottezen (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - no sources to be found aside from insubstantial entries on lists. Fails WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: A long-standing under-referenced article. Searches are finding some product listings but not the WP:RS coverage needed to demonstrate notability to the current WP:NCORP standards. AllyD (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Anurag Singh (cricketer, born 1990)

Anurag Singh (cricketer, born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Soft keep Madya Pradesh is part of the first class domestic cricket league in India. If Singh did play for them (need some proof), that would provide notability per WP:NCRICK. Rogermx (talk)
• Keep Played in multiple matches for MP across all three formats. This match report states a "clinical bowling performance" led by him. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete We have no sources that pass GNG. It is time we actually start holding articles to GNG and verrifiability which are both failed here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Per ESPN CricInfo, played in 2 first class matches and 2 list A matches. Per WP:CRIN that automatically confers notability. Störm's reference to WP:GNG is therefore irrelevant, as the article's notability is not determined by GNG DevaCat1 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Has played 2 FC, 2 List-A and 4 T20 matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Multiple appearances in first-class matches, List-A, and T-20s so passes WP:NCRICKET. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Zaman Akhter

Zaman Akhter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - He's played first-class cricket, so is automatically notable. – PeeJay 16:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  The cricket SNG criterion is "highest domestic level" – regardless of the status afforded individual matches, university cricket (especially at this time) falls below this standard. As such, this fails NCRIC and he does not get the weak presumption (not guarantee) of notability offered by it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect, per my above comments. Fails GNG, and also fails (a strict interpretation of) NCRIC. No indication that any significant coverage exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players - subject fails WP:GNG but a valid ATD exists Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some sourcing but no consensus one way or the other and seemingly little appetite for discussion. Fenix down (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Egil Fjetland

Egil Fjetland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed PROD: "meets WP:NFOOTY as he played in Eliteserien". This is incorrect per WP:FPL because the Norwegian men's football league was not 'fully professional' until some time after 2001, while this player's appearances came from 1989 to 1992. The sources included in the article are trivial mentions, falling short of WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he played in Eliteserien. Also note all the other deletion discussions the editor has started which has been kept. The claim that the Norwegian league wasn't fully pro until 2001 needs to be sourced, and is a discussion that should be taken elsewhere. This discussion should be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. Mentoz (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Timberlack (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG (no significant coverage) and NFOOTBALL (Norwegian league was not "fully pro" until 1991 at the earliest, or 2001 as FPL currently stands - though I note this is again disputed/under discussion). If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak delete - the best that I could dig up were this two page spread, which looks like it might have some decent coverage. This and this look a bit more like routine match reporting. None of the sources cited in the article seem to show WP:SIGCOV either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus but some sources. Needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Sorenson

Ryan Sorenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown city councillor and as yet unelected mayoral candidate, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, people at the local level of political office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- city councillors are normally notable enough for inclusion only in metropolitan cities on the order of New York City, Chicago or Los Angeles, mayoral candidates are never notable enough for inclusion anywhere if they don't have much stronger notability claims than just being candidates per se, and even if he does win the election in April, he still wouldn't be guaranteed inclusion as Sheboygan (pop. 49K) isn't large enough to clinch an automatic presumption of notability for every mayor just because he exists. And for sourcing, what we have here is three primary sources (the council's own website and two YouTube videos of him speaking at meetings) that aren't support for notability at all, and four hits of purely run of the mill local coverage in the local media that aren't enough to make him more special than most other smalltown city councillors. He would have to be able to show a lot more than this to pass NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Move to draftspace for now I am in the community the subject is in (and did vote for him in the primary days ago), but currently there's not much N for now, and the article could use some building up before it gets out of draftspace (though I'll readily admit our local media is disappointing in that aspect; it's either the local Gannett paper, one other hyperlocal site, the cable access channel, maybe the Milwaukee stations give us 30 seconds on election night...then a whole bunch of one-sided blogs (including the big local radio group) I wouldn't source the existence of anything to). If it does not however, I would support deletion or redirection to Sheboygan, Wisconsin#Government. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 04:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NPOL. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fails notability guidelines for politicians. Even if he were elected mayor that would still not automatically make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Being elected alderman in a small city does not make this individual notable. I would support recreating or keeping the article of the individual is elected mayor and additional information and references are added. I do have a concern with the photo used as it is a professional headshot and I believe the user who uploaded it was not the creator. Asher Heimermann (talk)
• Delete Does not come close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:NPOL guidelines. Easy delete as this is not a close call. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ben Lee (businessperson)

Ben Lee (businessperson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails GNG and a search for supporting sources turns up empty (or just PR fluff) Mazurkevin (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• The nominator has been blocked as a spammer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable business person. Fails WP:PROMO and WP:ORGCRIT. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Agrees with the above conclusion. Google reports 2000-ish results, and only returns 5 pages of filtered search results (9 if unfiltered). With the low quality and irrelevant search results, the subject is unlikely to be notable. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 12:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Can’t find anything that suggests notability. --Devokewater 15:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

SeeClickFix

SeeClickFix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Only one eligible source: the NYT. Other sources are local and either based in interviews (mostly quotes) or press releases. czar 07:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. czar 07:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. czar 07:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Duval, Jared (2010). Next Generation Democracy: What the Open-Source Revolution Means for Power, Politics, and Change. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-60819-066-9. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

     The book covers SeeClickFix on several pages.

     The book has a section titled "The Reach of SeeClickFix" on page 140:

     As of March 2010, over three thousand people were receiving watch-area alerts from SeeClickFix, and the site was getting over two hundred thousand views a day. Most of the views come via news companies that have embedded the SeeClickFix tool on their local news sites, including Gannett's Tennessean, Hearst's San Francisco Chronicle, and Tribune's Baltimore Sun.

     Indeed, SeeClickFix has quickly spread beyond New Haven to become a national and even global phenomenon. ...

     [Paragraph about its use on two hundred local news sites and how its used on mobile devices]

     The site is also used from Australia to Argentina. [paragraph about other countries that use it and how it is translated into six languages]

  2. Slotnik, Daniel E. (2010-01-03). "News Sites Dabble With a Web Tool for Nudging Local Officials". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

     This is a detailed profile of SeeClickFix.

  3. Bond, Shannon (2013-12-11). "Mobile SeeClickFix app helps clean up the streets". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

     The article notes, "Founded in 2008 in New Haven, Connecticut, SeeClickFix has contracts with more than 160 cities to provide reporting tools and software to mayors' offices, sanitation departments and public works agencies. To date, more than 350,000 users have reported some 800,000 issues."

  4. Graeff, Erhardt (June 2018). "Evaluating Civic Technology Design for Citizen Empowerment" (PDF). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

     This is a PhD dissertation. The author notes, "I report on a case study of SeeClickFix, a civic technology company that builds tools enabling citizens to report infrastructure problems to local governments."

  5. Machado, Tyler (2012-12-12). "Burlington Adopts a New App to Tackle an Old Problem: Illegal Dumping". Seven Days. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

     The article notes, "SeeClickFix isn’t meant for emergency use — that’s what good, old-fashioned 911 is for — but it can indirectly aid emergency responders. Government Technology magazine reported that in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the app was used to pinpoint storm damage and assemble volunteer teams, keeping 911 lines open for more pressing emergencies."

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

  Cunard (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, WP:RS sources found in the FT, NYT, & WSJ. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

FT fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a repackaged interview with the founder. WSJ only mentions the company in passing. The NYT one is fine, as I've already mentioned above. czar 01:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I found this article about the potential of SeeClickFix in Government Technology from 2011 as well as numerous local sources about municipalities adopting the service. I believe the sources do meet WP:CORPDEPTH --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep it's fluffy, but this is an app/website with fairly wide usage and there are sources supporting notability even though the article is in a poor shape. I made some fixes to it while I was looking through this AfD. Graywalls (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sainik School, Manasbal

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal
• Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal (2nd nomination)

Sainik School, Manasbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fail WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Collection of trivia The Banner talk 14:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep has some good WP:RS. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG, per the cited sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: The references here are good in comparison with other similar articles from the navigation table that have not been deleted. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 11:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wellglade Group. (WP:ATD) Daniel (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TM Travel

TM Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are not of limited interest or local) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge into its parent organisation Wellglade Group. Crookesmoor (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, mentions in multiple industry and local sources. Lilporchy (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Significant coverage, not mentions are needed. Furthermore if there is not at least one SIGCOV source outside of local/specialist publications then it fails WP:AUD, a component of NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss existence of sufficient sources and merge proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The Sawtooth Grin

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The Sawtooth Grin
• Articles for deletion/The Sawtooth Grin (2nd nomination)

The Sawtooth Grin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Survived PROD on accounts of a member being in another notable band, but the criteria appears to have evolved since then and N Music 6 seems a little stronger than 2008 and only one of the other bands (The_Number_Twelve_Looks_Like_You#Members seems clearly notable. I cannot find any evidence of notability for their work. StarM 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I have found two reliable sources: this album review on Punknews.org and this announcement about them recruiting the drummer from The Number 12... But that's about it. The rest are the usual youtube videos, databases, blogs, concert sites and retail sites. Allmusic doesn't even know them, they don't have a profile there, not even a blank one. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete fails NBAND.-KH-1 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - The two sources provided by GhostDestroyer100 above appear to be the only real coverage on the band, and in both cases, I'm not convinced the sites they're from can really be considered to be reliable sources. Additionally, the second of those is very brief. Since there are no additional sources out there, I don't see this passing the WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NBAND. Rorshacma (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. by strength of arguments and sources presented. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Cariphalte

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cariphalte
• Articles for deletion/Cariphalte (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Cariphalte (3rd nomination)

Cariphalte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Two No Consensus AfDs, the most recent in 2014. I can find only one source newer than that AfD, but none of the sourcing establishes notability for this product. It simply mentions that it exists, not how well it performs or anything close to in depth. StarM 01:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete in its present form this is not really any better than a dictionary definition. Not every product is notable, and there is no sourcing here that in any way suggests why this product might be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last go
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete already. Claims of additional sourcing and notability have not been proven. Time to let this one go already and stop the "no consensus" carousel. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: A cursory Google search establishes that lots of sources exist, and make it clear that this is a well-known product in the industry. These include at least two peer-reviewed studies (5 and 6 in the links that follow), contrary to one of the professed reasons for nominating this article ("the sourcing [doesn't establish] how well it performs or anything close to in depth"). Examples of sources: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8. Other sources were also raised in this article's previous nominations; they simply have not been incorporated into the article. Johnpacklambert and TenPoundHammer appear to be basing notability off of the state of the article, but that is not how notability works. Incidentally, the nominator's claim that there were "Two No Consensus AfDs" is just flat-out false: The first was closed as a keep. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. An, Yanqing; Zianzhi, Shao (September 2014). "Effect of Aging on Rheological Property of Cariphalte Modified Asphalt". Applied Mechanics and Materials. 638–640: 1149–1152. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.638-640.1149. ISSN 1660-9336. Archived from the original on 2021-03-01. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via ProQuest.

     This is a peer-reviewed article about Cariphalte. According to this page from SCImago Journal Rank, "Applied Mechanics and Materials is a peer-reviewed journal which specializes in the publication of proceedings of international scientific conferences, workshops and symposia as well as special volumes on topics of contemporary interest in all areas which are related to: 1) Research and design of mechanical systems, machines and mechanisms; ..."

  2. Hua, Tan (September 2014). "Study of Rheological Properties of Cariphalte Modified Asphalt". Applied Mechanics and Materials. Vol. 638–640. pp. 1185–1189. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.638-640.1185. ISSN 1660-9336. Archived from the original on 2021-03-01. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via ProQuest.

     This is a second peer-reviewed article about Cariphalte from Applied Mechanics and Materials.

  3. "Tackling Reflective Cracks". Civil Engineering. Morgan Grampian: 30. May 1988. ISSN 0305-6473. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via Internet Archive.

     The article notes, "It is with this problem specifically in mind that Shell Bitumen UK introduced a polymer modified bitumen — Cariphalte DM. The binder is made from a special two-component, highly polymer compatible bitumen, ... As a result, when a surfacing bound with Cariphalte DM is loaded by a moving wheel, a greater proportion of the deformation induced by this load will be recovered. ... Since the commercial introduction of Cariphalte DM in 1986 over 400 000 m² of hot-rolled asphalt containing this binder have been laid on sites ranging from Cleveland in the north to Kent in the south. The majority of this use has been overlaying old concrete carriageways on motorways and trunk roads, such as the M20, M2, A4 at Hammersmith, A10 and the Dartford Tunnel approach road."

  4. Hunter, Robert N. (1997) [1994]. Bituminous Mixtures in Road Construction. London: Thomas Telford. p. 36. ISBN 0-7277-1683-2. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via Google Books.

     The book notes, "Fig. 1.18 shows the nature of the change in the BTDC profile between a 50 pen bitumen and one styrene block co-polymer, styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) which is produced by Shell Bitumen and marketed as Cariphalte DM. The improved elasticity of the binder makes it suitable for use with hot-rolled asphalt wearing courses overlying cementitious bases, lean concrete roadbases or old concrete carriageways. ... Shell Bitumen produces an alternative binder, Cariphalte DA, which is used for friction course mixtures."

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

  Cunard (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I expanded and added the sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time per sources presented much later in the discussion. Further input from other users regarding those sources would be beneficial here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nom comment I don't see that those sources do anything but prove it exists, which isn't in doubt. They're not significant or in depth coverage. StarM 14:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Star Mississippi, it is difficult to see how, if you read—or even just glanced at—the sources in question, you came to that conclusion. At least four peer-reviewed articles, expressly about Cariphalte, its properties, and its performance, have been cited. Then there are the news articles: among others, an interview about Cariphalte to mark the product's 50th anniversary, an article about how and why the Bugatti Circuit of Le Mans was repaved with Cariphalte, and an article about how any why Cariphalte was selected for the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge. In short, there's plenty of coverage, it's directly about Cariphalte, and it's in depth. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep References provided by Cunard above meet the requirements for establishing notability of a product as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite low participation, the nominator's policy-based arguments are the most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Matthias Berg

Matthias Berg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I PRODed this with "e coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". It was deprodded by User:Bodhi-Baum, it's creator, with the following rationale: "All I can say is that Matthias Berg is a force to be reckoned with in the field of Othello sports. It is obvious that this is not a mainstream sport. This may also be the reason why it is almost exclusively reported on the relevant sites. However, one should not forget that Mr Berg has already won many titles both nationally and internationally. As far as I know, just winning one national title in a sport makes you relevant for Wikipedia. Moreover, the article was created in May 2020 and there was already a relevance discussion. I don't understand why it should be deleted again now, after nine, almost ten months.". Unfortunately, I don't think that this explanation addresses my concerns; the subject still seems to fail GNG and NPSORT since "winning the German Othello Championship" is not covered under NSPORT and so we default to GNG and the coverage about him seems non-existent. Let's discuss this here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Matthias Berg not just won the German nationals several times, he also won european and world championships or was on the first three places there. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable game player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Duke Elington Pagna

Duke Elington Pagna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

COI article on a non notable rapper who fails to meet any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & falls short of WP:GNG. A before search reveals hits in unreliable sources such as this. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, clearly non-notable. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Bupkus and zippo found for sources. Nothing notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Rachael Elizabeth

Rachael Elizabeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not have multiple significant roles to satisfy WP:NACTOR; mostly minor appearances in series. As a result of this, she does not have WP:SIGCOV on her career, only passing mentions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Lacks the multiple significant roles in reliable productions that is the key to actress notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Concur with nom fails WP:NACTOR, the article does not offer much, but their IMDB makes it clear there is no chance they are currently meet WP:NACTOR. Jeepday (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dominion of Melchizedek. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Karitane Shoal

Karitane Shoal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nonexistent shoal, with reliable source saying it is fictional. While the organisation which created it - the fraudulent micronation the Dominion of Melchizedek - is notable and has an appropriately referenced article, the "shoal" itself is not. Therefore should be removed under WP:HOAX. IdiotSavant (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dominion of Melchizedek. Plausible search term. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Dominion of Melchizedek as it is a redundant content fork The article already covers the stub's one paragraph in its entirety, using the same sources. Haleth (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dominion of Melchizedek: Looks like a wp:permastub. Unlikely that there will be any wp:reliable sources that are wp:independent in the future. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 11:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirected or merged with Dominion of Melchizedek. Pirehelo (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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