Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 03	March 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping. This is a clear spelling mistake corrected by the article creator xyrself. Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myostation inhibitors

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

The article title is a typo of "Myostatin inhibitors". A page with this title already exists, created by the same user 1 minute after Myostation inhibitors was created. Both articles contain nearly identical content, so there is nothing to be merged. Bibeyjj (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bibeyjj (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Randy Hillier. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario First Party

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

The party is unregistered and no longer seems to exist. The Ontario First Party website now mentions the Populist Party Ontario. If the PPO gains traction, a PPO article should be created. The OFP page should redirect to either Randy Hillier or the PPO, depending on what is most appropriate. (Note: I am a member of other political organizations. I do not believe my AfD is a conflict of interest.) LABcrabs (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Ontario. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and COVID-19. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Randy Hillier. Seems to be just this one dude since he was such a terrible person he got kicked out of his former party, not an actual party. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the party isn't even registered, hard to see how it is notable enough to warrant an article. Some of the content could be added to the Randy Hillier article, some to the People's Party article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Randy Hitler Nfitz (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or just copy and stick at the bottom of the Hillier article, he basically was the entire "party" if you can call it that. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Should be redirected to Randy Hillier. JoyStick101 (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a consensus to Redirect to Randy Hillier. I support a Redirect to Randy Hillier#2022 general election, a section of the article that I updated that has more details on the OFP and PPO. --LABcrabs (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As I mentioned at Talk:Ontario First Party and as laid out above, redirect it to the section LABcrabs has just identified on Hillier's article. James Hyett (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Randy Hillier per above. We should also add a brief note about this content on his page. RoyalObserver (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Randy Hillier. Some of the content here will be useful context to his departure from politics. Alternatively, I guess if the party becomes the Populist Party Ontario, which its website (https://www.ontariofirstparty.com) now redirects to then perhaps we could move it to there... But "Populist Party Ontario" is also not registered yet. But the name is reserved with Elections Ontario.[1] I don't think we can make anything of that now though. I did a search for "Populist Party Ontario" but Google does not seem to show any WP:RS results.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carole Gray

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Vladimir.copic (talk) (non-admin closure)

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sourced only to IMDB, ePhotozine and a passing mention in an article about Cliff Richard. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, Television, Zimbabwe, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if we can find a lot of sources about her because she was mainly active in the 60s and early 70s. But she worked in movies which were made by renowned directors/producers. Jamalahmadpk (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the BFI she's had significant roles in multiple films, eg Curse of the Fly (1965), Devils of Darkness (1964), The Young Ones (1962) and Island of Terror (1966). She had plenty of coverage in newspapers, for example her wedding in December 1957 was reported in the Portsmouth Evening News, Liverpool Echo and the Daily Mirror, which was a number of years before her notable film roles.Piecesofuk (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Famous actor who played major roles in multiple films, I just added a link in, she's already mentioned throughout Wikipedia for her roles, I think she meets the General Notability Criteria. CT55555 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piecesofuk's findings. Seems to meet the number of significant roles to satisfy WP:NACTOR. She was even highlighted stateside for The Young Ones back in the 60s.^[1] -2pou (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Piecesofuk. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Reviews: The Young Ones". Variety. December 31, 1961.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in favour of a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kasautii Zindagii Kay cast

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

Already covered at Kasautii Zindagii Kay (2001 TV series) which is not long enough to need a split. Redirecting has been contested. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close This is a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. And others have already removed this from the main article multiple times, you restoring it at 22:11, 4 March 2022, 5 minutes before you nominated this article for deletion. Dream Focus 01:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dream Focus: Merge discussions can take place at AfD. I started the AfD because after I restored the content to the main article where it had been removed without discussion (earlier on 4 March without an edit summary by a new ip), I did not want to redirect because it had been challenged before. When redirects are challenged the correct procedure is to take the article to AfD rather than editwarring, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Also, a discussion was attempted in March 2019 here to which no one replied, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge discussions are a separate thing for a reason. They bring attention from both articles involved, including the one with far more editors watching it. Please close this and open a merge discussion. Dream Focus 02:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, nomination withdrawn in favour of a merge discussion but please contribute to that discussion, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Confederate Regular Army officers

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

I'm frankly not seeing how this is a useful list - the difference between the CS Regular Army and CS Provisional Army is really just an academic point, to the extent that we don't have separate articles for the those forces, and the CS Regular army wasn't an actual serving formation as the plans for it feel through, and it wound up just really helping provide some seniority stuff. The scope of the list excludes general officers, who are listed at List of American Civil War generals (Confederate), and I don't believe it's standard practice to create lists for lower-ranking officers of a specific army. Hog Farm _Talk 22:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 22:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 22:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 22:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feels like a marginal list in search of a use. Agree with nom this isn't useful. Intothat darkness 23:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a list of five notable guys, all ranked colonel or lower. Does not appear to serve any useful purpose. - wolf 01:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, pointless list. Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is a mishmash of a variety of officers and not much else. Nomination has this one pegged.TH1980 (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is largely covering officers of ranks that are not per se notable. Categories do the job better. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page lacks notability as per GNG. Foodie Soul (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranchero Alonzo

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

Non-notable boxer that fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. – ².O.^Boxing 20:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The notability standard for boxers, WP:NBOX, does not match the reality of what is already on Wikipedia. Many lesser-known boxers that are already on Wikipedia do not appear to meet the standard either. Also, Ranchero Alonzo is mentioned in at least two other Wikipedia articles. If someone reading those articles wants to know more about Ranchero, as I did, creating a separate page is the best way of providing that information, since there is no applicable list article. Additional references are available, such as BoxRec and numerous news articles, but I do not want to expand the article further, if it is about to be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OvertAnalyzer (talk • contribs)
- Additional references are available, such as BoxRec and numerous news articles, but I do not want to expand the article further, if it is about to be deleted...sorry, but that's not how article creation or AFD works. You include references to establish notability before you publish the article, not when the article gets sent to AFD. I recommend you use WP:Articles for creation in the future. If you can't be bothered to add these numerous references (none of which I found in my BEFORE search), then the article will be deleted. And just to clarify, WP:GNG is what you need to satisfy. – ².O.^Boxing 00:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Squared.Circle.Boxing; Please excuse me for not being clear. What I meant was, if the article will be deleted, regardless of wether there are additional references or not, then there is no point adding anything to the article. The additional newspaper references I can cite are from Newspapers.com and GenealogyBank.com. Most of the articles are simply reports of fight results, but a few do have some additional details about Ranchero. I have not as yet found any information about him participating in, or winning, any title fights. If that is a requirement, based on WP:NBOX, before he is considered notable, then additional information or citations would not lead anywhere. I respect the fact that you have put in a lot of effort to develop boxing related articles on Wikipedia, and will defer to you on the matter. It was my intent to start a stub article, and possibly build on it, but if you don't think it will ever meet the WP:NBOX standard, then maybe we should just go ahead an delete it now. Thanks. OvertAnalyzer (talk)
  - As far as I understand it, and I know there's a lot of back and forth over this, but NBOX is secondary. Although I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if the subject met NBOX (I'd presume that there would be coverage out there somewhere that I can't find), if there's a solid case for GNG then that's enough for me. I wouldn't bother arguing the criteria of NBOX and would happily withdraw the nomination. – ².O.^Boxing 13:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes WP:BASIC and WP:NBOX. JoyStick101 (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @JoyStick101: fancy seeing you here! Lol! Read NBOX and tell me which aspects the subject satisfies. Please provide sources to establish GNG has been met. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. – ².O.^Boxing 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only reference in the article is an obituary. Anybody who says the subject satisfies GNG are required to do a WP:BEFORE search and provide the relevant sources. This shouldn't need to be said, but here we are. – ².O.^Boxing 12:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, he fails to meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Certainly an obituary by the funeral home doesn't count. Nor does it matter who he fought (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Simply being a pro boxer is not sufficient to show notability. Meeting WP:NBOX is not required, but showing coverage that meets WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC is. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't see evidence that he passes WP:NBOX. A funeral home obituary is not enough to show notability and I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG through a WP:BEFORE search. Suonii180 (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing aside from obituary. Avilich (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xiasi Inu (cryptocurrency)

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

Cryptocurrency with no reliable sources that support notability. Draft:Xiasi Inu (cryptocurrency) already exists. Singularity42 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete XIASI - This article does not contain any information that has anything to do with notability of the cryptocurrency. It probably wasn't written to be encyclopedic, but to be promotional. The last sentence, "It also give benefits to its long term holders", is nothing more or less than advertising. The article was moved to draft space by a reviewer, and the originator promptly created another copy in article space. The reviewer then proposed the deletion of the article. The originator promptly removed the PROD tag with no explanation, which is their privilege, but appears to be a silent explanation that the whole purpose of the article is to peddle the cryptocurrency.
- An analysis of the references shows that they are just as useless as the article. They are either about the breed of dog that the cryptocurrency is named for, or are corporate information, or are market information. There is no secondary coverage:

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Xiasi.finance	Web site of cryptocurrency	No	Yes	No	No
2	hindawi.com	About the breed of dog	Yes	No	Yes	No
3	wagwalking.com	About the breed of dog	Yes	No	?	No
4	fis.edu.hk	This appears to be about schools in Hong Kong	Yes	No	Probably	No
5	hindawi.com	Same as 2, about the breed of dog	Yes	No	Yes	No
6	dictionary.com	About the phrase 'meme coin'	Yes	No	Yes	No
7	Xiasi.finance	White paper on cryptocurrency	No	Yes	No	No
8	coingecko.com	Market quote on price of cryptocurrency	Yes	No	Yes	No
9	bscscan.com	Market information on cryptocurrency	Yes	No	Yes	No
10	poocoin.app	Market information on cryptocurrency	Yes	No	Yes	No

- This article is without encyclopedic value. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to no encyclopaedic value or evidence of notability –DMartin 07:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads more like an advertisement than an article on an encyclopedia. Little evidence of notability. The user who created this article seems to be way too defensive. When a bot re-added the AFD, he promptly removed it and said "Discussion is closed. And this Article is now eligible for Publishing because bunch of References. You need to Delete its draft . Please don't disturb and not spoil trash on this Page. Thanks". ShiriEdits (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amby Paliwoda

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

Paliwoda was a low level animator involved in projects with huge numbers of animators. The article lacks any reliable sourcing, IMDB is not reliable and we should not be basing articles on it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Comics and animation, California, and Ohio. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hoped to find some RIS given that he was an early Disney animator but I’ve only found credits and passing mentions, nothing more. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandava Sai Kumar

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

has only one project on his name a case of WP:TOOSOON, if not deleted shall be redirected to the page of film which he has worked for Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable director, actor, producer whatever. Oppose any redirect because the credit mentioned here is 100% fake. Likely using Wikipedia as a vehicle of promotion as this name is being added several times in edits like these. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable as an actor or additional crew member. No independent coverage in WP:RS found at all. Yet another example of trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete this good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.170.253 (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here in the fake sources to suggest that they are remotely notable, a search brings up nothing in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not legible as an actor, director, and sources are not reliable. Foodie Soul (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing I can add apart from others' comments above — DaxServer (t · c) 08:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington Police Department

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

I think this fails WP:GNG. I am not getting any hits on Google for this police department from any independent sources. Furthermore, I don't even believe it is the most notable police department with this name, as most Google hits are for the police department of Lexington, KY. Bensci54 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bensci54 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bensci54 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Lexington, Massachusetts. Certainly fails the GNG beyond routine and casual coverage, and the article's entirely sourced through primary sources and (cough) YouTube. I don't think a merge is appropriate; the amount of information already in the main article for the police department contains all that's relevant per WP:UNDUE. Ravenswing 22:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, yeah. I'd just move some of the unmentioned information from this page to the section on Lexington and make the page a redirect. TRC 03:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wikipedant (talk • contribs) [reply]

I am not sure a redirect to Lexington, Massachusetts is actually the way to go, even. There are multiple cities with the name Lexington. In my opinion, the police department of Lexington, KY is at least as likely to be a user's intended target as Lexington, MA. I think a redirect to Lexington#United States would be more appropriate. Bensci54 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very good point. I think a straight Delete, then, would do. Ravenswing 19:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Average revenue per user. Sandstein 17:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Income per user

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

This is simply a dictionary entry. In 9 years, it's never been more than a single sentence. Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Average revenue per user, as it's the same thing. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Income per page view

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

Non-notable. In 9 years, it's never been more than a single sentence. Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources found. stub article. delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Tariq

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

The person has set a world record for the most A-Level exams taken and there has been some media coverage about this achievement. However, it does not justify an independent Wikipedia page discussing his personal goals and achievements. The page is written like a self-promotional advertisement, and he is essentially only notable for a WP:SINGLEEVENT. A shadowy figure (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the sustained coverage to show that the subject is of encyclopedic note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is not notable. Article seems promotional. Constant314 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Panamerican Championship. Sandstein 17:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panamerican Football Confederation

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

Article fails WP:V. I can't find enough evidence to be convinced that this organization ever existed, let alone to verify the specific details claimed. The user who created this article created dozens articles about football organizations from 2007–2008. Many of those articles were deleted due to lack of notability or because they didn't exist. BLAIXX 15:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BLAIXX 15:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Panamerican Championship - not independently notable, lack of sources. Giant Snowman 10:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also vote for a redirect to Panamerican Championship article. Fma12 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify.. The article is now located at Draft:Tiger 3. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger 3

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

Upcoming film but no significant coverage on production is shown to meet WP:NFF. More than a year from release, recommend draftifying per WP:TOOSOON. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should be deleted, the statements and sources are unreliable and unofficial. The film announced but there is no official update about its title, cast, production etc. Different versions of this article have been deleted so many times over the past month, There was a draft. The draft should have been kept, but was in good faith also deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald.Hardradã.1015 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)(sock strike — DaxServer (t · c) 13:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Draftify Does not meet WP:NFF but has potential to reach that threshold in the near future. BOVINEBOY2008 14:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The film is not yet ready and falls in WP:TOOSOON criteria. JoyStick101 (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom — DaxServer (t · c) 16:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volkan Mete Yalcin

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

Not notable. No sources mentioning him as a subject. AtheistGeorgian (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Turkey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. There is absolutely zero coverage apart from namedrops and WP mirrors. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches found several sources that mentioned Yalçın in passing while discussing a concert in which he performed, but I could not identify any significant coverage sufficient to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Masood

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

Fails WP:GNG. Is a vice-chancellor of a non-notable university. And has no supporting articles to establish notability, other than one-two local news articles. Daiyusha (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a promotional article by a UPE/COI editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NACADEMIC criterion six. Head of a big university. 15 (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The university in question doesnt seem to be a "major" university, its relatively new(2002), its state government funded, At the very least, India has a NAAC accreditation system, giving a letter grade to each uni http://naac.gov.in/index.php/en/assessment-accreditation#accreditation Ranging from A++,A+,A,B++ and so on upto D, this university is certified B as per its own website, the second lowest passing grade. I don't think its notable "yet" and even if it is , this person is the "vice" chancellor, not the head of the university. Daiyusha (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, vice-chancellor is the de-facto head of a state university in India whereas chancellor is a ceremonial position held by the governor of the respective state or union territory. I'm otherwise neutral on this nomination. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded on both points. There does seem to be endless confusion about the title of vice-chancellor at Commonwealth universities (it's the title of the chief executive of the university in most Commonwealth countries, not just India), although it is specifically mentioned at WP:NACADEMIC, under Specific criteria notes 6(b). But I, too, am not sure whether this university is significant enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep albeit slightly weakly as the university is both very small and quite new. Nevertheless, it's a university, it's running PhD, MSc programs etc., and I see no relevance in the concern that it is state funded (so are all reputable universities in the UK). As above, the "vice"-chancellor is actually the real boss of the outfit. My feeling is that real bosses of any real university are probably of encyclopaedic interest (i.e. notable). Elemimele (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the university is accredited as B by India's NAAC accreditation panel which is just below passing. Foodie Soul (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being an accredited university does not mean it is "significant" for he purposes of designating the academic head as notable. I do not believe this university is actually at the level intended when we drew up that criteria, and without that we just do not have enough to justify keeping this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Heaven forbid that we should judge academics and universities in India by the same standards that we use in the United States. This is a proper, accredited university, not a diploma mill, which are the only "universities" for which this doesn't apply in the West. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the Vice Chancellor post of a recognized University is enough to passes WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaal Khan

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

Unsourced promotional autobiography. Can't find any support for claims of a platinum record. Most news sources concern a hit and run case from 2002 when KK would have been 6 years old? Cabayi (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a hoax, and TNT. The subject's article claims he won the Filmfare R. D. Burman Award. On the award's page, the awarding year is 1999, and the source there says His first claim to fame was his debut production single, ‘O Oh Janne Jaana’ in 1995. It featured in Salman Khan’s ‘Pyaar Kiya To Darna Kya’ and became a worldwide hit. That film was released in 1998. The subject here is born on in 1996. The photograph provided in that source is completely different than that of subject. Also, like the nominator says above, subject would have been six years old during the hit-and-run case. It is most probably intentional hijacking of the article, than confusion because of the common last name "Khan". —usernamekiran (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an overly promtional autobiography that seems to make some false claims. If I am following things this article dates back to when the subject was 10. This article presents very strong arguments for why we should limit creating new articles to people who have at least 100 edits in Wikipedia. We have already blocked those without an account from creating articles, we need to go a step further.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:NSINGER per above. Having linked articles is not enough to verify these claims, needs citations to reliable sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information provided is not reliable and needs better sources. Foodie Soul (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aslı Demir

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

The coverage is the type of routine coverage which does not pass WP:GNG. And non-senior victories do not meet WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, Wrestling, Serbia, and Turkey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning a medal at junior competitions has never been taken to show WP notability in the martial arts since it is not competing at the highest level. There have been several junior medal winners deleted in the past few weeks with basically the same resume'. Routine sports reporting does not show WP:GNG is met. If she medals at an adult world championship that will make a difference. Right now it appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollout: The Game of the Risk-Takers

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

No evidence of notability, a single review in a highly specialized magazine. Even the broader internet, which has plenty of sites for this kind of topic, has very little attention for this one, i.e. 22 Google hits[2]. Nothing in Google Books. Fram (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Specialized" is not a pejorative when it comes to sources. However "one" is a problem. @Webwarlock: if he's still around in the hopes that he or @BOZ: can find some additional sources. But if that's all there is we need to either merge (but I don't know where to) or delete. Hobit (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Nearly all magazines and journals are specialized. I will look into it. Web Warlock (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found one source [3] but that's it.Timur9008 (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and closed per WP:SK1(a). (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jareerat Petsom

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

The WP:NBEAUTY essay defers to WP:GNG, and I cannot find any significant coverage of the subject. I am only seeing mentions of her 4th place Miss Earth finishing mentioned in the article, but each one is just a name drop stating her placing—no in-depth coverage. — 2pou (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Environment, and Thailand. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As is usual with such pageant winners, there's plenty of coverage in the Thai media, e.g. Kapook.com[4], Siam Rath[5], Kom Chad Luek[6], Matichon Online [7] and Praew[8]. While not all of it is in-depth and original, there's enough to build an article on. This profile piece/interview in Thai PBS's English news programme might be particularly useful[9]. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found some CNN Reporting and some Vietnamese reporting on her. It's borderline between passing mentions or not which is why I say "weak". CT55555 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Withdrawn thanks to the foreign sources listed by Paul_012. Foreign press is always a hole in the basic WP:BEFORE search tools, and I am happy to withdraw, knowing that the sources WP:NEXIST. -2pou (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer O. Manilay

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

Non-notable academic. Search finds nothing even close to satisfying WP:GNG, and I cannot see anything in here to show WP:NACADEMIC notability either. A single close and primary source cited, and a Google profile which shows an h-index of 16. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the many prongs for academic notability and we do not have anything that is even remotely close to showing a pass of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with John Pack Lambert above. CT55555 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything that would indicate notability in terms of WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Pretty run of the mill for a full professor and not much for secondary source mention. Even their citation indices for papers are pretty normal, and we can't really use those as a standalone for notability anyways. KoA (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person here is not notable and the sources provided are not sufficient for providing reliability as per GNG. Foodie Soul (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she has an h-index of 15,[10] so not particularly high. She may become more notable later, but now is not that time. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that she is the Department Chair of Molecular and Cell Biology. Being chair is more than routine. However, and I hope this isn't snobby, I don't find UC Merced to meet the criterion of "a major institution of higher education and research", as required by WP:NPROF. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence for that (besides her own LinkedIn profile)? Also, I'm no expert, but AFAIK dept chair is mainly an admin role; I agree it's "more than routine", but how much more, and is that enough to make the post-holder inherently notable? I would argue not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Long precedent makes clear that being a department chair is, on its own, inadequate for automatic academic notability. Department chairs are not the kind of named chair given to individuals to honor their distinguished scholarship and recognized by WP:PROF#C5, nor are they the head of an entire university or major scholarly society, recognized by #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Chumpih ^t 07:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coelomomyces elegans

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

Appears to have little in the way of coverage, unsure if WP:NSPECIES is satisfied. Chumpih ^t 06:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Chumpih ^t 06:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP: SNOW: No consensus to delete has emerged after 24 hours' discussion, and is unlikely to do so in future. SN54129 20:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) SN54129 20:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Lane, London

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

Notability not established with substantive sources. Every street in London has some sort of business offices or residences on it, that doesn't mean it's notable and needs an article Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the Fortune Theatre and the Golden Lane Estate have their own articles, but no-one appears to have spotted the Golden Lane Genuine Beer Brewery in the history books (e.g. ISBN 9781847550026 page 551). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the consensus here is to delete then the title should be redirected to Golden Lane Estate. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It just needs expanding which I am in the process of doing. I easily found multiple in-depth sources. It should look very different in 24 hours. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The company ran into excise problems in 1807, when HM Excise decided that since retailers were selling the beer in units smaller than 0.5 firkins (20 l) the company would not qualify for the statutory duty-free "wastage" allowance of 3 barrels in every 36. A court case ensued, which hinged on the way that the company had been initially financed with partnership "shares" being sold to some 600 London publicans to raise GB£250,000 (equivalent to £20,727,704 in 2020) Arguing that the publicans were (what would now be called) "silent" or "sleeping" partners, with Brown and Parry the "managing" partners, the Brewery prevailed and saved an estimated GB£6,000 per year in excise duty.
Another legal problem ensued with the charge this time being that the brewery was adulterating its beer, with isinglass, and again the company prevailed in court. In fact, the brewery had arranged for nearby yeast dealer James Butcher to buy up discarded fish skins from fishmongers and dissolve them in stale beer, in search of an alternative to islinglass. The casks which had been seized from the brewery premises were on public display (and smell) at the yard of the Excise Office and Brown was characterized in Satirist as a businessman with a wide variety of shady schemes afoot. Although, as in the previous case, the company partners suspected the hands of its competitors in the prosecution, in fact the competitors, who had been adulterating their products, shared a common interest with the Golden Lane company in not letting a prosecution for fining succeed.
A witness for the defence at the trial was engineer William Murdoch, who claimed to have devised this fish-skin process and who had sold it as a trade secret to a consortium of London brewers, and who testified that it was 'exactly the same thing' as isinglass. The defence argument, supported by the testimony of Humphry Davy, despite his never done any experiments with the fish-skin process himself or being able to answer any questions about the brewery specifically, was that the fish-skin, like isinglass, was not an additive, because it sunk to the bottom of the vat and precipitated out, and that it should be treated by the government the same as isinglass was. Judge Archibald Macdonald found for the defence that is was unreasonable to object to innovations in brewery practices that were thanks to advances in the science of chemistry, a decision that would be later reflected in an 1817 change to the law on finings.

None of this has to do with Golden Lane. If you think the Brewery is notable, make an article for that by itself rather than lumping these topics together because they are on the same street. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the kind expansion efforts of Philafrenzy, notability is clear, with WP:SIGCOV demonstrated. Edwardx (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Golden Lane Estate is in the Ward of Cripplegate and the east side of the street is in St Luke's, London. Content about the Brewery or whatever else should be merged and described in the history or geography of those neighborhoods, rather than the individual 400-meter-long street. London has tens of thousands of streets that have any arbitrary businesses or residences on them, from which they don't inherit notability; the sigcov that's been found is not about the street broadly. Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit late to reply to the point above, but a reply is needed. A street is two rows of buildings (and a bit of space between them for driving cars). If the history of those buildings and those who've lived and worked in them is colourful enough, and documented, then the street is worthy of an article. If you're not allowed to consider the buildings in it when assessing the notability of a street, a street could never be notable; the same problem would apply to neighbourhoods - they're only notable because of the people and buildings that make them. The idea of merging into neighbourhoods also misunderstands how London, and most UK cities tick. Neighbourhood definitions are sometimes a bit fuzzy, and when they're properly defined, often a street is the boundary, and to most of us it would be completely illogical to discuss the history of the buildings on the north side of a street in a different article to those on the south, when we think of the two buildings as being essentially in the same place. Elemimele (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you, Philafrenzy and Uncle G. Reywas92, my Uncle's most recent addition, for instance, is quite valid in terms of establishing notability for the subject. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, please Keep, a fascinating little article, exactly the sort of stuff that makes encyclopaedias worth browsing; with thanks to Philafrenzy and Uncle G for their additions, and to anyone else who's been working on the article. Elemimele (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...likewise thank you Philafrenzy and Uncle G. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure about the “20th century” section tbh but overall notability is clear. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we ever wanted an example of failure to observe WP:BEFORE! Nominator take note. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and fascinating. --Bduke (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yes, the question is whether there are sources, but this discussion does not provide any. Per WP:BURDEN, people who want to keep content must provide the sources for it. Sandstein 11:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjuman-e-Tarraqui-e-Khowar

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

Kept at AfD in 2017, but I just don't see the GNG pass. The sources that were posted in that AfD aren't significant coverage. For example, [11] and [12] are trivial mentions ("X event was organized by Anjuman") or are largely about other people, like [13]. The link to TheNews.com.pk is permadead, but this covers the same story and makes clear that it's the same kind of "event arranged by this organization" trivial mention. The book source is a trivial mention in a footnote. The sole source cited in the article is too short to constitute sigcov - it's a short notice about someone running for reelection to be president of the organization.

Overall there just isn't enough significant coverage of the organization to justify a keep under WP:NORG/WP:GNG, regardless of how often it gets mentioned in books or news articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 60-year-old organisation that seems the closest thing there is to a regulator for the Khowar language, and probably the only one that publishes works in the language on any any meaningful scale? That would lead me to assume that it's significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and it would need a negative result after a really thorough WP:BEFORE to convince me otherwise. – Uanfala (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of a WP:TMBS answer - you're assuming it's significant, in the complete absence of any sourcing. I didn't find anything on my search, the Urdu wiki article actually has less sourcing than ours, and even the people who argued keep at the last AfD couldn't find anything more substantial than trivial mentions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that just claiming that something looks important is woolly and hand-wavy, but what is the alternative? I don't want to criticise your nomination ~~(it's obviously of higher standard than average)~~, but all that you're presenting is the five pages that someone pulled at random from an English-language Google search five years ago. That's not a reasonable basis for an evaluation of sources: it's easy enough to locate many more English-language mentions of similar calibre online, but more importantly, any actually substantial coverage of such a topic is going to be offline and in Urdu, and I don't see any evidence that anyone has considered looking in that direction. – Uanfala (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which, to repeat what PMC said, is WP:TMBS. Yes, it's possible there are hard to find sources, but it's possible they don't exist. Shrug. Unless someone can find them, the article has to go. The responsibility for finding such sources, in the end, rests on the editor(s) who want to write about the topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there's also WP:NEXIST, which, unlike TMBS, is part of our guidelines: notability doesn't depend on what happens to be present in the article, but what sources exist out there in the world. I don't believe it's a justifiable position to argue for deletion without making at least a token effort to look for sources. – Uanfala (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This rather unfairly assumes that I didn't so much as make " a token effort to look for sources", despite the fact that I've clearly stated I did. Again though, you're assuming that sources exist offline and in Urdu, but that's not an assumption we can make. For all we know, no one in the Urdu-speaking world ever cared to write so much as a paragraph about this group. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not contain any indication of how this organization meets WP:NORG. They sources found so far are sufficient to verify the existence of the topic, but not its notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the question is whether there are sources, not whether they are known to Google. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parsa's

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

Written like advertisement , not have enough reliable and independent sources. and only featured in some regional news portals that are not enough supportive . AlexandruAAlu (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AlexandruAAlu (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Veer Saini

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

Doesn't pass WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He fails WP:NPOL, having lost the 2012 MLA election, and my searches in English and Hindi have not found significant coverage arising from his role as a party functionary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few of the Hindi sources refer to him as a former Minister of State, but I can find no evidence of his appointment. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ––FormalDude talk 12:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Holmgren

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

Non-notable boxer; fails WP:NBOX. JTtheOG (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary The HAMMER Holmgren is an extremely well documented and notable boxing champion out of St Paul Minnesota. The fact you even petitioned for a deletion of his wiki page is a joke and makes you look foolish.

As an inducted profession boxer in the Minnesota boxing hall of fame he is regarded as a legend and has more of a right to be here than you do.

http://www.mnbhof.org/Minnesota_Boxing_Hall_of_Fame/Gary_Holmgren.html

He is featured in countless news articles and publishing’s throughout his history.

https://www.twincities.com/2017/08/05/st-paul-boxing-basement-of-legend-will-get-second-run/amp/

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/12/how-a-st-paul-basement-boxing-space-came-back-swin/

https://www.republicaneagle.com/business/former-boxer-firefighter-opens-new-restaurant-in-coliseum-sports-bar/article_6fddb031-03a4-54e5-af0a-b5d293f69cdc.html

https://www.60yearsofboxing.org/round-8--honors---awards.html

http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/boxbd01.pdf

https://africanring.co.za/product/gary-holmgren-1974-1984/

https://briollaw.com/briol-fight-clip/

https://www.twincities.com/2017/08/05/st-paul-boxing-basement-of-legend-will-get-second-run/

Just do a Google search for yourself, I’m sure you’ll get plenty of results ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.115.159.102 (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable per above and [14] [15] [16] and [17]. I'd like to note that failing NBOX alone is not a reason to delete, per NSPORTS, which it is part of: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if these were not routine sports reporting, they are all from the same paper and thus would count only as one source. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There were two newspapers I listed above, (2) I said "per above" as well, meaning that my "keep" vote was based on the above sources listed by the IP in addition to the sources I listed myself, and (3) "routine" coverage applies to events and not people, see this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary the Hammer Holmgren was also featured in a novel featured on Google books based on his notability throughout Minnesota boxing history and boxing history in general.

https://books.google.com/books?id=qS_MDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT514&dq=gary+the+hammer+holmgren&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiurvij3fj1AhXlSjABHUVVAtUQ6AF6BAgLEAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxinginformer (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Boxinginformer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Being mentioned twice in a book is a long way from being "featured". The first is that he was a friend of someone's on the trip and they ate at his restaurant and the second is a "way are there now" comment that says he sold the restaurant and is trying to learn how to use a smartphone. Clearly not significant or independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would someone please show me the significant, independent, and non-routine coverage that they believe shows he meets WP:GNG? I've already made a couple of comments above about some of the sources. The Washington Times article is simply a reprint of one the local Minneapolis-St. Paul articles. There's an article/interview in a local paper about him opening a restaurant and some passing mentions and routine sports results. Being a Minnesota state champion and being in that state's boxing hall of fame do not meet any WP notability criteria. I'm not voting yet in order to give those supporting keeping this article a chance to respond. By the way, 107.115.159.102 was blocked as a sockpuppet. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! See this, this, this, this, this, and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BeanieFan11. Passes WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable found, no sources other than the Pioneer Press a few times. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see all the other sources listed above that are not the Pioneer Press? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I second BeanieFan11. --Priya Ragini (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is adequate coverage. And in response to a mention above of a news article in one metropolitan newspaper being reprinted in a newspaper in a major media market which is a thousand miles away, that shows widespread notability. Kablammo (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Guna, Madhya Pradesh

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Malin

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

I don't believe this person meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. The majority of sources are unreliable blogs or trivial mentions, as well as primary (youtube and the artist's own Vimeo). Two longer sources, FAD Art News and the Evening Standard, are interviews with minimal additional content (generally not considered significant coverage for the purposes of notability). The only reasonably long non-interview is the Camden New Journal, which is a local source and insufficient on its own to indicate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at sources, did a bit of searching, and agree with NOM. I also note that the article seems to have been created by a tag team of User:Lyntonspringfield and User:Rugbyboy101 who edited exactly the same articles at the same time and haven't participated since. Lamona (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Destinos

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

After scouring the Internet, I could find nothing but passing mentions of Destinos in secondary sources— not enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Helen(💬📖) 19:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Helen(💬📖) 19:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Helen(💬📖) 19:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LA Times feature here: [18]. It was also reviewed in Variety: [Los Angeles Vol. 348, Iss. 5, (Aug 24, 1992): 65]. Other coverage: [19], Additionally, there is peer reviewed academic research on Destinos on Google Scholar, one example linked here (downloaded PDF): [20]. matt91486 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keepp 52 episodes is not a joke. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with the new sources, might be notable, but the article has zero inline citations. Badly needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a lengthy review in the Modesto Bee [21][22], and Matt91486's sources provide the program with significant coverage as well. Passes the GNG. The article probably ought to be rewritten from the ground up, granted, but deletion of course is not cleanup. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is clearly no consensus here in this divided discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, half the editors say that WP:NFOOTY has been met while the other half say that WP:GNG is not met. Although there is a recent RFC challenging sports notability criteria, I'm not willing today to disregard arguments based on a long-standing notability guideline even if it is in the process of being reframed and rewritten. So, I came down as No Consensus, rather than leaning toward Keep (prioritizing WP:NFOOTY) or Delete (prioritizing WP:GNG). Of course this decision doesn't prevent future AFDs for this article which might result in a more decisive outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Bukuru

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

This topic fails WP:GNG. On its face this topic satisfies WP:NFOOT, but as WP:NSPORTS notes this is not a substitute for the GNG. My WP:BEFORE is only turning up sports database entries (so far the article is sourced to one such database entry) and a few sporadic mentions such as this, with no significant coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:BIAS. She is an international footballer from a country where not much of their newspaper coverage is online, and we'd never consider deleting a male international footballer with appearances. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Africa. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joseph. I note that lots of criticism levelled at NFOOTBALL is that it encourages the creation of articles about European male players - well here is an African woman you are trying to delete! Giant Snowman 10:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ongoing career as a senior international player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Joseph2302: @GiantSnowman: I was hoping this would not be taken in bad faith. Half of what I write about is about African topics.... like look at my user page, I've written most of the GAs and the only FA under the Burundi topic area. While doing my BEFORE checking I looked at one of the other new female Burundian footballer articles, Asha Djafari, for reference, and she has much more mentions in sports coverage (much of it routine, granted) that could be used to improve that article. Not so with Bukuru. I don't see how creating bunches of permastubs fixes any systemic issues. It just drags down the average quality of articles on African women even further with, as my BEFORE for this article suggests, no room for improvement. Burundi has a small media footprint but most of their publications cover sports (Iwacu, Le Renouveau, Jimbere Magazine, for example), especially soccer. I've searched all three (Jimbere is expressly focused on women's issues and likes to follow what the women's national football team are up to) and found nothing. Maybe we should consider that the Burundian media didn't consider this person that important. In the intro to BIAS it reads Wikipedia tends to show a White American or White European perspective on issues due to the prominence of English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. So how is it BIASed to delete this subject if the black African-run sources from Burundi don't consider this important? Too many European male players is not what's being debated here and is a separate issue. I hope the closer will note too that BIAS is not a policy-based reason for deletion. To the "Ongoing career" argument all I have to say is that is not a policy-based reason either and WP:TOOSOON. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Senior International Player, regardless of gender. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @ArsenalGhanaPartey: What criterion is this satisfying? -Indy beetle (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NFOOTY: Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they meet the following: 1. Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match as defined by FIFA Which they have done. And we shouldn't be randomly picking off international footballers from less well represented countries- I've never seen an international male, European footballer nominated successfully for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - To quote the explanatory notes at the top of WP:NSPORTS, of which WP:NFOOTY is a part: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. The reasoning "Keep because international footballer" stands in direct opposition to this guidance. Complaints about international male European footballers is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If they bother you, go AfD them. I noticed this article because I work with Burundi topics. As I said above, this was not "random", this was because this player (unlike some other Burundian footballers) seems to have almost zero SIGCOV footprint in RS. Also it is factually incorrect that "not much of [Burundi's] newspaper coverage is online". Most of it actually is, because a lot of their market is Burundian expats in other countries (particularly for Iwacu, the only private newspaper). But I'm humoured to be accused of BIAS. Because the Western editors (according to userpages) voting keep here and so worried about BIAS seem to think that they know better about what Burundi should value than the Burundian media market! How progressive! My sarcasm aside, I will happily withdraw this AfD if sources are provided to demonstrate this person's notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As an international player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Caphadouk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT requires GNG to be met. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Burundi women's national football team#Current squad in the light of the currency of her career, and WP:BIAS issues. Sourcing is extremely weak, with two DB-grades, and one that doesn't even mention her at all, does nothing to establish actual, as opposed to baseline-presumed, notability. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Senior International Player and hence meets notability Zanoni (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean per the notability guideline which states, inter alia: "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Indy beetle's explanation of the lack of Burundian coverage and the hubris of assuming women's football is given the same degree of attention and importance there as it is in (some) Western nations. !Voting just "keep, meets NFOOTY" is only defensible if the deletion rationale does not address that point; since it does, and instead raises the lack of GNG, per NSPORT those wanting to keep should provide evidence for the implicit claim there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and redirect to a suitable list article (e.g. List of Burundi women's international footballers if such a list existed – Burundi women's national football team is not a suitable target because she will almost certainly not always be mentioned there). This stub is a prime example of WP:WHYN, and it fails comprehensively. In cases such as these, barely meeting the SNG is not enough; successive RFCs have also reaffirmed community consensus that GNG must be met in the case of NSPORT. Essentially, the presumption of notability offered by NFOOTBALL is no longer valid without significant coverage from independent secondary reliable sources. Ultimately, we need significant coverage in order to write an article; none has been found here, and that is most likely because none exists. As for BIAS, artificially boosting article count is not the solution – creating quality content is; having countless junk database-entry-type biographies containing nothing but statistics is not the way to counter systemic bias, and if anything it makes the situation worse. Bare statistical information (which is all we have) is better presented in lists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the 'current squad' does indeed work as a possible target, for the very rationale offered above: she's a currently active international player, whose notability and coverage may consequently increase, rather than being limited to that stemming for her current appearances. If that doesn't happen, the 'disappearing target' is less of an issue. But it's not a hill I'm planning on dying on, and I'd be perfectly happy with the above list article too. I also agree that this is outside the strict focus of WP:BIAS -- which is a) an essay, and b) written in terms of counteracting Wikipedia's own internal biases, not the biases of the internet, sources, and indeed of the world generally. If only we could fix those with some web edits. If we intend to have some sort of CSB presumption-slack on those wider lines, we need to set that out in terms in a guideline somewhere, not by setting peephole precedents. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as she is not selected, the current squad is no longer a suitable target, and a target with an expiration date is not a valid one when there are good alternatives (even if they don't currently exist). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidently fails GNG. It's important to note the actual wording of NFOOTY: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline". Avilich (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: sigcov?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- If I might comment on the relisting comment -- or question the question, as it were -- are we extending the discussion to see if SIGCOV can be found? Or to argue some more about whether it's actually needed? (Maybe a bit of both.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I meant: "But does it meet sigcov?" in regards to the keep !votes. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you needed to ask that question if nobody even bothered to say an explicit yes, and several others explicitly said no. Avilich (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. St Anselm (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search, including in Burundi sources, only turned up a few trivial sources and database entries. Note that WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't exist anymore since participation-based parts of NSPORTS have been removed per consensus. And even when it existed, it was clear on that all subjects had to meet GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NFOOTBALL was removed while this discussion was taking place (on 7 March 2022). St Anselm (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Ampimd (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a result of consensus established at this RFC (#3), the participation based criteria of NSPORT, which includes the entirety of NFOOTBALL, should be considered as effectively removed from the guideline. As a consequence, "meets NFOOTBALL" !votes (which are low value ATA anyway) now have the equivalence of citing a wikiproject essay. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KFNX. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gutsy Geeks

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

Linux evangelism radio show that was broadcast from 2001 through 2010 or so, and apparently syndicated nationally. Only sources I can find, from the existing ones in the article and a quick google:

What appear to be reprinted press releases or other publicity material: [23] [24] [25]
Fairly trivial coverage of broadcast times, then-recent topics, etc: [26]
Some non-trivial coverage in PCLinuxOS Magazine: [27]

I think this falls short of GNG. The specific notability guideline, WP:RPRGM, says that generally, an individual radio program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio stations (either national or regional in scope), but goes on to say that the presence of RS is a better indicator. Gaelan 💬✏️ 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Gaelan 💬✏️ 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Gaelan 💬✏️ 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KFNX, its home station. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond Desktop Linux and PCLinuxOS Magazine. SBKSPP (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KFNX: Per SBKSPP. Barely found anything newsworthy about the program aside from sources 5 and 6. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 06:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gum (actor)

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

Gum did not star in The Forgiven, most sources are just passing mentions, interviews, or unreliable sources. Even in reviews of his work, he is rarely, if ever mentioned in the review (by name or character.) CUPIDICAE💕 16:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, California, and Florida. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not rise to the level to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was not reviewed properly at all. The assertion "Gum did not star in The Forgiven" is extraordinary since the first citation on the article is a review in the LA Times, a reputed publication, calling Gum's performance in The forgiven "...quite good as a conflicted prison guard"Gathunuku (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In the LA Times review, he gets praised along with three other actors in the same single sentence. In the Variety and ScreenDaily reviews, he is not the "forgiven", he is the "forgotten", not singled out at all. (Also, there's no other Jeff Gum, so there's no need for disambiguation.) Clarityfiend (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject seems to meet Wikipedia:Notability rules and yes there does to be another Jeff Gum. Google brings up another Jeff Gum a former Navy Seal who now runs a swimwear brand so disambiguation needed.Nicolerodriguesdubai (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no other Jeff Gum in Wikipedia. The ex-SEAL does not appear to be notable. You don't need suspenders if you're not wearing pants. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When even your IMDb bio is unimpressive, that's a bad sign. I checked one of the films that his article claims he was an Executive Producer of and it turns out there were 24 Executive Producers for this film so I doubt that his role was impactful. And for several other parts, he is listed as "uncredited". I don't think he is notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom he is not notable and the sources provided do not provide in sufficient information. Foodie Soul (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amy Yoder Begley. As a compromise, he's mentioned there as her coach. Sandstein 11:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Begley

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

Non-notable runner. Did not run professionally, only collegiately. Natg 19 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our very broad inclusion criteria for runners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found this and this in a quick search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Yoder Begley. They are married and currently working together. She would then need a Personal life section. Geschichte (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's a notable coach. Ahalboeg (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Witbooi

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

Fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage. Also fails WP:NPOL for merely being on a regional council LibStar (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Africa. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High commissioners/ambassadors/whatever you call the chief representative of your country to some other country are not default notable, and we do not have enough sourcing to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Louyebo

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Finland, Russia, and Ukraine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable, and we do not have enough sources to show his notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator is correct that we don't afford inherent notability to ambassadors, and my searches in several relevant languages did not find the significant coverage that would be required for Louyebo to pass the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "Weird Paul" Petroskey. ✗plicit 01:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Case of Fire Throw This In

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

The only source presented is a YouTube video by Petroskey, and I could not find any further evidence of notability in an online search. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Weird Paul" Petroskey. Fails WP:NALBUM – self-released and apparently only sold about 100 copies in its original incarnation. I dare say his fans will argue that it's a "cult classic" but there's no evidence of substantial independent coverage. Richard3120 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Weird Paul" Petroskey. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Reviews: The Young Ones". Variety. December 31, 1961.

[1]