Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 12	April 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Tanasas

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

Non notable “tik tok” celebrity that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus falling short of GNG. Furthermore it should be noted that fame/popularity aren’t one and the same with notability. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator explanation. Wretchskull (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment —@Wretchskull, thanks for your contribution, I take it that you agree with my nom rationale but unfortunately, you may either !vote a keep, weak keep, delete, strong delete and a speedy delete. !voting a support may not be regarded nor recognized by the closing admin. At this juncture, you may have to change your !vote from a support to a delete instead. Thanks for your contributions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Closing administrators can read. ☺ "Support removal" is clear even to me. It's not about the boldfaced words. Uncle G (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G, 😂. Celestina007 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find one interview he did with ABS-CBN, more of a "man on the street" interview really, not sure how notable that makes him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b, very much correct, I saw that too but an interview isn’t independent of the subject thus is of no value to GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page doesn't have enough info to be notable. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 00:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — @-Zai-, thanks for your contribution, I take it that you agree with my nom rationale but unfortunately, you may either !vote a keep, weak keep, delete, strong delete and a speedy delete. !voting a support may not be regarded nor recognized by the closing admin. At this juncture, you may have to change your !vote from a support to a delete instead. Thanks for your contributions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – @Celestina007 Thank you. I've changed my vote to a !delete. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 12:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't any demonstration of notability in the sources provided. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not count towards notability at all. This applies to any and all interviews. The sourcing here is not at all at the level we need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Also drivel. KidAd • SPEAK 23:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lack of information to be considered as notable, so it definitely fails WP:GNG. Idunnox3 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definite lack of RS. No signs of notability. --Kbabej (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 13:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Ambre

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

Although unsourced at the point of this nomination as is customary, I did a WP:BEFORE search which showed subject of the article lacked in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him, which is an automatic GNG fail and also did not satisfy WP:DIRECTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Got nothing useful on doing WP:Before. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same observation as nominator Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:DIRECTOR/GNG. For the one source on the page, see WP:IMDB. --Kbabej (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Robinson

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player and manager, fails WP:BASE/N. Not convinced sources pass WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other sources include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], et cetera. There's over a thousand hits for his name and "baseball" in the 1940s and 1950s, so I'll stop here, most of it is local coverage from the teams he managed but it exists. He moved into flooring after baseball, and finished second in the Michigan State League in batting: [6] [7] SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep having thought about it, he does fail WP:NBASE and didn't receive much press after he retired (only a couple of articles) but was so heavily mentioned in sources during his playing career and managerial career that WP:GNG's probably met. There was nothing wrong with this nom, though. SportingFlyer T·C 09:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep/Comment Wikipedia generally doesn't consider minor league players as notable, unless they exhibit exceptional skill, from my understanding. Not sure if this is the case here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy played and managed in the minors for over 20 years. The sources might not be online, but there's no doubt they're out there, since baseball received a lot of newspaper coverage back then. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are online, you just need an archival newspaper subscription. SportingFlyer T·C 09:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He does fail WP:NBASE as he never made the majors, and only played/managed in the minors. That being said, the sources highlighted by Flyer indicate that he received lots of newspaper coverage, especially from the local press for who he played/managed for. And after looking through them, I'm convinced there's enough newspaper coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 23:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four Pines, California

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

Another "got nothin'" case in Lake County, this time only appearing on the topos as a "(site)" in the 1950s and not at all before that. Aerials show nothing and searching finds nothing but false hits and clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in ISBN 9780738530307 or anywhere else that I can find. The fact that it's on the Sanhedrin Mountains in the Mendocino National Forest is suggestive of a campsite, but I have only limited access to campsite directories from here. This is effectively unverifiable. We know exactly two things: a name and a map pin. And the article before us is falsely telling the world that this is an unincorporated community. Uncle G (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The wacky California naming system revealed by Caldwell Pines, California (AfD discussion) suggests that it is four pine trees within said forest, but I have no evidence. Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Didn't turn up much, and most of what I found was for an old goat dairy near Los Angeles. Found a single reference to a Four Pines campsite that could be in Lake County, but not finding anything that would even verify what this is. Fails both WP:V and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 13:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball Stevenson

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

I don't think I can PROD this because the PROD was removed in 2011, but this student sports club clearly fails WP:GNG, the only article about them was written by someone affiliated with the team, and I can't find anything else online that's not a wiki-mirror. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability whatsoever. The level this club play (or should that be played?) at is not going to make them notable. On top of that there does not appear to be any information about them for nearly a decade. Dunarc (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way below the standard we should be covering. Nigej (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomlion Ghana Limited

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

Notability unclear. There are multiple references from sources that don't seem reliable and read like PR statements. nearlyevil 665 22:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 22:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 22:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in light of arguments presented. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 09:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Us

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

Non-notable film with no demonstrated notability. nearlyevil 665 21:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I can find reviews this will be stronger, but I'm finding enough evidence to suggest that reviews likely exist but aren't easily found for whatever reason. A likely reason is probably that Google doesn't index African news outlets properly (at least when it comes to NA based searches), something that I know has been an issue in the past as far as source searching goes. In any case, I've got articles from news outlets saying that it received a fairly big turn out and good reception, as well as coverage of them winning some major awards in Ghana. It's not a super strong keep on my end, but I think it's strong enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comment. I, too, was able to find enough to pass GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in light of arguments presented. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 09:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aloe Vera (film)

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

Non-notable film. nearlyevil 665 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found quite a bit of coverage and fleshed out the article. I get the impression that there's likely more out there, but just isn't accessible for whatever reason (see my explanation in the other AfD). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added by RotP. Seems like the movie is getting pretty significant coverage in the national media. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep per additions from RotP and from little search done, the subject does have coverage on the national media and deserves to be considered and more information and references added. Ampimd (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above users' comments. Kolma8 (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baabani

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

Non-notable film. nearlyevil 665 21:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Vocation

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

WP:GNG. Insufficient sources. Article cites none, and a cursory search finds none with depth and independence. This organization/model/step in the process of ordination appears to no longer exist, although in some places it has been renamed as the Diocese's "Exploring Ordination Group". Daask (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to Church of Ireland. There is no reason for a seperate article on this topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or (failing that) merge to Church of Ireland. There is no indication (in the body, the sources or elsewhere) that the topic covered here meets the general notability criteria. Certainly not to the extent that it has notability independent of the church/organisation with which the topic is associated. If the limited content from this title is merged to Church of Ireland, I'm not sure a redirect is even required. (Not every concept or term needs its own title or redirect.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think such an "exploring ordination" group would be notable enough to need an article. At worst, merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The group is not notable enough to have an article. Alex-h (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cork–Limerick–Galway corridor

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

None of the sources actually refer to this corridor. Fails WP:GEOLAND. I dont think a corridor arbitrarily drawn between three cities is notable. Eopsid (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Pure synthesis. Unclear why the external link deliberately mistitles the site. Reywas92^Talk 21:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at sources in the article itself, none seem to mention the subject directly (to the extent, as noted by Reywas92, that one seems to entirely misrepresent the linked content and its title). Looking at the sources outside of the article, while a WP:BEFORE search returns some pages/content which refer to the subject, most are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. And, while there are some pieces like this where the subject is mentioned, it is only in passing. I can find no coverage where the subject is the primary topic. Given that this is effectively a list-article I would also question whether WP:NLIST applies as a deletion criteria. (Wikipedia is the only place in the universe, for example, where we find a list of "third level institutions in Cork/Limerick/Galway". This is an entirely arbitrary grouping.) Mine is a "delete" recommendation (based on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:GNG and WP:NLIST criteria). Guliolopez (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, a load of OR and synthesis. Spleodrach (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okomfour Kwadee

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

Non-notable artist. nearlyevil 665 20:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 20:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, Presidency of the Guild is notable and verifiable through new sources. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 10:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evans Hunter

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

Non-notable personality. WP:BIO1E with references provided. nearlyevil 665 20:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 20:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How is the argument of WP:BIO1E being used, when he clearly had significant roles in several films as well as a notable position as the president of the Ghana Actors Guild? The article is referenced (although needs more). Did you even do a WP:BEFORE? ExRat (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Record fair

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

A dictionary definition. There is no reliable sourcing found via BEFORE that discusses the concept of record fairs as a whole, and this is the only source I'm able to find at all. There are some notable record fairs, which have articles, but this doesn't appear to have one valid redirect target. PROD declined without explanation, so we're here. StarM 19:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not seem to have an article on consumer fairs, which ISBN 9789783352506 tells me is not quite the same as a trade fair. Uncle G (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Uncle_G, I think some trade show/fairs have a consumer element, where others are industry only at least here in the US. Record fair sounds more unique than swap meet to me as well if a record fair is music trade only, so the parallel is there. StarM 13:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  - Examples of consumer fairs are book fairs, antique fairs, auto shows, and video shows […]
    — ISBN 9780075497004 page 310
    A record fair is a consumer fair, just with records. Most of what is said in this article generalizes to consumer fairs and could probably be renamed and refactored into an article on consumer fairs. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think in this case I can safely say this is a dictionary defintion. It does not in any way cover when or where they may have occured or anything else. We would need sourcing to show that these exist and happen in a way that people cover them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, clear case of WP:DICDEF, once again, no idea why it has been de-proded CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:DICDEF Case. Sonofstar (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massimiliano Caroletti

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

this appears to be largely dependent on the idea that notability is inherited from his wife, which isn't actually a criteria for inclusion. Everything I can find about Caroletti are basically gossip rags relating to his wife and the fact that she is a porn star. TAXIDICAE💰 18:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Tameem

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

The actor fails WP:NACTOR as acted in two films Katha (2009 film) and Prayanam in non-lead roles. The content of the article is also objectionable and suffers from autobiography writing, COI. Chirota (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At present, the subject fails NACTOR aa he does not have multiple number of notable roles in movies. This is also a case of high COI. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Subject did not have important roles, fails WP:NACTOR. Alex-h (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable Actor. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE For now, the subject fails WP:NACTOR and he does not have multiple number of notable roles in movies. TryingToDo (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or GNG. A non-notable actor. --Kbabej (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep: looks to be withdrawn by nominator but not properly closed, and no support for deletion (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JTA Supermarkets

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

~~Article was created by company employee. No verifiable sources found to establish notability for encyclopedic inclusion of this business. Megtetg34 (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)~~ Per the constructive and fair feedback of editors. Withdraw Megtetg34 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite assertions that there aren't sources, the article itself contains several sources, and did so when it was nominated for deletion. There's some issues with the quality of the writing (mostly WP:TONE), and additional sources and expansion/cleanup would be a good idea, but the subject of the article seems to pass WP:GNG easily. --Jayron 32 18:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for your comment. For clarification: Source 1 is from the company's own website. Source 2, 5 and 10 are from the same website. Per Wikipedia policy that counts as 1 source. Source 3, 8, 9 and 11 are from the same website. Per Wikipedia policy that counts as 1 source. Source 6 is dead/not existent. Source 7 isn't about the company, it is about an employee assisting a disabled man, lacking WP:ORGDEPTH. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The solution to a poorly referenced article about a notable business is to improve the referencing and rewrite the article. Deletion is not the answer. Quite easily, I found this article with four paragraphs about the history of the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok, thanks Cullen³²⁸. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Yard (band)

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. I can't find any significant coverage. The band's site used to compile some reviews from the press, but there's no notable publications listed there as far as I can tell. Lennart97 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I performed a Google search, "The Scotland Yard Gospel Choir" started showing up half way down the first ten results and dominated the second page. Since that choir is not notable and has higher ranking on Google, I doubt that going any further will result in reliable sources to support either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. The article certainly does not help support the claim for notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zarru

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "250528" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vakilabad, Nir

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has not been reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "025285" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 01:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tang-e Huni

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has not been reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "213621" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 01:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suteh Zar

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "030531" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 02:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheykhan, Kermanshah

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has not been reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "051843" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 02:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Niaz

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "166168" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 02:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saruj, Iran

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has not been reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "112395" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sar Cheshmeh, Khuzestan

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "067463" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:GEOLAND states, "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." That and WP:NTEMP formed the consensus to keep the article in the previous AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One needs to prove this is a village in the first place, not an abadi. To the closing admin, please note Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that this was ever a legally-recognised populated place as required by WP:GEOLAND. Abadis are not legally-recognised populated places as they include wells, farms, pumps, factories etc. EDIT: looking at the pervious AFD for this article, it is a big pity it was not deleted then, but too many people then were simply ignoring the requirement that the place be legally recognised. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Coser

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

The subject of the article contacted Oklahoma State University to request article removal M072020 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I took out two museums mentioned in the article, as they did not check out. That leaves only the Gilcrease museum collection and coverage that is fairly primary.--- Possibly (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per request. Furius (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not a notable enough person that we need an article on them when they do not want one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far away from the notability
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIODEL; subject has requested deletion, and is relatively unknown. --Kbabej (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BoraTwenT2

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. ... discospinster _talk 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My quick Google search revealed nothing that helps the subject meet WP:GNG and certainly not WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per a BEFORE, I could not find anything resembling a RS to support this article. The current sourcing is unacceptable; Tik Tok is not a RS. Promotional article on a non-notable subject. --Kbabej (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Schomburg

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

Non-notable actor. Search finds nothing more than social media accounts and agency listings etc., and the sources cited are no better, only online CVs and passing mentions as cast member, hence fails WP:GNG. The few film appearances aren't anywhere near major enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR notability, either.

A duplicate of this exists in the draft space, rejected earlier at AfC on notability grounds and awaiting re-review; meanwhile this was published with the same issues. I'm not quite sure what the process is, but I'd say if this AfD results in deletion, the draft probably needs to go as well? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The cut & paste move (& technical copyright violation created thereby) has been repaired by a history merge; the draft no longer exists.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-04 ↻ restored, 2021-04 ✗ G6

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MetaLAB (at) Harvard

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes notability criteria. Current sourcing is either from primary sources (either Harvard itself, or the Harvard Gazette), or are simple mentions. In fact, at least 6 of the current sources do not appear to mention the lab at all (#s 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18). Searches turned up much of the same trivial mentions. There is another organization called MetaLab, Ltd., which is indeed notable, and another entity called Metalab, also notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, it researches the intersection of art, design, society, and artificial intelligence? What does that even mean? Has there been any meaningful output of... whatever this thing is, beyond a couple fluff pieces and gallery websites including its exhibitions in lists? This is fairly dissonant with the description of an idea foundry with a leading position in the field of experimental arts and humanities. jp×g 07:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jahres-Bericht über die Fortschritte der chemischen Technologie für Fabrikanten, Chemiker, Pharmaceuten, Hütten- und Forstleute und Cameralisten

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

Entirely unsourced with no claim of notability. Gaioa (T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Gaioa (T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Gaioa (T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Gaioa (T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every scientific journal every published is notable. There is nothing here indicating this work was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @EdJohnston and Randykitty: who previously discussed the journal's notability on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, should probably be moved to the slighter shorter Jahres-Bericht über die Leistungen der chemischen Technologie, which was the journal's title for most of its history. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Sources for a century-old German scientific periodical are going to be hard to find, but given that it was published for nearly a hundred years, is held in many library collections,[8] and the founding editor is notable and has articles in other languages, I think it's reasonable to assume that they are out there. I've added a few details and references to the article. – Joe (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I said before, I would expect a journal this old to be notable, but frankly, I can't find anything. Pinging DGG who might be able to come up with something. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found and added two brief reviews of this journal in another journal (both in the same other journal). They're not independent of each other, so the case for WP:GNG is weak, but I think that and the other in-passing references already in the article might barely be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep With the work of Joe Roe and David Eppstein, it's reached the point where holding onto the page makes sense, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly on its historical merits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gbagbo Junior Magbi

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't pass WP:BASIC. Last Afd was corrupted. scope_creep^Talk 14:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should pass WP:BASIC now, I've added sources, there's heaps available to keep expanding this (in English, French, Swahili, probably Arabic...) SportingFlyer T·C 14:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very easily passes WP:NFOOTY with a dozen fully-pro games. To follow up on SF above, there are sources in Arabic (example). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments at last AFD. An article needing improving is not reason to delete. Giant Snowman 14:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A wall o' keep. I can think withdrawing the nomination if everybody is ok with it. Nomination Withdrawn. Excellent work. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Ramos (businessman)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Last Afd was corrupt. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. The last AFD was heavily influenced by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko and other UPE editors and should be disregarded. MER-C 12:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. We only do votes here on the basis of notability. Being a CEO of nearly fortune 500 company is a very big notable achievement. Wrenaudra (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there isn't sufficient coverage of this person (as opposed to the company they head) to warrant a discrete article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise to check the sources like Forbes, CNN, WSJ and many others. They are enough to qualify for GNG. Wrenaudra (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have seen enough UPE and AFD manipulation for this article. MarioGom (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify your vote with proper reasoning here instead of policy guidelines. This is AFD not noticeboard discussion. Wrenaudra (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you think there are enough reliable sources, feel free to bring them up. MarioGom (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of a quite big company Millicom which have more than 55 millione customer. As per in last AFD Rogermx also pointed that there are more than enough sources to make him pass for GNG. Not sure why it got nominated again despite the lasted AFD. Sources like Forbes, CNN, TD Ameritrade Network, Wall Street Journal are WP:RS and are way more than enough to make him qualify for GNG. Wrenaudra (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC) — Wrenaudra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WSJ? No, this is part of a business directory. It does not establish notability. There seems to be not enough reliable sources to establish notability independently of Millicom. MarioGom (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage or notability. Also, can't force notability, as the socks have tried in the past on this guy. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Millicom and fully protect the redirect. Regardless of the size of the bludgeon that is being swung by the socks in this article's obit, it is and remains undisclosed paid-for spam about a non-notable individual. Any potential future recreations should go through AfC. Blablubbs|talk 14:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linnéa Åberg

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

Definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL and I'm seeing no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Some may argue that playing in the Damallsvenskan carries a presumption of notability but Åberg has played fewer than 200 mins in that league so can't even really claim notability from that. Searches centred on Swedish sources mainly come back with profile pages on the usual wide-ranging football database websites and articles about namesakes in other fields, such as graphic design and reality TV. I have only managed to find one article in a WP:RS about her; this transfer announcement. The only source I found that wasn't completely trivial was this Wordpress blog entry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this time not notable. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Habitual nominator of women's footballer articles states here "Some may argue that playing in the Damallsvenskan carries a presumption of notability but Åberg". Yep - ask Number 57 and Fenix down what years the top Swedish women's league (the Damallsvenskan) was included in WP:NFOOTBALL and its WP:ESSAY WP:FPL? Did it cover the same year she had 20 caps for Sunnanå SK in the top Swedish league? Who added and who removed the top Swedish women's league from the WP:FPL essay? Regards.Hmlarson (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we did argue that the Damallsvenskan was a FPL between 2013 and 2015, when Åberg played her few minutes of football, there is clear consensus within the Wikipedia community that a skin of teeth passing of NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively. If you do believe that Åberg meets GNG then please provide multiple reliable sources addressing her directly and in depth. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, N:FOOTBALL on English Wikipedia is completely unreliable for women footballers. It excludes the majority of top women's leagues around the world. Thanks for demonstrating once again. Hmlarson (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG. No indepth, reliable coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Hupfer

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

Stated to be advertisement Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is an advertisement, it's nothing more than a glorified resume/linkedIn and he does not meet WP:NPOL by virtue of being a potential future candidate for office. His position in the Indiana Republican Party is also notable and thus fails inclusion criteria. TAXIDICAE💰 13:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not held any role that confers automatic passage of WP:NPOL just by virtue of holding it, and the sourcing is not good enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold an NPOL-passing role. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Submitter created this article both in draft space and in article space, which is often done to game the system.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This was my fault and was done out of ignorance, not out of a way to game the system. I created a draft but then noticed in the Indiana Republican Party entry there was a red link for Kyle Hupfer to create the article. I thought I could merge my draft with the created article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrKatannga (talk • contribs)
Delete - Does not meet political notability, but draft also does not address general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Less Unless (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Bearcat. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indiana political party chairs have Wikipedia entries. The current and previous Indiana democrat chairs have wikipedia pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Schmuhl, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zody) and the previous Indiana Republican chair has a page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cardwell). The current Indiana GOP chair qualifies as a major local political figure.
comment references to potential runs for office were deleted and as chairman of a state political party, this qualifies as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."
comment as a local political figure who's received significant press coverage, this entry qualifies.
comment Reply: topic is notable as a local political figure who has received significant press coverage. Previous Indiana Republican Chairmen have Wikipedia pages (see Jeff Cardwell).— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrKatannga (talk • contribs)

MrKatannga I will say this only once, you only get one vote. You need to sign your messages and you should not respond to every single comment here as it WP:BLUDGEONS the discussion. Lastly, please read this essay. The fact that other chairs have articles is irrelevant, they are notable independent of their party chair and finally, your comments go after other comments in chronological order. TAXIDICAE💰 15:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for the clarification. Article creation is new to me and I want to do it the right way. I'll read the essay you linked now. MrKatannga — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the timeline, Zody's article was only created to support his failed candidacy. He would probably be eligible for deletion. Schmuhl has only been a political consultant and may also be eligible for deletion. Cardwell has the smallest article of the three, but at least he was an Indianapolis city councillor. Based on only the sourcing in the article, he may also be eligible for deletion, and actually did have his article deleted back in 2009. They may all have claims to notability, but just because they have articles doesn't mean they'll be kept at a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an NPOL fail per WP:POLOUTCOMES: Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons.. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other stuff exists is not a valid reason to keep. In the US the person who is in all real respects the actual leader of a state political party is the highest elected official from that party. Party chairs are just functionaries. State ones are not default notable and we do not have enough sourcing here to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No government offices held. Other claims of being political commentators etc needs to be supported by reliable and independent sources. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL/WP:GNG, written promotionally. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Sonofstar (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thronmax

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

G11 borderline eligible article on a non notable notable organization attempting to promote their brand via Wikipedia. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus fail to satisfy WP:NCORP. A before search shows unreliable sources such as this and other websites to purchase their products. In all, i am unable to locate any cogent reliable source. Celestina007 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Beyond the fact that this appears to be a giant press release, there are no sources in the article that would establish notability, nor could I find any sources in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself thinking, after reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deniz Unay, that this is undisclosed paid editing, and that the copy came from the client. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I have blocked the "article's" creator. Delete. MER-C 14:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There are some more news about this in Google news, but I didnt see any notable publications. They were mostly reviwes by small gaming publications. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Baller

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

Non notable singer who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER and in general lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search reveals hits is self published and user generated sources which are unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur that this young singer does not satisfy SINGER nor GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG no reliable sources available. Sanketio31 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living Water Christian School

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

The notion that every school that teaches any students under the US system who are in grades 10-12, and in any other system in a local equivalent similar level, is notable by default and as long as we can verrify it actual existed or once existed we should have an article on it, is just not sustainable. The once proposed exception that we limit this to schools that currently exist is just too presentist to justify. We need to move towards requiring at least some level of sourcing on all schools that is indepdent of the school, from a reliable source, and I would suggest we mandate that it be at least significant. This article is sourced only to the schools own website. The only other things I could find we sources that compile information on literally every schools that exists within a certain area. Wikipedia is not a directory or a buyers guide, we do not create comprehensive databases of all products, but that is essentially what most of the sources that list this school are. They exist because schools sell the product of education, although the money even for private schools like this does not often come directly from the consumers, but we have to see most of the sources that mention this institution as either buyers guides or as its own material on itself. This is not enough to justify an article. It is hard to tell for sure about this school, but there are many institutions that use the name school that are sponsored by churches that have primarily a religious purpose, even if they do engage in some non-religious curriculum. For example there is no evidence that I see that this institution is actually accredited by any governing body. I see no clear evidence that if this place operated in the same way on the college level it would pass our notability rules, that is because at the college level we actually require some level of accredidation to be considered default notable, at the high school level we do not demand any level of accredidation for reasons that many stem from the people who developed these rules not comprehending how many marginally to not at all accredited Christian schools existed in the US in even the 1990s, the phenomenon may have become more common since then. Not every indepdent Pentecostal Church that has 75 congregants is notable, and there is no reason to think that every time such a church includes at least 1 student between grades 9-12 in its educational outreach that automatically makes it notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you consider a more concise description of the subject and reason for deletion? You could then add the editorial stuff and other issues in a comment beneath it. Right now it is very difficult to understand what the problem is and why the page should be deleted. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is drowning in druk but whenever I try to prop delete it other editors comes along and remove them without even trying to improve it. We need to stop letting people create such unsourced or sourced only to the subject website rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here goes. This is a minor school with no existing sources that are indepdent and nothing at all indicating that it is in any way notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google news shows a few reports (sports and Coronavirus cases) associated with a similarly named school in North Carolina, while a Google Books search brings up a range of directories of schools which don't have useful previews (so it isn't clear whether coverage is for this school, or if the coverage is significant enough to count for notability). A general web search didn't seem to bring up much in the way of significant coverage - mainly directory type entries.. I've yet to see much in the way of evidence that GNG is met for this subject, so leaning to Delete.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of available WP:RS and a failure to meet WP:NSCHOOL. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Rosenberg, Texas per WP:ATD and longstanding practice. 8.48.2.14 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We need some criteria for which high schools are notable. I would suggest that teaching to age 18 should be among the criteria, which this would fail. We used to allow all High Schools, because it was impossible to stop their pupils creating articles about their own schools, but perhasp we can now be more discerning. The article has no indication of the number of pupils. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So wait, we allowed all high school because we could not stop drek otherwise? That is a horrible way to set up precedent. We have things like verifiability and GNG that mean we should require relible indepdent sources at the least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because this doesn't even generate a second page of Google results, and I cannot find a single independent RS that is actually about the subject. I recognise the local consensus that schools are inherently notable even when there are no sources cited, albeit in defiance of NOTDIR, but in this case there are just... no sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unified mechanics theory

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

The subject is not notable and it is not an established theory. Very few results in google scholar (all from one author; the 2016 works are unrelated) and practically no citations about it. After PROD'ing the article was slightly expanded and few references were added. All of them are from the same author. The physics content looks very bizarre. I suspect WP:FRINGE. Bonus: the picture. SimoneD89 (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, primary sources published in borderline journals, article written by a WP:SPA. Tercer (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - strictly speaking, the first source, a book, is secondary. Many of the journals look legitimate to me (i.e., respectable impact factors). The real issue is that 11 of the 13 publication are coauthored by Basaran. Boghog (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a journal legitimate is not the impact factor, but whether it does proper peer review. This is of course very hard to find out, but MDPI journals are famously bad, and I'm personally familiar with the torrent of nonsense that comes out of Entropy. Heck, right now there's another AfD going on about some bizarre stuff that got published in Entropy: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mechanothermodynamics. Tercer (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basaran has stated, in an MDPI journal, that it is in fact the same stuff [9]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is an astounding coincidence. Tercer (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that the Basaran references are primary sources because he is in all the publications where the name Unified mechanics theory appears. We need reliable, secondary and independent references. I would consider the book primary, dependent and not yet reliable (because it was published only two months ago and it takes time to show reliability). --SimoneD89 (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The key word here is "independent" which I would agree to. "Time" is irrelevant, except to the extent it takes time for independent reviews. Boghog (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination and Tercer's comment above. Entropy, Metals, and Applied Mechanics are all MDPI journals and so must be regarded skeptically. The book is by the inventor and so is a primary and dependent source. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also worth saying that the current text is impenetrable. Even if it or related ideas were notable under other names, WP:TNT applies. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/delete – It has the feel of pseudoscience using WP as a platform. It is also presented as grandiose (as being more "complete" than Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics combined) but without any rigour. IMO this is does not belong in WP, and probably fails notability too. —Quondum 17:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not aware that there was a need to unify Newtonian dynamics and thermodynamics. Probably because there is none. I have absolutely no clue what the article is trying to say about the hundred year old man and the boy, either. This looks like fringe nonsense. Is this mentioned in any college physics textbooks? Are people publishing on this other than the one crackpot who is promoting the idea? Hyperion35 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing !vote by and conversation with CU-confirmed sock of Cemalbasaran (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barejsha02. --Blablubbs|talk 18:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

DO NOT DELETE- Unfortunately, people advocating for deletion of the Unified Mechanics Theory, have never read the book or any of the hundreds of the papers or dozens of PhD dissertations published under different names of the theory since 1997. Some of the comments such as "I was not aware that there was a need to unify Newtonian dynamics and thermodynamics. Probably because there is none." and "It has the feel of pseudoscience" clearly are not credible comments, just thrash talk which does not belong in a scientific medium. Authors of these comments hiding their names under a psuedo-code oand clearly have never read or published anything in this field. If they want to thrash the theory then first they must read it then show where the errors are in the mathematical derivation and publish a paper. Not just street trash talk. Actually, read the book and hundreds of papers and dozens of Ph.D. dissertations first. There is a Unified Mechanics Theory group on Linkedin with 4,300 members, it includes Professors from MIT, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College, Purdue, Cornell, Colombia, every prestigious university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tragab (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to a textbook, not authored by Basaran, that discusses this subject? Ca you show me a course syllabus from a major university physics department that teaches this subject? Can you show me systematic reviews discussing this subject? Hyperion35 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YES OF COURSE I CAN. Look at the University at Buffalo CIE 511 Advanced Solid Mechanics class syllabus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tragab (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tragab, please sign your posts with ~~~~. I see a "featured research project": Unification of Mechanics and Thermodynamics, Investigator: Cemal Basaran (no description given) and very little else. A mechanics course (CIE 511) that evidently does not have this as its focus does not make it notable. You are evidently not convincing anyone with your approach. —Quondum 19:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cemal Basaran teaches CIE 511. Mentioning your own idea in a course you yourself teach doesn't make it a notable idea. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE- Unified Mechanics Theory name is recent, however the first Ph.D. dissertation on the topic was in 1997. US Navy Office of Naval Research started funding it with a Young Investigator Award [one of 27 scientists US-wide] in 1997. Until recently it was referred to as a Thermodynamic Theory for Damage Mechanics. It has been funded by federal grants in the US and EU in millions of dollars. [Yes, there is a recent EU grant]. Please do not treat the theory as a new religion. It is not. Please read the hundreds of papers, PhD dissertations, books, and watch lectures, then tell us where the formulation has an error. There is a very robust scientific discussion group of 4,300 + scientists, on the Unified Mechanics Theory group on LinkedIn. If you trust your knowledge on the topic please join us and discuss your ideas. Sorry, we do no allow speculations. You must have mathematical derivations to make your point Not just a keybord. Unfortunately, you cannot hide your identity on Linkedin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemalbasaran (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- LinkedIn, like all other social media, is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. We are obligated to base our scientific and technical articles upon peer-reviewed references, with a strong preference for secondary sources; moreover, we use established terminology, not neologisms. In addition, we have stringent policies against editing with a Conflict of Interest, which I encourage you to review. Moreover, given the extent of the verbatim overlap between your comment and that of Tragab above, and the fact that Tragab uploaded a photo of Cemal Basaran that they claimed as their "own work", I encourage you to read the policy against sockpuppetry. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a broadly accepted idea, and it does not have the level of coverage we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete Using entropy to unify thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics has been extensively studied in the past 15 years. Secondary sources are added.(talk) 20:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:SYNTH. Using old articles to bolster the notability of a new topic or newly rechristened terminology is not how Wikipedia articles are written. XOR'easter (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So: not peer-reviewed but in pay-to-publish journals, all articles actually addressing the subject are by its inventor, and the inventor says that it's the same as Mechanothermodynamics (AfD discussion) which is in the same boat, and invented by someone that the inventor here is friends with on LinkedIn? Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is no science that I recognise. Despite the papers it feels to be a hoax, pseudo-science, WP:FRINGE. The diagram is... odd, and it is up for deletion on Commons. Except that it was not started on 1 April I had almost considered it to be an All Fools Day prank. Now, seeing the sudden influx of adherents as if for a ballot, I see it more as reputation building - using Wikipedia to build a reputation, not using Wikipedia to report on a reputation already built Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - DO NOT DELETE, Unified Mechanics Theory and Mechanothermodynamics are not the same things. In Unified Mechanics Theory entropy evolution happens along the Thermodynamic State Index axis according to the Boltzmann entropy formulation and thermodynamic fundamental equation of the material. In Mechanothermodynamics entropy is used as a degradation metric, however, dissipation evolution follows an empirical equation obtained from testing the material. If you are interested in the true scientific discussion please join the Unified Mechanics Theory group on LinkedIn. There are 4, 300 scientists who are eager to see your mathematical derivations proving UMT wrong. Cemalbasaran (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "mechanothermodynamics, which is essentially a theory almost identical to the unified mechanics theory". Which person with your name should we believe? And why on Earth do you think that LinkedIn is what we are looking for, rather than properly peer-reviewed articles, including ones showing that this has acceptance by others? Uncle G (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment DO NOT DELETE- If you want to see acceptance of a theory by others, In science, there is a website called Google Scholar. You go see who cited the work. The first paper on Unified Mechanics Theory was published in 1998 in ASME J of Electronic Packaging, since then every paper I have, except GNR and CNT papers, uses this theory. Hiding your identity does not give any credence to your comments. Prof. Cemal Basaran.Cemalbasaran (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You get one chance to express the fact that it be not deleted. One. You may make as many other comments as you believe will help your case. However, experinece shows that argumentative folk at deletion discussions, especially those whose arguments do not rely on policy, come under the heading of "Methinks (s)he doth protest too much!" Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually Google Scholar, hyperlinked helpfully above and used by the nominator right at the start of this discussion, shows no papers from 1998 at all, and the citations for Cemal Basaran are, it transpires, all by Cemal Basaran. So you're really going to have to actually cough up some citations of these peer-reviewed papers from independent people that you claim, because the story from Google Scholar is that what you are claiming is false. Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tragab:, knock it off with the obvious "DO NOT DELETE" sockpuppetry. We don't use DND as a vote!, so it's screamingly obvious it's you. These votes! have been struck on suspicion of sockpuppetry. Nate • (chatter) 22:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "theory" seems to be more useful in relation to steel and other materials. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cemal Basaran, very selectively. The theory comes from a distinguished senior engineer who argues that since equations that successfully model material fatigue can be written in a form that look something like Newton's laws of motion this reveals a new principle of nature. The engineering is difficult and is fine. The problem is in trying to create a physical theory for why the engineering works. The materials models work well, which is why the many papers, but the basic physics for this theory does not exist. Arguments from analogy are not sufficient. For a similar discussion see the AfD for constructal law. StarryGrandma (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon to have a redirect. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One can always expand Basaran's article with a discussion about his research. I would not suggest to use the information contained in the article because the physics content is bizarre and it is not yet recognized as a physical theory. If we are talking about a model used in engineering science, other questions arise: is it his model? are his contributions relevant/recognized/notable to be included in his biography? I don't support redirecting the page because the name is not yet established in the academic community. One can compare the numbers of results and citations between unified mechanics theory ~ O(10), and constructal law ~ O(1 000). I would have suggested deletion for both. In engineering science I expect much higher numbers. --SimoneD89 (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SimoneD89. Until we have reliable sources attributing something to a person or describing a person's research, we should avoid implication of such an attribution in an article on the person. Because of the apparent overlap between similar approaches by several different people, it seems unclear that we can make any such attribution. Just because someone has published about something does not mean it worth a mention – I would wait until it becomes more generally noticed/known. Looking at Cemal Basaran, I wonder whether the subject is qualified as being notable for WP at all. Virtually every semi-decent engineer or professor that I know can boast similar accomplishments, and the references are all sub-par. —Quondum 13:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow of the ASME. Every semi-decent engineer or professor you know is a Fellow of the ASME or similar? You have high criteria for semi-decent. References are fine for someone meeting WP:NPROF. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. I concede my error on that point. —Quondum 23:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting either way on Basaran's wiki-notability, I have to say that the content of this article is so bad that an adequately selective merge would be no merge at all. Not even the references could be carried over; they are primary, recent, published in marginal-at-best journals, and unacknowledged in the literature. Nor is leaving a redirect a particularly good idea, since the title is not a plausible search term. XOR'easter (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barejsha02 which interested parties are invited to contribute relevant evidence to Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete:Unified mechanics theory is a very promising theory. The theory uses Boltzmann's statistical mechanics in conjunction with the Newton's laws of motion. However, the work on "Dynamic Equilibrium Equations in Unified Mechanics Theory (https://doi.org/10.3390/applmech2010005)" used Lagrangian to derive the equation of motion. The theory is very useful in life-prediction models — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.232 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Another primary source in an MDPI journal, which counts for nothing. XOR'easter (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck. Either loutsocking or meatpuppetry, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barejsha02. --Blablubbs|talk 18:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: The spirited defence of the concept plus sock and meat puppetry is explained somewhat in WP:ACADEME, an essay for all participants here. It deal with the huge difference between an encyclopaedia and the world of academe Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd forgotten about that essay. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's very simple. Despite all the responses from supporter(s), I don't see any assertion that there are any reliable, independent, secondary sources to support the notability of this topic. (And when it comes to reliable, independent, and secondary having several sources with two out of the three is not sufficient.)--Srleffler (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the place for WP:FRINGE or WP:SYNTH. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xpress Movers

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

This is a removal / house moving company. The article is written like an advert, the references are all dead, google news returns no RS reviews of the company. This company has a social media presence but doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion on WP. Desertarun (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have NO idea why this was citation tagged nine years ago and not filed for deletion back then. No sources, independent or otherwise, no evidence of notability. Ravenswing 11:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Special:Diff/284463661 was 12 years ago, and Special:Diff/759453248 was four. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It was citation tagged 12 years ago because it is too hard to nominate things for deletion, and when you do so you open yourself up to venoumous hateful attacks by the defenders of the status quo who believe more in grandfather clause enforcement than a Jim Crow election official in 1952 Mississippi.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, written in a style unbefitting an encyclopedia, no viable citations in the article. Also, is one of the three references just a SourceForge link to Media Player Classic? PraiseVivec (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "notability source". Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it really is. All those three sources are utter garbage. One is explicitly a press release site, the second is one, and the putative contribution this company alleges to have made to Media Player Classic is that one of the contributors has an email address from the subject. Ravenswing 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Wasraw (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable. Seaweed (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess my frustration at the difficulty of deleting things on Wikipedia got the better of me. I would like to apologize for being too harsh in my criticism of hard core inclusionists. Still it is clear that citation tagging is not working. Nothing inproves. They languish for 12 years. That is an unacceptably high amount of time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company is not notable and all the sources currently on the page are links that no longer exist Redoryxx (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, no reliable sources available. Sanketio31 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Ørsahl

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

Footballer has never played a game in a professional league, only 1 cup game against an amateur team as well as being recently signed in a semi-professional league. Geschichte (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has some coverage, for example this loan announcement and this transfer announcement but not enough for WP:GNG in my view. Failing WP:NFOOTBALL means that the GNG pass would need to be clear cut for the article to be kept. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. Sonofstar (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaskispor

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

Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find any sources, but perhaps people that speak Turkish could find something from its 27 year existence. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this confirms existence and that club played in the third division of Turkish football. Other sources exist to verify, such as this and this. I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but we have articles about most of the other Second League clubs, so I presume playing at that level confers notability. Those sources are from page 1 or 2 of a standard quick google search for "Gaskispor" so I am concerned nominator has not complied with WP:BEFORE. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I looked at more than just the first two pages of google and all websites had no information, just the name of the club and their members. That's why we're at AfD and not PROD so that I could make sure I wasn't missing anything, which it seems I was. I'll leave this open for a bit but I wouldn't be opposed to withdrawing it if it continues this way. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, albeit not with flying colors in its current state; the team also contested the 2006–07 Turkish Cup and national cup play is a common standard for inclusion for clubs. Geschichte (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the absolute most I've been able to find is this article that states that's it's a sort of feeder club (?). Everything else is just routine coverage. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:FOOTYN presumed notability because of competing in the national cup Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets FOOTYN as per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:FOOTYN. Sonofstar (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:FOOTYN as stated above.Ahmetlii (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of NYPD Blue characters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Ortiz

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with @Uncle G finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 10:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its an article unsourced for over a decade and zero edits in 2021. You can just holding redirect stuff like this, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to keep articles on fictional characters we need to in some way show that they are notable in the real world. The above contributors have offered no sources showing notability. The burden is on them to prove the subject is notable, not on the nominator to prove it is not notable, for you cannot prove a negative. Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause, this is not 1925 Alabama.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, their stances are really more of a procedural keep, no one appears to actually be defending the article's notability itself. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, You are right, but I still think that defending spam-like articles on technical grounds is WP:POINTless disruption that hinders, not help, the project. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I'm just saying, it's a low traffic fictional character from an old discontinued TV show. There's no way it survives either way. If this is a procedural keep, it's just going to be an uncontested bold redirect instead. I just felt it was a strange response when no one was advocating actual notability. But regardless, this'll be resolved either way, so it's fine. Sergecross73 msg me 12:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious GNG fail. Inclusionist speedy keeps above are so reminiscent of the first decade of this project. Now we are in the business of cleaning hoaxes and spam, not promoting it. PS. That said, the op should have mentioned notability as an issue, lack of sourcing is less of an issue and can be easily fixed just by referencing the TV show itself, for example - that would address the WP:V failing but not GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, putting aside the issues with Coin's bulk nomination of articles, this fails every single WP:GNG check, in addition to generally being WP:FANCRUFT. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 06:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NYPD Blue characters or NYPD Blue, as a plausible search term. Otherwise, agree this fails GNG and is FANCRUFT.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to prove GNG and indeed reads more like a Wikia/Fandom page than a Wikipedia article which is always a sign of CRUFT or CRUFT-adjacent material. doktorb _words^deeds 08:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I struck my comment above because I was being too harsh in my rhetoric when I wrote it. Articles on fictional individuals is one of the places where Wikipedia has had the most cruft, and where cruft has survived by far the longest. This is an area where it has taken a huge effort to pare back cruft, and the process has been very long and difficult, and the amount of articles created by people who could not be bothered to even include a source that was primary to the subject is huge. So this is an area where proceduralist objections to making progress is really galling because it has been a very hard striggle to make any progress at all. This article very clearly needs to be deleted. I ams sorry for using too harsh language aginast grandfather clauses in general in my earlier argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: putting aside the bulk nomination of articles, fails WP:GNG clearly CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NYPD Blue characters. There is not a lot of evidence that this character is individually notable, and there isn't a lot of content here (no sources) that warrants the effort of a merge. jp×g 01:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NYPD Blue characters. There is trivial coverage of this character in WP:RS, but it still fails WP:GNG.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Joyce Wadler (11 February 2005). "NYPD News". New York Times. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
^ Brian Bellmont (24 February 2005). "'NYPD Blue' closes the caseafter 12 arresting years". Today. NBC. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
^ Susan King (8 April 2003). "Numbers add up for 'NYPD Blue'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
^ "Jacqueline Obradors". Metacritic. Retrieved 16 April 2021.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nominator provided no rationale beyond an alleged lack of sources for a blatantly notable topic, and no evidence of WP:BEFORE in a spate of nominations less than thirty seconds apart; it is not hard to find a WP:RS saying that leopards have spots. (non-admin closure) jp×g 05:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard pattern

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with @Uncle G finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per all of the above. Topic is notable and relevant. If we delete all articles with minimal sourcing, we’ll delete 3/4 of the ‘pedia. Nominator confuses quality with notability. Montanabw^(talk) 01:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imum coeli

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After 15 years, what is appropriate is you looking for sources before nominating things at AFD, and making properly researched nominations. This one has an encyclopaedia entry in James R. Lewis's Encyclopaedia of Astrology ISBN 9780810389007. This is yet another zero-research AFD nomination today, making work for other editors that you should have done yourself. Uncle G (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with @Uncle G finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a dictionary definition. Those arguing for keeping the article have provided zero sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And you don't mention looking for them, either. Did you not do any looking, too, like the nominator? One cannot honestly say that something is a stub for which there are no sources allowing expansion if one hasn't looked, and the only person who has looked so far, going by what you say here, is me. We're all supposed to do that: me, you, and the nominator. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary explains the difference between a stub, which is what this is because it tries to explain a concept, and a dictionary definition, which this is not because it isn't giving the etymology/pronunciation/translation/et al. of a word or phrase. Uncle G (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added two more sources. After that I did an experiment, performing the laziest possible search by clicking the 'news' link on the deletion template. (Did not have to tell it to go to Google. Did not have to type words. One click.) That found articles in Allure, Bustle, and Teen Vogue. Perhaps they're not the best sources for the article, but they're an immediate indication that sources exist. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have to admit I think astrology is a bunch of rubbish. However I guess since it is a topic people write on, we do need to have some coverage of I guess we need to keep this. I still wonder if the article though too much works as part of a broad dictionary of astrology. I think it may need to be re-written to relefect to have a more neautral point of view and to stop endorsing astrology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources which have been added since nomination; these are reliable sources, they establish notability, and the subject matter may be rubbish but it is definitely a concept that people interested in this thing care about and find significant. jp×g 01:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The overarching concept is angle (astrology). Uncle G (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources added since the AfD nomination have done their duty. doktorb _words^deeds 07:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hope (Non-Prophets album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopestrumentals

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with @Uncle G finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/Procedural Keep and improve. As stated by the other voters above, this nomination is illegitimate per WP:DEL-REASON, WP:BEFORE, and WP:NEXIST. I would also cite WP:NODEADLINE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. The proper thing is to try to improve the article first, and that's how you really know if it is hopeless or if it has potential. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When this is over, my recommendation is to merge or redirect to Hope (Non-Prophets album), because this instrumental bonus release seems quite obscure. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and make that recommendation now, redirect or merge are possible results of AfD.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that this remains an invalid deletion nomination, and if the nominator had done any WP:BEFORE work, perhaps they would have found redirecting to be viable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a shame. Rather than help us come to a consensus on what to do with the article, you'd rather obstruct the process through bureaucracy.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a shame too. Redirecting was initially my idea, since adopted by four other people (including you), but then I get accused of obstruction and bureaucracy. If the consensus of this AfD is to redirect or merge, I will do it myself. You forgot the nominator's careless misuse of the rather serious AfD process and a lesson should be sent to that person. I support a redirect as the ultimate outcome, because once again it was my idea. You're welcome. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I can't find sources for this, except retailers, I do agree with Doomsdayer520 a merge/redirect would be quite beneficial and a must do. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hope (Non-Prophets album), not a separately notable topic. Reywas92^Talk 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92's proposal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems to be right. Maybe with just a quick mention that an instrumental version also exists.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, with Hope (Non-Prophets album). Not independently notable, does not pass WP:NMUSIC. I would have preferred a merge, but I can't find any WP:RS on this at all. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Metro station. whatever subsection is fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deep column station

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with Uncle G finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 11:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't object to any speedy keeps, I did do a little BEFORE search of my own and couldn't easily find sources describing this, not for AfD reasons, but to source the article. I'd recommend someone with a topical interest at least fix the article regardless of the outcome of this AfD, since I may not be searching for sources in the correct places. SportingFlyer T·C 18:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged to Metro_station#Construction_types along with its sibling articles. These were translated from the Russian wikipedia, which is also poorly sourced but there were a couple I added. Reywas92^Talk 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a dictionary definition not an encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Metro_station#Construction_types per Reywas92. There is not enough here for a standalone article, but there absolutely is encyclopaedic information here as part of the broader topic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Reywas92. Makes no sense to have an entire article on something that only exists at one station.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would point out that it most definitely does not exist only at one station. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Useful information and shouldn't be deleted, but a redirect is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Metro_station#Construction_types per above. Content better suited as part of a "construction types" section, valid redirect term. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Metro_station#Deep_column_station. Content already merged by Reywas92. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kalinga (Mahabharata). ✗plicit 09:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dantapura

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with Uncle G finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 11:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prusty, Harish C.; Mohanty, Pradeep; Mishra, Jitu (2000). "Dantapura, the capital of ancient Kalinga: a reappraisal". In Basa, Kishor K.; Mohanty, Pradeep (eds.). Archaeology of Orissa. Vol. 2. Pratibha Prakashan. pp. 651–662. ISBN 8177020110.
Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kalinga (Mahabharata). We do not have enough here to justify a free standing article, and one academic article does not change that fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kalinga (Mahabharata): no need for separate article, should be merged CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with Dantapuram as both articles describe the same place. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kalinga (Mahabharata). as per all. Sanketio31 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as has been said above; no independent notability seems to be present here. jp×g 04:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSOBS

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of unsourced information on something where there is no showing of notability. The burden is on those who want to keep an article to show sources. This is not 1925 Alabama and we have no grandfather clauses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems unnecessarily hyperbolic. PianoDan (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG. PianoDan (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, not indepth coverage. Sanketio31 (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Operations Support System per WP:CHEAP. Not independently notable. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

City attorney

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep What in the ever loving million hells of Jainism is this? How is the position of City Attorney not notable? If anything, this article is important as people often confuse a city attorney with a state's attorney or district attorney, all are different offices with different responsibilities, and so this provides useful information. It may be true that an individual city attorney might not be notable, but the position itself is notable, just as a small-town mayor may not be notable, but we have an article on the position of mayor itself. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially a dictionary definition. Does not consider the broad historical issues, nor does it take a worldwide perspective. Beyond this the article is unsourced. We need to end all unsourced articles immediately. We are not a dictionary, and our scope is neither limited to the English language or to the US. Nor should an article like this limit itself almost to use of the term. There may be a notable subject here, but this article is so full of problems and definciencies it needs to be destroyed under TNT grounds if nothing else. Note also that those advocating for keeping the article deal neither with the dictionary definition problem, nor do they volunteer that ther office is notable by showing any sources that discuss the office as a concept and show that it is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So, first off, it may help to have some background in knowing that this was one of 70+ AfDs that this editor nominated today over a short period of time with the same boilerplate explanation.
  To answer your question, we have articles on other municipal positions like mayor and city manager. It is true that this article is not as thorough as those, it could certainly be improved. But a city attorney is a basic municipal office. I'm not even sure how to answer your assertion, do I need to explain why we have pages for offices like mayor and city manager? Further, I did explain above that this is useful and encyclopedic information to have, as this position is often confused with state's attorneys and district attorneys, who are also local government attorneys who handle different duties. See also Local government in the United States for further information. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep You went right to deletion instead of trying to find sources and expanding it. WP:SOFIXIT. You have time to delete, you have time to expand. Nate • (chatter) 19:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As I say this needs to be better sourced, more in depth, and cover the concept not the word. We have started that way, but have a long way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Cheetah Girls (franchise). There seems to be consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted. Merge per ATD. Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls (video game)

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' SailingInABathTub seems to be trying to stop Coin945 from making any contributions. This is an unsourced article on a video games. If Sailinginabathtub wants us to keep this article he should produce at least one article that shows notability. If he wants to enforce a grandfather clause he needs to find a time machine and go to 1925 Alabama because we have no such things here. His contributions to these discussions have been totally disruptive and would lead to Wikipedia having more druk and rubbish, which we are already drowining in. There are no sources produced for this thing. This article should have been nomined after it existed unsourced for 15 minutes, it should never have made it to 15 days unchallenged, let alone to almost 15 years. It is time we take a stand against unsourced rubbish in Wikipedia. It is such total drek that has lead to some hoaxes lasting a whole decade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the nominator should do WP:BEFORE instead of getting everyone else to do it for them? SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the reliable sources which are now in the article, and minor copyediting which I've just done: this should not have been nominated for deletion without a WP:BEFORE check! jp×g 08:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; while there are sources to back up that this exists, I unfortunately do not see this really being its own article (especially if it is one in a series). jp×g 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commment this had been closed as speedy keep. As it does not meet those criteria I have re-opened the discussion, though I have no opinion about this nomination otherwise. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I see no indication that this remotely warrants a standalone article, there's very, very little coverage of the game itself and anything that can be said about it, can be done in the primary article about Ceetah Girls. Same goes for the sequel, which I will be nominating shortly. TAXIDICAE💰 17:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The sourcing here is very poor. Metacritic has one review, Google Arts and Culture is just an image and release year, the IGN source is about the sequel, and the Kidzworld source seems unreliable. I have done WP:BEFORE and nothing of note showed. It simply fails WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the person responsible for the early closure, I have to say that nothing more than trivial mentions exist. All I was able to find on Newspapers.com was a single sentence in one article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've edited the article and added more citations. I think the article should be improved rather than outright deleted. KieranStanley (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, Merge with The Cheetah Girls franchise page with added section for all 3 video games. KieranStanley (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The original nomination was lousy, but other reasons have been articulated since then. None of the sources brought forward thus far appear to be both reliable and provide in-depth coverage of this subject. Not opposed to it being mentioned in one of the main Cheetah Girls articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Merge/Redirect to the franchise article seems like a fine alternative, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per poor sourcing. Namcokid 47 14:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More sources have been added and I think we just need to keep adding to before deleting it. FanDePopLatino (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to create The Cheetah Girls (video game series) then merge 3 video game articles there: I could see an argument for merging the three video games into a new article entitled The Cheetah Girls (video game series). Collectively there should be enough sources to justify an article.--Coin945 (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons stated. KieranStanley (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support creating The Cheetah Girls (video game series), then merging turning three stubs into a start class or higher is a win-win. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commment But The Cheetah Girls (video game series) already redirects to the group's main article so if we were to just merged all the video game articles there, wouldn't that just cause double redirecting errors? FanDePopLatino (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was talking about creating The Cheetah Girls (video game series).--Coin945 (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that would be a great way to go about it. All the games in one article would be the best way to do it. FanDePopLatino (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is this source reliable or unreliable? WHY DOES THIS GAME EXIST?! PLAYING WORST GAME BOY ADVANCE GAMES! The Cheetah Girls SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's one of a plethora of YouTubers who fancy themselves an expert. TAXIDICAE💰 12:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, though the merger suggestion above has merits if the sourcing is right. The current article only has citations to prove the game exists, rather than any proof of notability, and I think the gameplay section looks like a transcript from a YouTube channel rather than anything worth keeping. doktorb _words^deeds 05:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Cheetah Girls (franchise). As discussed above, the extant sourcing doesn't meet the GNG and with an existing parent article, Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Any split to a separate "games series" article should be based on size/weight within the parent franchise article—a premature conversation given the current size of the article. czar 05:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Cheetah Girls (franchise): For the reasons others have given. Notability seems dubious and the franchise page seems like the best place to go with this. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Cheetah Girls (franchise) per above, I concur the stand-alone notability is very weak, but a merge and redirect should be enough to save this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Cheetah Girls (franchise) per above. Good compromise and nice to see Wikipedia functioning well. Archrogue (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anal sphincterotomy

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a simple google search reveals WP:SIGCOV. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you bother to check the ICD-10? The AMA's CPT? Did you bother to ask anyone in WikiProject Medicine? American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons? This goes beyond WP:BEFORE and is really just YGBSM! Hyperion35 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary definition which is a clear violation of Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. Keep up the good work Coin945 and do not be intimadated by the supporters of grandfather clauses who need to go back to 1925 Alabama where they belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider striking part of that comment. Keep the discussion on the matter of the subject and article, and you should hopefully understand why your comparison of other editors to Jim Crow is offensive and unacceptable. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while an unpleasent procedure sources on it abound: [10][11][12].--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note OtherStuffExists at articles like Lateral internal sphincterotomy, Anal fissure, and Surgical management of fecal incontinence. (Sorry for the subject matter...).--Coin945 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who knew that Wikipedia life would include having to decide whether an article like this should be kept or deleted. Anyway, this is a procedure which will have sources on-line, and in text books and resource material, so these can be found and placed in the article. I suspect that the subject of the article is such that mainstream editors were unable or unwilling to contribute to the finding of sources. This is a matter for the wider Wikipedia community, not a reason to delete the article. doktorb _words^deeds 08:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a Google Scholar search returns 1,360 results, so the idea of an anal sphincterotomy seems to be quite clearly notable. What's the difference between this and a lateral internal sphincterotomy? Well, I don't know, I'm not a surgeon... but it seems like this is obviously a thing which gets mentioned in literature, and a thing which has its own ICD code. Perhaps it really is a subtype of another procedure, in which case its content should be merged -- excuse me, grafted -- into another article by someone with a bit more training. But this isn't mentioned in the nomination, it isn't addressed by the delete !vote above, and I don't think we can diagnose whether this article should be excised without a proper surgical consult. jp×g 08:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verifiability guidelines state that all articles must be sourced. We should not be creating articles that we do not have the expertise to even sort out the sourcing to make them inteligible. I am sorry about my poetic way to refer to grandfathering. I am just frustrated that people act as if we have any reason to defer to the fact that an article exists in analyzing it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being unsourced for any period of time in itself is not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable procedure. (Fair warning, now illustrated.) --GRuban (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. PianoDan (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Plus, as User:Lugnuts points out, no valid case for deletion was made. gidonb (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per reasons above, but does need additional sourcing. Mukedits (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lateral internal sphincterotomy, a more developed article on the same subject. Mukedits (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it Anal sphincterotomy is the general term for any surgical treatment of the anal sphincter. This includes the external sphincterotomy, Lateral internal sphincterotomy, and contralateral internal sphincterotomy. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Shaaek

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

Non-notable business person. Being the marketing manager of a professional football club is not inherently notable, nor is having completed some certificate course (even if you're the first from your country to do so). The sources offer only passing mentions, or are primary, hence fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The people of this article is largely and exclusively featured in almost every references which proves his notability. Not only by local newspapers, he has been officially featured by UEFA on their Academy website and social media accounts. Besides, he is not only a business person or marketing manager, he is also connected to Bangladesh Football Federation, a sports governing body of a country, as a board member. He has also two coaching licences. All of these staffs are quite enough to pass WP:GNG. So, keep. Diptadg17 (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, all coverage appears to be ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 10:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not passes WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage where addresses the topic directly and in detail. Other than some passing/single mentions, no significant coverage in Bengali either. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG, lacks sigcov CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the references, one is to LinkedIn, many are to unrelated sources (i.e. to the page for the certificate program itself, rather than to anything mentioning him), and none of them seem to indicate notability. jp×g 03:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only unrealiable routine coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Amini

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

Notability rests on two youth science awards, with most coverage essentially BLP1E. Passing mentions/quotes on papers published during his PhD are not significant, direct, or in-depth enough for GNG. An h-index of 5 (Scopus mistakenly curated his work with another researcher's, inflating citations) in this high-publication, high-citation field indicates he is very far from meeting NPROF C1, and none of the other NPROF criteria are applicable. JoelleJay (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current (recent?) PhD, though the citations are a good start. No other sign of notability -- in particular, the young scientist awards are given for promise, not for achievement, and do not contribute to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am not sure about this one, if we delete him then we probably have to delete all of these: Template:Young_Scientist_and_Technology_Exhibition as well, as far as I can tell all the other winners were even less impressive in their later career. Alexander at least became a junior researcher with some early success. On the other hand, winning a prize this early might convey notability since this is Europe-wide. --hroest 00:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

come to think about it, these are all only Irish winners and apart from Patrick Collison we probably should delete all of them. --hroest 00:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hroest I didn't nominate Ciara Judge mainly since I just don't want to open that can of worms right now, but also because I wasn't sure if being named by Time as one of the "25 Most Influential Teens of 2014" contributed to SIGCOV outside of BLP1E. I would argue it's part of the same event put perhaps slightly later coverage is considered "sustained"? This pair (sharing a wiki article) almost certainly shouldn't be retained though. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay but there is also Thomas Gernon, ~~Patrick Collison (2005)~~ , Aisling Judge (2006), Abdusalam Abubakar (2007), Emer Jones (2008), Liam McCarthy and John D. O'Callaghan (2009) all of which look very shaky and went on with quite normal lives (all except Patrick Collison). I see Ciara Judge is borderline but all of her awards are youth awards which generally do not count for NPROF but maybe for GNG, so I agree to leave her out of this for now. The others however do not look very notable to me. --hroest 03:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hannes Röst Yep I agree, except for Collison and maybe Judge the others should be brought to AfD as well. JoelleJay (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, although I don't doubt that this guy is likely to become notable in fairly short order. There are a good number of articles that mention him in recent years, but they are mostly in passing about some sort of publication (that doesn't seem to mention any substantial implementation). jp×g 03:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Product Test

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the burden to show notability is on those who argue to keep. Not one source has been produced, there is no argument to keep. Wikiepdia has no grandfather clause, we do not keep rubbish articles from before 2010 when we started really enforcing notability guidelines now after 2020 just because no one was motivated enough to try to delete them during the 2010s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Putting all the drama aside, my WP:BEFORE has shown several passing mentions - 1, 2. This could have been a redirect to IBM, but this defunct company is not mentioned there and seems to have been an independent organization. It's a clear WP:GNG and WP:ORG fail. Less Unless (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Most of the sources I see are to the "IBM Product Test Laboratory", not the procedure itself.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sourcing is weak but may be notable due to being the origin of alpha and beta testing:

Mukesh Sharma; Rajini Padmanaban (2014). "Leveraging the Wisdom of the Crowd in Software Testing". CRC Press. pp. 4–5. ISBN 9781482254495.

There are some other sources, and a rename to IBM Product Test Laboratory would probably be in order if the article was kept:

"Money-Saving Device Not for Sale". Computerworld. 21 June 1976. - a newspaper article talking about an experimental power-switching device developed by the IBM Product Test Laboratory.
R.A. Frey; G.J. Ratchford; B.E. Wendling (1990). "Vibration and shock testing for computers". Annual Proceedings on Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ARMS.1990.67975. - a paper documenting work done at the IBM Product Test Laboratory on product vibration and shock testing.
The Tool & Manufacturing Engineer. American Society of Tool and Manufacturing Engineers. 1968. p. 8. - a book reporting on the development of a 'video motion sampler' at the IBM Product Test Laboratory.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Article is in terrible shape, bordering on unintelligible. And BEFORE searches return no reliable independent sources. As nominator points out, this article has been like this since 2007, so I'm proposing speedy delete given the shape the article is in. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talke (ward)

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of this two-sentence article checks out. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the source provided above being incorporated into the article, and lack of other rationale in nomination. jp×g 07:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sure, it exists, but how is it notable?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND its a legally recognized places though I'd consider merging to Talke. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Control booth

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what did you do to answer that question before nominating the article for deletion? If you want to honestly say that a subject has no in-depeth independent reliable sources, then you must check that for yourself. AFD is not a notability testing service. You are supposed to put in the effort to check that yourself before coming to AFD, otherwise you are just tagging articles and offloading your work onto other editors. I found chapter 15 of ISBN 9781483278353 almost immediately, which is an entire chapter in an Elsevier book about this subject. What research did you do? Uncle G (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously an encyclopedic topic. The fact that the article is currently poorly referenced and not well written is not relevant to its notability. The information will be found in numerous books about theatrical/film/tv production and architecture. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly notable subject, for which reliable sources instantly appeared once cursory effort was expended to find them. jp×g 07:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is encyclopaedic, and meets notability. Could do with more attention to making it a good article though. --RedHillian | Talk 22:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject. Sonofstar (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sources added - more than enough for WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Strike action. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition strike

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

Article has been unsourced since 2007. Notabilty needs to be reviewed. Coin945 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence checks out against ISBN 9780801833113 page 59. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Strike action Reywas92^Talk 18:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very clear dictionary definition. This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Strike action per Reywas92. Articles cover concepts. We do not need seperate articles on every word used to describe a concept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to strike action.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems like a quite notable concept to me; I've expanded the article and located six decent references. I would advise previous voters (@Reywas92: @Johnpacklambert: @Rusf10:) to reconsider in light of this. jp×g 00:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I still believe Merge is the most appropriate outcome. Not a large enough topic for its own article.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also see no reason this can't still be merged. "Notable concept" is not the same as "must be separate article." Reywas92^Talk 01:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it's a stub. There is plenty of information in the sources that could be used to expand it further; I've been referencing/expanding a large number of articles from this enormous batch and I can't really spend the time to bring each one to DYK/GA quality. It's not as though it would be impossible (or even particularly difficult), if anyone wanted to WP:SOFIXIT. jp×g 02:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a little bit more to be had than what you have on organization strikes, which are the same thing (per source above), in ISBN 9780403011483. Uncle G (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks; I've incorporated a reference to page 60 of that book in the article (although there is certainly more to be gotten from it). jp×g 03:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a term that only exists in the US? Are these never done in any other countries? That is what the article as written seems to imply without actual saying one way or the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Contrary to what SailingInABathTub asserts, the nomination cites a policy-based reason for deletion, namely, WP:V. Because nobody here can cite reliable sources to verify this content (apart from perhaps one book nobody here can access), deletion is mandatory. Sandstein 07:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-civilisation

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

Seems like a possibly notable topic, but this article has been unsourced since January 2007. Needs a deletion discussion. Coin945 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, I'd like to see it cited and kept, but a quick google search doesn't turn up much use of the term. I get the feeling other terms like quasi-state ( or it's alternate "proto-state") are often used instead, at least in the English language. I can't even find enough mentions of the term to suggest redirecting it to proto-state, even though the terms seem to almost overlap. Barring someone else finding information about the term somewhere, I guess deleting it is the policy compliant option. It can always be recreated if that changes.

I'm not sure this article is even on anyone else's watch list. I edited it once or twice, like 11 years ago. The creator was blocked for massive copyright violations in 2017, so they aren't going to pop up to argue for saving it. (I just checked their talk, wowza, an unblock request response reads "You've certainly been previously warned; the word "copyright" appears on this page no less than one hundred and twenty-eight times") So, who even know where the text he created this with even comes from? I could be a copyvio for all we know, except it doesn't show up in google searches, so maybe this is one of the few he didn't copyvio. He iro 07:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it fails number 7 on that list, "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". It's been unsourced for well over a decade. It was tagged as uncited and orphaned in 2009. Before I made my comment above I looked for information to cite and/or expand the article. I tried several variations of the spelling, just in case. I found several instances of it being used in a text, but nowhere did I find a definition or a discussion of the term, except on a few blogs. I couldn't find anything that would pass as a usable WP:RS . If you want to give it a try, feel free. If if no one is interested in adding citations to a 14 year old uncited orphaned stub, well. He iro 17:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say redirect to Gerald Heard, but one would have had to have read, or even just skimmed, The Source of Civilization for why. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we started actually enforcing Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. This is a ture mess of an article. The fact some are arguing for speedy keeping shows some people are not at all serious about improving Wikipedia and want it to continue to drown in unsourced prose. This is a non-notable neologism, and we would need lots of sources analizing it as a concept to make it anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an idea written about in 1935 by Gerald Heard, as I mentioned immediately above. Uncle G (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you have access to the citation, fix it. Otherwise it is still an uncited orphaned stub. Heiro 19:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You haven't read what's above, too. Actually read it, please. Uncle G (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I read it. I do not have access to that citation. I can't verify it. It proves nothing. If you have access, remedy the situation. He iro 19:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Come on! Actually read the words "I'd say redirect" please. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, you come on! I googled "Gerald Heard+proto-civilisation", in several variations. Nothing popped. We still need to WP:VERIFY that Gerald Heard and "proto-civilisation" are even connected before we redirect it. If they are I'd be perfectly fine with that. But so far I can't find evidence of it except for your assertion. He iro 20:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I've already given you the author, the publication date, and the title. It was published by Harper, although it has been republished by Wipf and Stock. Why not just try to read the book instead of doing Google searches? Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One person writing on a subject does not make it notable. The fact that one person proposed this idea is not enough to justify having an article on it. Verifiability guidelines speciffy that all articles must have sources in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can show that this term is widespread (not just used by one person)--Rusf10 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for improvement -- This is an article about a historiographic or anthopological concept as to the development of human society. Uncle G clearly has some kind of access to the book: please edit in appropriate improvements, including at least a citation of it. A book that has been republished is likely to have been influential, so that its concepts are likely to be notable. Heard died in 1971, which makes it unsurprising that the nom can find little on the Internet, but not long enough ago for the book to be out of copyright. A redirect to Heard will not do, as that article talks about other aspects of his life but says little of his archaeological/anthropological work, which is clearly where this comes in. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the subject is notable. There was also a mild suggestion of a possible merge as a subtopic of streaming algorithm; it lacked consensus here but could be revisited via a future merge proposal. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One-pass algorithm

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loads of hits on scholar and google about this. I believe it can be brought up to encyclopedic standards. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 10:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to find an actual source for this, but that's because (a) it's so basic and (b) this needs to be treated in a different way. Knuth discusses both single- and multiple- pass algorithms in TAoCP, in the "Coroutines" section, if anyone wants to have Wikipedia discuss this in the way that an expert does. But I see no need for any administrator tools in renaming, refactoring, rewriting, and improving an article that one has researched. Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. This is a very basic topic: a lot of the results via google are essentially just lecture notes and lecture slides. But what do you mean treated in a different way? I think there's enough material in sources, and precedent on Wikipedia, for one-pass algorithm and multi-pass algorithm to exist. I will look into TAoCP. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Knuth points out that it's a vague concept, and treats both together. Enjoy. Volume 1, of course. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a list of possible sources for the article at Talk:One-pass algorithm //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 15:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No valid reason given for speedy keeping. The article only has one listed source. This article as it stands does not pass GNG, although it may well be possible to add enough sourcing to pass that. We should never speedy keep articles that do not as they are written pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO the article should be kept and cleaned up. The distinction is important in CS, as a one-pass algorithm by definition can deal with arbitrarily large input with bounded memory. I no longer remember who wrote what, but the definition is clear and useful, and the term itself is clearly in use. To me, the fact that a lot of the references are in things like CS course notes tells me that a Wikipedia page on the topic would be useful, but I don't know where that lands us with Notability standards. The part on cluster representatives seems specific to database algorithms, so I'd be inclined to take it out. I'll see if I can dig up a few references and do a little cleanup --dmh

Keep I missed the link to streaming algorithm. With the text on cluster representatives removed, I think this article is about right: The full details, including the mechanics, are covered under streaming algorithm. This article just calls out that a one-pass algorithm is a particular kind of streaming algorithm, and gives examples of what you can and can't do in one pass. It adds an increment of value over streaming algorithm but mentions some specifics about one-pass algorithms in particular. The one area of improvement would be the examples. It would be good to call out a case that can be solved in more than one pass but not in one. As to notability, "one-pass" algorithm is definitely a term of art in CS. I think the hits for CS courses attest to this, but I don't think they need to be included in the article as references, since they only support notability and don't particularly add to the understanding beyond what's already in the article. --dmh. — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important subtopic of streaming algorithms. If it were stubbier, or the streaming algorithm article less broad, then a merge rather than deletion might be warranted, but as it is I think it works well enough as a stand-alone article. Googls Scholar has over 10k hits for "one pass" "streaming" and about the same number for "single pass" "streaming" so notability or availability of sourcing should not be an issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs some more work, but I have added some additional references, more are quite readily available (from searching "one-pass algorithm" or "single-pass algorithm") and it seems fine to me as a stub. jp×g 23:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, maybe fold into streaming algorithm. I've twice seen material here that's more about particular kinds of streaming algorithm and not about one-pass algorithms in general. First, with the earlier material on cluster representatives, and recently with an assertion that one-pass algorithms work by filtering -- reading input blocks and writing output blocks. Some do, but I don't think any of the original examples do (e.g., finding the sum of a list of numbers). On the other hand, I believe both techniques can just as well be used with multi-pass streaming algorithms. Certainly filtering can -- ask any UNIX pipeline. Rather than having such useful information continually end up in this article, it might be better to make the body of this article a subsection of streaming algorithm and leave this page as a redirect to that section. That still recognizes that one-pass algorithms are a thing, but keeps the technical details under streaming algorithm where (I think) they belong Dmh (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all streaming algorithms are one-pass algorithms. Streaming algorithms are a broader topic. In particular, turnstile model streaming algorithms are not one-pass algorithms. So although this is a subtopic of streaming algorithms, it is distinct enough from the broader topic that I think it can stand on its own. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Methods of divination#T. Sandstein 09:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myrmomancy

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well Lewis Spence thinks that it's encyclopaedic, at least, as xe gave it an article in xyr own encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah! I take this back. I peered at the blurred letters again, and I think that it actually says myomancy, the one with mice. Mice! Uncle G (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the deletion nominator may have done a poor job of arguing for it, a quick search reveals no sign of notability (nada from GScholar, and nothing reliable or notable from Google). Or a reliable source on the subject. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That mush have been a very quick search, as it took me about a minute to find the aforementioned encyclopaedia and scroll down its index to find myrmomancy on page 281. It actually took longer to check out the credentials of the author. I can only see the index, though, and I might be misreading the page number as the text is somewhat blurred. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll admit to have paid much more attention to the GScholar search than the Google one (consequence of where I normally edit), but all I got on the Google search were some highly questionable blogs/how-to New Age-y websites; in other words, nothing that would pass as reliable. I do wonder if any of those mentions predate the Wikipedia article. The below proposal to redirect is reasonable. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - It turns out that this was the one with mice. Search engine fuzzy matching + anti-aliased fonts + tiny little letters in the first place. Lewis Spence actually wanted to combat the questionable stuff, and would have been fairly reliable had xe had it. I wasn't going for the rubbish WWW sites. ☺ Mice! Uncle G (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Methods_of_divination#T, I don't see notability here either. Reywas92^Talk 17:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "T"? ☺ It's true that "X is a special kind of Y which in turn is a special kind of Z" does apply to more than just one X, and one book that I found that I wouldn't use, because the author does not seem to be an expert in the field, does give a long laundry list of "-mancy"s. Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We do not need seperate articles on every term used when we can describe them in a broader more comprehensive article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, a general lack of demonstrated notability, and a general lack of evidence that this is not a thing which was made up one day. jp×g 07:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:ONEDAY and WP:NOTDIC. While there is weak evidence that divination using ants is a thing, there isn't any evidence that this is an accepted name for it. There isn't even evidence to suggest that this is an accepted word - it does not appear in any reliable dictionaries. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing test requirement design specification

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is very clearly a dictionary definition. All articles need sources as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no evidence that this type of document is really an indepdently notable topic from other design related documents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not seeing any sources to support this.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article provides no real useful content, there's no sources, and this does not seem like a real thing to me. There are are a whopping 25 Google results for this phrase. All of them seem to be Wikipedia mirrors, content mills, or whatever the hell this is. jp×g 07:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, to Quality assurance. I suspect that this term is specific to the author's then employer. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kråkevisa

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/Procedural Keep and improve. This nomination is illegitimate per WP:DEL-REASON, WP:BEFORE, and WP:NEXIST. Note that this folk song has several different titles, and I was able to find numerous Google Books results for most of them as the song is a known item of Norwegian folklore. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP etc. I added a few things from no-Wiki. Ingratis (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a couple more refs, in Norwegian. Ingratis (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy keep All those votes should be ignored. When something comes to AfD it represents the investment of time to do three times as much editing at least as what is required to create an article, and it opens people up to very negative reactions so it is also emotionally difficult. We need to consider the merit of the topic. We should absolutely never allow procedural keeps. I would be interested in seeing the above editor explain what these alleged found sources are, and explain how they meet the rublic of being reliable, 3rd party indepdent sources that provide significant indepth coverage. Not all mentions of something are enough to show notability. We need to actually consider this on its merits, not dismiss an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Especially when the articles were allow to sit without any sources for 14 years. We need to improve Wikipedia, and speedy closing nomination like this will not do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The votes that you think should be ignored cited four different Wikipedia guidelines that were violated by the nomination, so you are effectively saying that those guidelines should be ignored too. That is an argument to be had elsewhere. And if you think such a discussion is "emotionally difficult", nobody forced you into it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of right now, I count four references in the article: there is absolutely no "unsourced" argument to be made. If an article sits without sources for a number of years, that's sad, but there are ways besides deletion to fix this (as has been demonstrated here and elsewhere). jp×g 23:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External flow

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered by the preface and the whole of chapter 12 of ISBN 9781498724432. Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear violation of our rule against dictionary defintions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SailingInABathTub and Uncle G, the article needs to be updated but it seems like it can be brought up to the standards laid out in WP:RS. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 06:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability guidelines mandate that all articles have sources. People should not vote to keep based on sources until they have bothered to incorporate the sources into the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a content guideline, not a deletion guideline. If articles existed at George Washington or Computer that lacked sources, this would not justify deletion; the fact that an article lacks sources at some point is not an indication that it's non-notable or cannot be sourced. jp×g 06:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, @Johnpacklambert: the comment about "bothering to incorporating sources" seems a bit inaccurate; I've spent the majority of today searching for sources and incorporating into articles from this enormous batch nomination, and have only gotten through a few of them. The issue is not that people "don't bother" to reference these articles, it's that it is impossible to do this at a rate that keeps up with high-volume "delete" !votes. It's usually quite straightforward to find these (often as easy as a simple Google search), incorporating them into the article as inline citations and formatting the references properly takes much more time than the thirty to fifty seconds necessary to !vote "Delete". jp×g 06:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair, if an article existed at George Washington or Computer that lacked sources, I would vote 'Delete', as even if the subject is notable, who knows if the information about the subject is accurate? It's potentially quite dangerous and I'd prefer no article (for now - able to be recreated in the future) than an unverified one. Just my two cents. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Presumably, it would be quite easy and simple to find a WP:RS mentioning the existence of computers, and certainly less effort than nominating an AfD, requiring people to discuss it for seven days, requiring someone to close it, and then requiring yet more people to realize someday that there was no article about computers and create one (with the pallor of a failed AfD hanging over them the whole time). jp×g 06:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory search revealed five fluid mechanics papers mentioning and using the term, which I have added as references, with appropriate inline citations. jp×g 06:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: six papers. jp×g 06:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. An article without sources is an article to improve, as per the foundations of Wikipedia. If there are no sources/citations. that's something to improve upon, not necessarily something to strike down or remove. doktorb _words^deeds 08:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are now references. It would be nicer if they were included as foot notes supporting specific statements in the text instead of just slapped on at the end. When I made the statement above I am 99% sure there had not yet been any sources added to the article. One can not attack me earlier for not having the cleavoyance to see what will happen later. This is all the more true because I can show you multiple discussions at AfD where those wanting to keep never bothered to add anything to the article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. This has a bit of the feeling to me of an article that slaps two commonly-used keywords together ("external" and "flow") and in such cases we shouldn't argue for notability merely based on the existence of many sources that happen to juxtapose the same two keywords. Is this really a notable subtopic of fluid dynamics? If so, for this kind of subject, we should be able to find textbook sources that list it as a subtopic among other kinds of flow, rather than the kind of poor sourcing (various specific primary sources about specific flow computations rather than this general topic) that we currently have. Uncle G's book source is much more convincing, but it's still only one source, and it's hard to tell whether its organization of the topic is idiosyncratic or standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is significant coverage in multiple independent WP:RS.

Sherwin Keith; Michael Horsley (1996). Thermofluids. Vol. 1. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780412598005. - This book has a whole chapter on the subject, Chapter 15: External Flow.
Merle C. Potter; David C. Wiggert; Bassem H. Ramadan (2016). Mechanics of Fluids, SI Edition. Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781305887701. - This book also has a whole chapter on the subject, Chapter 8: External Flows.
Y. C. Fung (1990). Biomechanics: Motion, Flow, Stress, and Growth. pp. 62–105. ISBN 978-1-4757-5913-6. - This book has another whole chapter on the subject, Chapter 3: External Flow: Fluid Dynamic Forces Acting on Moving Bodies.
Jamal M. Saleh (2002). Fluid Flow Handbook. McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 9780071363723. This book has yet another whole chapter on the subject, Chapter 20: Flow past immersed objects.
Bruce R. Munson; Donald F. Young; Theodore H. Okiishi (1994). Fundamentals of fluid mechanics. Wiley. p. 555. ISBN 9780471579588. - This book has a section on the subject, 9.1 General External Flow Characteristics.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Condition subsequent

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Said question clearly not even attempted to be answered by you before you just off-loaded your work onto other editors, because Google Books took me straight to Josiah William Smith's discussion of this in xyr A Compendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property. You have thrown a whole bunch of zero-research nominations at AFD today, making others do the work for you that you should do yourself before nominating things for deletion on grounds of notability. The "fix" part of Wikipedia:find and fix a stub has always been important. Please actually do that bit yourself if you find a poor stub. Research your AFD nominations. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictioary. This article as written belongs in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should not speedy keep this article. We need to consider it on the metis. What we need to determine is if this is an important enough concept in law to merit an article. I know some about law, but not the highly technical side, more the procedural court side. I do not know where to start looking, but we should not knee jerk keep articles without sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Literally the first page of Google results gave me seven high-quality sources, which I added to the article with appropriate inline citations. This is a clearly notable subject, about which plenty of information exists everywhere about us: si quaeris codex amoenam, circumspice. jp×g 23:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- codicem, certe? Uncle G (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uncle G: Reparavi. jp×g 04:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compelled signalling

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article was indeed unsourced but now no longer is. JanCeuleers (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very clear Violation of our guidelines against dictionary definitions. Back before 2010 people went around creating dictionary definition articles for all sorts of things. Many have been removed, but those that refered to very specific things have often survived. As far as I can tell this does seem to be a dictionary definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Signaling (telecommunications) where it is mentioned.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, further sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SailingInABathTub's additional sourcing supports notability. PianoDan (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the addition of sources which seem to resolve the only issue at hand (that it was unsourced). I do not know what the "dictionary definition" thing is about (this is a multiple-paragraph explanation of a concept as it relates to other concepts): articles which explain what a thing is in depth are certainly in scope for Wikipedia. jp×g 22:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting intelligence

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague and unsourced, reads as OR and synthesis. Search results for the term do not match the article's contents. Reywas92^Talk 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We would need sources that show that this term is actually regularly used in reliable sources, and reliable sources that show this term has a history, we lack either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked in a couple of news databases as well as using a search engine, I agree with Reywas92 that "Search results for the term do not match the article's contents". This may be a valid subject for an article, but it seems to me it would be better to delete what is here and start anew, if that is the case. I think it falls foul of WP:DEL-REASON #7. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not seem to me like a real thing with an objective definition. The term may be used every once in a while to refer to a loose collection of concepts (as it is here and here), but it doesn't seem to me like there is a concrete thing referred to by everyone who talks about "accounting intelligence", beyond the tautology of "collecting and analyzing intelligence that is related to accounting in some way". jp×g 06:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 05:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1840s in sociology

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid article. Geschichte (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timeline articles are perfectly fine (and notability for the list itself isn't needed if its contents are notable), and even though it's uncited a quick spot-check against the articles themselves shows everything is in the correct year. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Uses x - this type of article as well as the lists are notable based on the amount and quality of the content presented. Less Unless (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per comments above. The article's notability is vicariously granted from the notability of the individual items in the timeline.--Coin945 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Low-pass filter#First order. Sandstein 07:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passive integrator circuit

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~: There are some hits on Google Scholar, and I see some coverage in a few articles like this review article, this report (pdf), and this article (unclear quality of the journal). The level of coverage there probably qualifies the subject for WP:GNG, but I couldn't find an RS that gives an overview of the topic. It seems to come up a lot in relation to Rogowski coils and there are probably electrical engineering textbooks that cover this, but I don't really know where to look. I'll ping Wikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineering and Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Low-pass filter#First order: given the overlap and existing coverage as described by SailingInABathTub below. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Low-pass_filter#First_order as they are one and the same. The content of this article is largely the same as RC_circuit#Series_circuit and does not need to be preserved. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete, as suggested above or to RC_circuit#Integrator or Integrator#Practical integrator (lossy integrator), either of which might provide less of a surprise to someone using the link. The topic "passive integrator circuit" is too much of a hack to deserve and article of its own and its embodiment will be highly context-dependent, even if the concept exists. Because it is not really a standalone topic and it does not "belong" under any specific primary topic, deleting it might be appropriate. —Quondum 16:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why is notability in question? Has anyone tried cracking a basic electronics text? I appreciate that the article needs improvement but we don't need to involve AfD for this - WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Posing an indirect question does not establish notability. We have failed to establish that this is notable as a stand-alone topic. —Quondum 22:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quondum, I see now that MarkH21 has taken a crack at it. He's right, there will be no problem finding coverage in an electrical engineering textbook. Do you doubt this? ~Kvng (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is not the issue, it is notable. It's just that a passive integrator circuit is exactly the same as, and better known as a low pass filter. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Passive integrator" is not equivalent to "low-pass filter". There are many non-passive low-pass filters, and there are many passive circuits that could be considered to approximate integration. There are also many passive low-pass filters that do nothing resembling integration. Even a passive first-order low-pass filter is not considered to be synonymous with "integrator", unless its purpose is thought of as being integration of a signal. Until you nail the concept, a debate of its notability is not happening. A much nicer example of a passive integrator is a shunt capacitor being driven by a current source and with voltage as its output, but we would not normally call this a low-pass filter. "Passive integrator" is a bad name for a fuzzy concept. Notability needs suitable references, and these have not been forthcoming. —Quondum 00:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        This article just describes a first-order RC low-pass filter. We don’t need two copies of this. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed on the content. That leaves the question of what to do with the page Passive integrator circuit: redirect (if so, where to is less than obvious) or delete? —Quondum 00:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see my re-direct vote above. SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        SailingInABathTub, you propose to redirect to Low-pass_filter#First_order but claim that the content of Passive integrator circuit does not need to be preserved because it already exists at RC_circuit#Series_circuit. This seems, on its face, inconsistent.
        When coverage of a topic is fragmented, one possible solution is to apply WP:SUMMARY style. In this case that would mean retaining Passive integrator circuit and thinning the content elsewhere and using {{main}} to reference Passive integrator circuit in those places. ~Kvng (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Said WP:SUMMARY and the links to the relevant subtopics RC_circuit#Series_circuit, and RL_circuit#Series_circuit can already be found at Low-pass_filter#First_order. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        SailingInABathTub, The current organization doesn't strike me as particularly effective or accessible and I don't think that deleting Passive integrator circuit would improve things. ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is acknowledged to be notable. The issue here is subject matter organization and accessibility. Deletion of Passive integrator circuit does not clearly improve things. As things are improved Passive integrator circuit may turn out to be useful or, minimally, end up as a redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged by whom? Please provide the usual evidence of notability to substantiate your claim. —Quondum 01:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Quondum, by SailingInABathTub (see discussion above). I'm not in the mood to do busy work in my field of expertise. ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I am happy with a redirect, per SailingInABathTub. I just don't think it merits a standalone article based on what we have, even with improvement. —Quondum 14:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Colorfulness. But no prejudice against retargeting to tints and shades if that's felt to be better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paleness (color)

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does not appear to be an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps a redirect to Color theory? StarM 17:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. It is good to finally have someone moving against such massive misuse of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colorfulness or Tints and shades. Don't see the need for a separate page for a dictionary definition. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know how pages can have big banners on the top and yet people still ignore them? I saw this article in the same pile of unsourced stuff and dug up some sources on the subject before even noticing there was an AfD. Derp. Anyway, from all the little blurbs I've read, typically 'paleness' is a observation of the result of some kind of effect; 'adding white' 'low saturation', etc. I think that generally qualifies something as a definition. It doesn't seem like there's research into the artistic definition of paleness (as opposed to medical paleness) so building a meaty article would be a challenge. Unfortunately, the term is so broad that I don't see how it could be merged into only ONE of the suggested articles above (and the color theory article is so technical and just unpleasant to read, I wouldn't redirect it there). Because I did put in a WP:Before effort, I'll post the findings on the article's talk page in case someone else wants to examine them for their meritcs. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tints and shades for now. It seems there is not enough out there to support a sperate article per Estheim's comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Paleness isn't a fundamental property of color, but how close to white a color is. It involves two properties, Luminance and Colorfulness. Colorfulness is the most appropriate target for redirection. Vexations (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Theme (narrative). Content can be merged from history, and the article can be recreated if adequate sources are found. Contrary to what SailingInABathTub asserts, the nomination cites two policy-based reasons for deletion. Sandstein 07:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theme (arts)

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This in a dictionary defintion not an encyclopedia article. I very much applaud the nominator for finally being willing to stand up to some of these unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is still an open merge discussion on the article’s talk page. We should at least acknowledge that. 75.34.24.18 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This one is a bit hard. It's a generic concept that seems like it should be notable, but the article is unsourced (WP:OR), and my quick BEFORE failed to find anything. Now this is something I'd hope some of the inclusionist rescuers could take interest in, although as it is not a comic book character or likewise fan trivia, I am not sure how likely this is to happen. IF better sources are found, do ping me so I can reconsider my vote. Right now, however, I am thinking WP:TNT due to 100% OR issues, no prejducie to this being recreated one day with sources etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the discussion that has languished since Novemeber 2020. Some times I think we should change AfD to Articles for discussion, like CfD is Categories for discussion, because discussions of renames and especially mergers often languish in ignored obscurity. I mean merger discussions should not last 4 months unless there is a lot of discussion. I am not sure the target is exactly the same, but at least it has sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, Given the lack of references, I find merging problematic. Are we merging OR or hoaxes? Who's to tell if there are no refs? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you seriously think this is a hoax? In any case, this title arguably covers the broadest scope among the similar articles, so content could perhaps be moved TO this page. Lots of pages link here, so at least a redirect would be useful. 75.34.27.208 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Theme (narrative) and Subject (music), without prejudice to eventual recreation. There just isn't enough here to justify a standalone article; it's a vague enough subject that it's obviously notable enough and could obviously be fleshed out by a sufficiently motivated editor, but a subject with this little content written about it doesn't really need to be split across three articles. jp×g 03:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redeict to Theme (narrative). If people can find sources to support alterations or changes to the scope they are free to do so. I am not really sure there is much here to merge anyway, so I am not sure there is a real distinction between merge and redirect at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of As the World Turns characters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Snyder

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SailingInABathTub, They don't have to, it obviously fails WP:GNG. That's enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. Please familiarise yourself with WP:BEFORE. Block nominating articles without doing this is WP:DE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional characters need sources to show that they are notable in a sense in the real world. Having no sources at all on a fictional chacter is always a balid reason to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of As the World Turns characters. If there are reliable sources that demonstrate notability, by all means use them and perhaps one day enough non-affiliated, non-fan produced content might exist to warrant a stand-alone article. But until then, this topic does not warrant its own article. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per my comment above, plus animalparty's just above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've found out that we have a List of As the World Turns characters, List of As the World Turns recurring characters, and As the World Turns cast members -- wow! Looking through those articles, it doesn't seem very common for characters to have their own articles linked, and of the ones linked, many of them seem to just redirect to the lists. Certainly, having a standalone article for a soap opera character would require more establishment of notability than is on display here. "Natalie Snyder" "As the World Turns" returns a whopping 52 Google results; of these, a large number are Wikipedia mirrors, and many more seem to be other wikis. The few that seem like they could be adequate sources seem to be simple cast listings. It's possible that there could be offline sources, but it doesn't seem likely to me that these would demonstrate enough notability to have a standalone article for this character. jp×g 03:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to List of As the World Turns characters. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 10:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibuli

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we can find a better source that indicate this have some type of legal designation, then its get kept under WP:GEOLAND. Otherwise, not sure. Needs better sources, which I haven't been able to find.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article has been updated, while still lacking some sources, the fact that it has its own postal code shows that it is legally recognised per WP:GEOLAND. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the three sources that have been added since nomination that, to me, seem like they pretty clearly show that this place exists and that people live there. jp×g 22:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added another source, that documents the kind of road connecting it to another village. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its a real village where people live. There is no reason to delete.--Chuka Chief_talk 14:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Left-hand muting

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also known as fret-hand muting this type of mute (music)#Fretted quickly turned up in a For Dummies book, ISBN 9780470550182. Uncle G (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid guitar technique (wow, I can actually use something I learned in college on Wikipedia!). I mean, I personally prefer palm muting with the right hand, but this technique works too. Needs some sourcing, and perhaps if there are some properly licensed drawings or photographs to illustrate the technique, that would be a good thing to add. But the subject itself is fine. AfD is NOT CLEANUP! Hyperion35 (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even more dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we do not have articles just to define every term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very quick search turned up six references, which I've added (with inline citations). The "unsourced" argument does not apply here: article could use some more work, but deletion is not the appropriate reaction to this state of affairs. jp×g 02:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pani

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of unsourced rubbish. We do not keep articles without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy is that we do not keep articles for which sources cannot be found. Please familiarize yourself with policy. You're getting several of them wrong. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you are wrong. This article violates verrifiaility. Verrifiability policy says that sources must exist for all articles. We have had this discussion before. Articles need to have sources to be verrified. There are other contradicting things that say other things, but verrifiability says that articles must be sourced to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Verifiability is a content policy. Wikipedia:deletion policy is the deletion policy. As I said, you are getting this wrong. Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles themselves. Per the guideline, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Furthermore, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a content policy, whereas Wikipedia:deletion policy is Wikipedia's deletion policy. The rationale above to base notability upon whether or not articles are sourced, and therefore verified, is a conflation that is not congruent with Wikipedia's deletion policy whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article is now adequately sourced, which makes the above debate (and the nomination itself) more or less irrelevant since that was the only complaint. jp×g 22:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The article now includes a bog-standard list of notable and bluelinked people with a surname, not needing sources, so we don't need to argue about notability (we always keep such lists), and the remaining part of the article looks adequately sourced to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Name lists allowed per MOS:DABNAME and meets WP:APOS. Cleanup of unsourced text is outside of scope of AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priming (science)

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leaving aside the issue of sourcing, this is a little chat about a word, in unencyclopedic voice. The word does not appear in a handy Oxford reference ("Dictionary of Science"), and it is not clear that this is really a generally defined process. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that you'll find it under "washing", if they bothered to put it in at all, because it's only borderline jargon. This was a good-faith attempt to handle Special:Diff/86373698 during an article split of priming. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename This either needs to be deleted, or renamed and rewritten under "Washing" if that is the term used in reliable sources. The article also needs reliable sources. Even then, I could see this being merged into a broader article on laboratory processes, chemistry, or organic chemistry. Finally, Wikipedia is not a How-To manual, so I'm not entirely sure as to the point of this article. I mean, "be careful, water isn't always the proper solvent to clean your equipment" is not really something that deserves an article. But I will concede that the problem here might be that this is just such a poorly-written article that the relevance and notability is unclear. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like this article was created by being split off from a larger article by someone unfamiliar with the field (it would be Priming (chemistry), for one). This is a thing which is done sometimes, but I've never heard it called "priming" and a brief literature search suggests that it is not referred to as this by anyone else, either. Looking at the main article for Washing -- boy, that's a pile if I've ever seen one -- it would probably work better there, or nowhere at all (since there aren't any sources I could find for this). jp×g 01:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proton (supermarkets)

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability. It's literally in the above original statement. You've made this identical copy and pasted statement on multiple AFDs, and are wrong in every single instance I checked. You have also made no edits to improve any of the articles with references. He iro 19:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them pulling together sources for a number of articles in this batch, such as (off the top of my head) Pani, Lobster hook, and Shibuli. Maybe this comment was true immediately after the enormous batch nomination of several dozen articles, but it isn't true now. jp×g 23:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an institution this has to pass the notability guidelines for institutions which are even more stringent than the GNG which requires multiple reliable, indepdent, secondary, sources that give in-depth, significant coverage to the institution. The total lack of any sourcing is a clear failure of such. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, we do not keep every article created before 2010 just because no one has bothered to try and dlete it yet. We have enough druk on Wikipedia, we absolutely do not need to speedy keep any of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reliable sources can be found (I couldn't come up with any; I expect that they'd all be in Greek). You hate to see it. But, as far as I can tell, this is a medium-size supermarket chain (not inherently notable). jp×g 23:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passive attack

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

Article has been unsourced since 2004. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both Google Scholar and Google Books show massive availability of relevant-looking sourcing. Was any WP:BEFORE done? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of notability is a valid deletion rationale. If there is "massive availability of relevant-looking sourcing", it should not be a problem to add some of them to the article to solve this apparent non-notability issue once and for all. Pavlor (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Verifiability guidelines say that articles need to have sources, not just that sources need to exist. At a minimum people should specify what sources they found would be usable to show notability, but really editors should go to the trouble of adding in the sources in the article before just stating we should keep the article. AfD runs 7 days, and can be extended, for the very reason to give people ample time to edit an expand articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This attitude expressed by User:Pavlor and you, that an article can be kept only after sources are added, flies in the face of WP:BEFORE and WP:GNG, which both clearly state that notability is about the existence of sources, not about what's actually in the article. It makes me want to refuse to improve the article until the AfD is over just to prove to you that you are wrong. It may be reasonable in some cases to ask that the sources at least be listed in the AfD, when finding them is not obvious or when there are many dubious sources and the question is whether any of them are good enough. It is not reasonable in this instance, because finding good sources is very easy and the difficulty is making a choice among too many of them for the best to cite within the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not "vote" delete, explicitly giving this article a benefit of doubt. I rescued several articles about obscure computer history related subjects from prod/AfD with much harder access to sources. That is why I don´t like generalizing comments such as "massive availability of relevant-looking sourcing" - posting few good examples is far more helpful. And this is exactly what a fellow editor JPxG did: added sources really help to establish notability - at least in my POV. Well done! So, no reason not to keep this article. Pavlor (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A clearly notable subject, for which cursory searching allowed for a very large number of academic papers to be found as references. I've gone through the trouble of adding six references with inline citations; this took about ten minutes. jp×g 22:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep , weakly - no prejudice against a renomination by someone who has done a thorough BEFORE analysis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Jam (TV series)

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Their referral to "notability" presumably refers to Wikipedia:Notability. Are you saying it is notable?—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying that the nominator does not say that it is not. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator has mass-nominated just over 50 random articles today all with the same rationale, and, as almost inevitably happens in these cases, people are resisting that. Uncle G (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced bunch of rubbish on a non-notable TV program.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was able to find a couple sources online, but they were fairly scant on information, and I'm not sure about notability. jp×g 08:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep The sourcing is not very good, but it is enough to pass our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the references come from the same source. Anybody able to track down other sources? Foxnpichu (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I could find. There were a huge number of websites scraped from Wikipedia, which clogged up my search a lot. I imagine someone with an iron stomach might be able to trawl through the crap and find something, though. Perhaps someone who spoke Filipino would have a better shot. jp×g 20:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I suppose I’ll throw in a Weak Keep for now, though I might change my mind. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masked Mystery Villain

Note: This article has been moved since the beginning of the deletion discussion from Masked Mystery Villain to Mystery villain as a more appropriate title of the topic.

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SailingInABathTub, Please familiarize yourself with our policies. The rationale is completely fine - the ops, I mean, yours is wrong. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarise yourself with WP:BEFORE. Block nominating articles without doing this is WP:DE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause. We need sources for everything. Unless someone can put forth sources we need to delete this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR about an fictional archeotype. Which could be notable, but no sources are given, nor did my BEFORE find any. The term exists outside Wikipedia but unless someone shows it has been defined and received WP:SIGCOV, well, there's not much we can do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC) PS. Sources found by Daranios seem to indicate potential for saving this. I am not yet convinced enough to vote keep, but I am no longer confident voting delete either. Looking forward to seeing more sources, preferably in the improved article itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been moved to a more suitable title, which is substantiated by sources: the term "Masked Mystery Villain" returns virtually nothing apart from this article, which to me indicates a good deal of OR went into its title, but the concept of masked villains as a genuine stock character in serials and horror films is backed up by at least two sources I was able to find with minimal effort. It is no longer unreferenced, which was the sole complaint in the nomination. jp×g 08:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- JPxG, Per my comment below, the title is not substantiated by sources. The ones added to the article fail SIGCOV by a longshot. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: I exhort you to read further: that book source mentions it in a good bit further depth. There's the abstract on p. 145, but there's also, for example, this from p. 146-147: The Exploits of Elaine’s combination of a fictional detective, a murder plot, a masked master villain, and gunslinging action seem to prefigure elements that were to become generic to later film serials, especially in the 1920s and 1930s and on p. 150 we have This narrative strategy entails a large number of close-ups of objects, which enables the film’s viewers to trace the villain’s steps before the arrival of the detective. jp×g 04:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - And then there's also pp. 170-171, where it is discussed what consequences the use of a masked villain has for the filmmaker, use of camera, and engagement of the viewer. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Daranios, Would you mind providing the most relevant quote, or a link to the page view? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Piotrus: "The surveillant camera perspective occasionally poses a problem for a narrative that continuously promises but serially defers the identification of its cloaked master villain. The camera depicts the villain and his actions from the beginning and thus always threatens to prematurely reveal his identity. ... allowing the villain and the camera to engage playfully with notions of masking and unmasking. ... highlights its dialectic of surveillance and concealment ... foregrounds the camera angle and the serial’s visual technique of hiding the villain in plain sight. .. Such scenes tease the viewers, foster their interest in the villain’s identity ... and underline the filmmaker’s capacity to decide when to reveal the villain’s face. ...remind viewers that an image of the villain’s face would be informative indeed." Hope that was not too long for copyright reasons. The whole story can be seen at the link you already provided, if you'd like to scroll down to pp. 170-171. To show that such analysis is not specific to the series that source focusses on, compare Film Sequels p. 56: "...defines a particularly engaging spectatorial activity because of the repeated concept of a masked villain who hides..." Daranios (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        JPxG, I have read the quote provided, but unfortunately, I do not see how it meets SIGCOV, it's a classic example of mention in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPxG, the improvements made and the secondary sources found. As Piotrus has stated, even the original term "Masked Mystery Villain" exists, and in my opinion it would be great to present that in some form on Wikipedia, but sources were hard to come by. For "Masked Villain", two more sources the search finds are Film Sequels: Theory and Practice from Hollywood to Bollywood and Masks in Horror Cinema: Eyes Without Faces. The latter seems to be a book-length treatment of the Mask#Horror film section. It is unfortunately not searchable, so the amount that refers explicitly to "Masked Villain" is not immediately clear. But this article seems the right spot to split out and expand a Mask#Horror film section that is probably to large to fit into Mask if that source was properly used. Daranios (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Daranios, The first source you found may contain some discussion, but we need to confirm it first - we can't assume the coverage goes beyond one-two sentences, it may or may not. The second does not seem to use the term 'masked villain' at all as far as I can tell (it appears searchable to me)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus In the section of Film Sequels that I can see there are indeed only two sentences, giving the basic definition of the concept, and, like "Detectives, Traces, and Repetition in The Exploits of Elaine" pp. 170-171 as described above, what avenue the trope provides for the engagement of the viewer.
  - Masks in Horror Cinema: The book can tell us something about the masked villain in sections that talk about use of the mask in horror film without mentioning the term. Or in other words, where on Wikipedia would you put such information instead of here? But the previews alone give non-trivial treament including the term: "the iconography of a black clad, masked villain soon typical in both horror cinema and pulp fiction", "One of the great clichés of postmodern horror spawned from the series is the trope of the masked villain who almost always returns in the sequel, despite apparently being killed", "Masked villains as guardians of puritanical sexuality becomes a staple of the slasher subgenre..."
  - Lastly, these were the first promising-looking secondary sources I could find under the new search term. Have you or the other holders of a deletion opinion already carried out a WP:BEFORE search (which looks rather tedious here, separating trivial mentions from relevant ones) for the new term? Daranios (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another secondary source, the PhD thesis The Cinematic Boogeyman: The Folkloric Roots of the Slasher Villain, concentrating on the Slasher film, says that a significant portion of that genre depends on a masked villain: "slasher film feature a villain who is psychologically distanced from the audience/reader: the killer ... remains unknown and unknowable (he is a gloved hand, he wears a mask, he is a silhouette), or else he is a 'maniac'" (p. 64), "often involved a masked killer" (p. 95), "the figure of Death that is manifested in the form of a masked and/or disfigured villain" (p. 187). While Masks in Horror Cinema names Poe as one source for the trope, this thesis points to the bogeyman as inspiration, and talks about what the implicates: "The mask is utilized extensively in filmic depictions of the Boogeyman to convey the fact that he is psychologically removed from the other characters in the narrative." (p. 195) So again, I think there would be a lot to write about in this article if existing secondary source would be properly exploited. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Daranios, You are likely right; I'd rather have an article on this too. For now, I've withdrawn my vote. Thanks for the source search, hopefully you'll have time to add them to the article :) --03:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references that JPxG added are more than suitable to denote notability. Meanderingbartender (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moving articles during an AfD discussion would seem in general to be a disruptive behavior that muddies all the discussion of the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added notes about the move to avoid confusion as suggested in such a case by the "You may edit the article during the discussion" guideline, which specifically allows for such a move. So I think in combination with the notes this is not disruptive behaviour. When it helps us to identify if the topic may actually meet WP:GNG after all, it is instead laudable in the spirit of improvement before deletion, as seen in Wikipedia's WP:ATD policy. Daranios (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has now been referenced, but the sources are very weak. The first is a book chapter that mentions the term 'masked villain' twice in passing (once in the abstract), never defining or analyzing it. The mention in the text is a simple plot summary of some fictional work: "Kennedy and Jameson try to capture and identify the masked villain in a pursuit that covers the serial’s fourteen episodes". This is a far cry from WP:SIGCOV. The second reference added is, likewise, another mention in passing, if in an academic work [13]. The one and only sentence in that article that mentions the term goes "In Scream, the identity behind the masked villain is not immediately known to the audience." I am afraid that any claims that 'the article is now improved' need to do MUCH better than this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's more in that reference than a passing mention; you can see my above comment for more explanation. jp×g 04:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - JPxG, I have reviewed the quote provided and so far I am sorry, but it reads like a passing mention exactly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @SailingInABathTub:, @JPxG:, @Daranios:, and @Meanderingbartender:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources demonstrated in this discussion, and by other editors who precede me. Haleth (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the closer: This article has been moved since the beginning of the deletion discussion from Masked Mystery Villain to Mystery villain as a more appropriate title of the topic.

Keep per the sources. Sonofstar (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Som Shekar

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. It is one of many promotional articles created for Bigg Boss (Tamil TV series) contestants by the same user Romil.Choudary, Bilal.Choudary2 and 58.108.86.194. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shariq Hassan. I request someone to create an afd discussion 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:690E:881A:67B:3FF1 (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 02:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 02:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 02:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 02:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Keep’’’: please do not remove this article. This article is about someone who has already acted in films and in detail. I will try my best to improve this article as much as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.10.250 (talk)
Delete: All the sources are giving some incidental or routine coverage. Also does not have that much notable roles in movies. Fails GNG and NACTOR. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant appearances in film, handful of reality shows, not enough to show notability. Ravensfire (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACTOR, series of minor roles/bit parts in barely noteworthy films. Appearances in Big Brother doesn’t count towards notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~”keep”~~ this article supports the subject and has great detailed information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.10.250 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. The standard is the existence of sources. It isn't a double standard; it's the same standard that applies all across Wikipedia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aranthangi Nisha

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:V. It is one of many promotional articles created for Bigg Boss (Tamil TV series) contestants by the same user Romil.Choudary, Bilal.Choudary2 and 58.108.86.194. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shariq Hassan. I request someone to create an afd discussion 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:690E:881A:67B:3FF1 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 02:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 02:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 02:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 02:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With the presenr sources, the subject fails NACTOR as well as GNG. Happy to change my vote if someone comes up with useful sources. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello Kichu🐘 i have changed up the reference section up with more reliable source.
Delete: Not seeing significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR, feels somewhat promotional in tone, sources are interviews, brief mentions or puff pieces, not good in-depth coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Roe Carr I have learnt that appearing in notable reality shows counts towards WP:NACTOR; Nisha has appeared in Bigg Boss (Tamil season 4), and Kalakka Povathu Yaaru? (season 5), as well as hosting Cooku with Comali, so she is notable. Keeping the English reality stars and deleting the Tamil ones is a clear double standard. Furius (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I agree with the developing consensus that this passes per Criteria 8 of WP:NMUSIC. Withdrawing. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 05:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patapaa

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

Non-notable musician, references do not constitute reliable secondary sources and the award nomination is for a non-significant music award. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria 8 of WP:NMUSIC as the nomination was for Ghana's major music awards The Vodafone Ghana Music Awards which are nationally broadcast as confopirmed by reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NMUSIC reads: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." Every national music award isn't a pass. nearlyevil 665 06:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can the Ghana Music Awards be considered a "major music award"? Where does it fit within the scope of "national" awards in Ghana?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering that WP:NMUSIC gives "Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." as an example of a major music award I would very much doubt that a national Ghana music award be even remotely considered as such. nearlyevil 665 13:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the highest national music awards are in Ghana? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be irrelevant? Criteria 8 of WP:NMUSIC says "major music award... such as Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis", not "major national music award...". The Vodafone Ghana Music Awards is nowhere near the level of the Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis. If my interpretation is wrong I'm more than willing to withdraw the nomination. nearlyevil 665 14:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Vodafone Ghana Music Awards is the highest level of music awards in Ghana, @Nearlyevil665: just like you are comparing to awards in the US, VGMA is a major award in Ghana too. If geographical location would be irrelevant then that would mean articles on these basis are useless in other or smaller countries. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for your input. Could I inquire into the source that would demonstrate said awards are the highest level of music awards in Ghana? nearlyevil 665 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nearlyevil665: what specifically do you want to know? Vodafone Ghana Music Awards should help you. Thanks. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 22:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main music awards of a country usually qualify as a major award for WP:NMUSIC. It obviously isn't limited to just a few mainly US awards as that would be entrenched systemic bias, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Leib

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

Fails WP:GNG (1."significant coverage" 2."reliable" sources 3. "secondary sources" "independent of the subject") and WP:POLITICIAN ("Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline").

Majority of page based on passing mentions and sources that are not independent of the subject (op-eds, speaker bureau bio, and other WP:PROMO fluff). Loksmythe (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this article does not demonstrate that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy, and it is not reliably sourced to anything like the depth or volume of coverage it would take to make his candidacy markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his role as a commentator and activist is not enough to show notability. Being a candidate for US congress is never enough to make someone notable. A few (very few, there are roughly 33 candidates every 2 years, and if 1 non-winner is notable as a candidate it is rare) US senate candidates are notable for such, but I am going to state that there is no US house candidate who is notable just for that, although several are notable because of other political positions they have held. There are over 10 times as many US house candidates in theory each election. In practice every or virtually every senate seat is contested, although a few contestants are long shots, but in the House a large number of seats do not have a major party opposition candidate. Still, being a candidate for US house is not a sign of notablity. We need something else, and nothing else here is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SportingFlyer T·C 21:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert's thoro analysis. ——Serial 07:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear failer of notability. Sonofstar (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep: looks to be withdrawn by nominator but not properly closed, and no support for deletion (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton K. Mack

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

~~No valid sources, no coverage to establish notability of any sort. Promotional page and nothing more. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)~~ Per the constructive and fair feedback of editors. Withdraw Megtetg34 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Nationally significant figure. Easily passes the GNG. He was a pioneer of the grocery business in Trinidad and Tobago and a leader of the Chinese community. Built the first shopping mall, which bore his name: JT Allum company pioneered the first concept of a mall in San Fernando when they built Carlton Centre in 1965[14]. Was profiled by Fr. Look Lai in his book[15] (which was published by an academic press). Inducted into the Business Hall of Fame by the Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Industry and Commerce[16]. (Profile linked from that page [17]). Per WP:BEFORE you should really take a moment to search for people before AFDing them. Guettarda (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I respectfully disagree with you. He may be known in his community, but the businesses he founded weren't publicly traded and I don't see enough coverage to pass GNG, or pass WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, i.e.: Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company . It looks like you edited the article some time ago. If you have more sources, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A person profiled in an academic work published by a scholarly press among other sources easily passes the GNG. Guettarda (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still in disagreement with you, and my view is based on Wikipedia policy and nothing else. The fact that the book was published by the University of the West Indies doesn't make the book notable on those grounds alone per WP:BOOKCRIT. Second, the book is not about the topic. The topic is mentioned here and there. I'm going to stand by my above comment. Simply generalizing that the topic is notable and stating that there are other sources is not enough for me to consider this topic, or any topic for that matter, as notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Megtetg34 (talk • contribs)

The source doesn't have to meet the notability guideline, it has to meet the reliable sources guideline. It's a well-regarded academic press, which meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The source also doesn't have to be about the subject, it simply has to give substantial coverage.
As for other sources: as I mentioned, the Chamber of Commerce induction (see also this article about it). article mentions him as a recipient of the Hummingbird Medal, Gold, the nation's third-highest award. These are news stories in the past few years mentioning a man who died a quarter century ago. I'm only relying on what I can find with a quick search online. While I'd love to improve Mack's bio some day, I don't currently have the time. Guettarda (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok. Well, if you decide that you have the time, it would be germane to the discussion to provide additional sources instead of just arguing how important it is to you to strongly keep it. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article on JTA Supermarkets has this subject, Mr. Mack as a significant portion of that article. However, there is obviously more to JTA Supermarkets than Mr. Mack, and Mr. Mack's business appears to have a lengthy history before it expanded into JTA. The main JTA article appears to be written as if someone were able to look up Mr. Mack's article. I am not making an OTHERSTUFF argument, I am merely pointing out that if we take as given that JTA is notable and has its own article, it seems to make more sense to have a separate article on Mr. Mack and link to it from that page rather than merging them. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Frankly, I don't think that topic is notable either and thought about AFD'ing JTA Supermarkets next. Almost none of that page is verifiably sourced, and the editor that created that page, John Thomas at JTA Supermarkets, works at JTA Supermarkets as their social media specialist. Evidence of that is the editor's username and the declaration on the user's talk page, have a look. Not much else found to warrant that as a standalone page either. I certainly can't consider that as a basis to give Carlton K. Mack his own page. Megtetg34 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They seem reasonably notable, are there other large supermarkets in Trinidad and Tobago? There seems to be sufficient coverage listed. You mentioned above that because notability isn't inherited, a businessperson's article might need to be merged into the article on their business. But now you've nominated JTA for deletion as well, so merging seems somewhat disingenuous. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After reviewing the article, and the pattern of editing, my view has changed on merging so I nominated it for AFD as well. I still don't think either topic is notable enough though so I'm leaving the AFD for other's to vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megtetg34 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided by Guettarda easily mean the subject passes WP:GNG. The article is very stubby, but at any point someone could use those sources to expand the article. --Jayron 32 18:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article and in this discussion are adequate to demonstrate notability. The nominator's assertion that a book published by an academic press must itself be notable in order to establish notability of a person discussed in the book is, to be charitable, incorrect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex MacGillivray

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

I'm not finding any sources online to verify notability anywhere. I'm also not finding any of the books he has authored well covered by any media or independent sources. Article appears to be promotional content and nothing further. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Some hits for a "Alex MacGillivray" in news articles, but seem to be a different person. Couldn't find coverage of this Alex. Chajusong (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show this individual is a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrawal (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary M'Mukindia

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

Article reads like a resume and promotional page linking to her personal website. Numerous broadly construed, and unverified claims about the topic, with little to no sources found anywhere. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Topic was center of bribery scandal, article needs re-written/updated but is notable. Withdraw[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She was CEO of the Kenyan National Oil Corporation. The involvement in the Karua bribery scandal (not something that would be included in a puff-piece, by the way!) is also notable. Furius (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wouldn't that be noted in the company article, i.e. National Oil Corporation of Kenya or politician article Martha Karua instead then where it happened? Based on WP:NBUSINESSPERSON criterion, I don't see there being enough to warrant her own article. The bulk of the article portrays her as a leader, business coach, businessperson per line 1, link to her personal website, etc. If notability is solely based on scandal with other parties, my thought is that it should be noted in the articles where there is enough to coverage of the topics to support notability. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NOCK is a billion dollar company (not that wiki's article makes that at all clear). Its CEOs are notable in the same way as CEOs of Fortune 500 and FTSE companies are. Look, here's an academic article which discusses M'Mukindia's management of the company and its aftermath: [18]. The political scandal wasn't just with other parties - she was the central party. Certainly, the article needs a re-write to focus on these things rather than the business coaching. Furius (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Man, today has not been my best day. It definitely puts her as a central figure, not an accessory. Appreciate the feedback. I'll withdrawal. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: her resignation in connection with the scandal Furius mentions was significant enough to be covered on its own by Kenyan media sources [19] [20]. Page as currently written doesn't really touch on why this is notable and should be rewritten, but I think notability exists here. Chajusong (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Totally agree. Unfortunately, I've come across articles lately with missing information. Regardless, facts are facts and that's what matters. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its withdrawn - see above please close Victuallers (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ✗plicit 10:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lynch (businessman)

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

I'm not finding nearly enough about this topic to warrant a standalone article. Maybe part of that is because there is another business person with the same name with significantly more coverage. Nevertheless, I don't see this article passing WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Source are sufficiently lacking. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Topic is a pro athlete with verified sources. Withdraw Megtetg34 (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. Also meets WP:NAFL, having played in the Victorian Football League. Hack (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hack, thanks for adding. I'm going to go ahead and withdrawal based on the WP:NAFL info you addeded. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NAFL. CEO of a major company too. The-Pope (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deviyin Thiruvilayadal

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

Fails WP:NFILM as not a single review is available for the film. Also fails WP:SIGCOV Chirota (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Probably could have been even PROD'ed. Kolma8 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This film doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Delete as per rules TryingToDo (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I couldn't even find the plot. Narky Blert (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armchair Directors

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

While the number of video views on the channel is impressive, I couldn't find any reliable sources to help this article pass WP:GNG. Some of the article seems to be, in my opinion, WP:FANCRUFT, further signaling a lack of sources with which to write encyclopedic content. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent coverage, no RS, and only 6.9k subscribers? I think not. --hroest 14:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need reliable sources talking about the thing, which are entirely lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Udit Batra

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

The sources are giving some routine coverage like appointment of the subject as CEO of a company. No sources are giving enough sigcov to pass the notability criteria. Also got no useful sources on doing a WP:Before. The subject fails GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalam College of Engineering

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

Nothing else other than the college website. WP:Before was also a failure attempt for me. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability. lacks independent reliable sources as mentioned in nomination defcon5 (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Mandal

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, given sources are either self-published or not verifiable. Had been DEPRODed, WP:BEFORE does provide results only for a scientist with the same name. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not held any political role that would confer an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and the article is referenced to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that are not about him, which are not notability-building sources. Also, the creator's username was "Uday88mandal", indicating that this is an autobiography. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobio built on passing mentions. Mccapra (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production

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

Bringing to AfD after 12 years in CAT:NN. It was created by an almost-WP:SPA and at least one other significant editor had a conflict of interests, as seen by their username. It also reads as if written by the company. That indicates issues, but not necessarily lack of notability.

However, from searching although there is some coverage, it is in very niche publications and does not have the notability for a stand-alone article, and I can see no good merge target. Boleyn (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An extensive google search shows that it does not have sigcov. Regardless, it reads like a PR/marketing text. JBchrch (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ryan (interrogator)

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

This article's history is a mess. It was created when he and his journal were in the news. Since then, there has been no coverage because he's a standard civilian contractor and this fails BLP1E. As an alternative to deletion I considered CACI#Controversies, but likely to be BLP issues and he's not mentioned there, so bringing it here for a larger discussion. StarM 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Pure WP:1E with no lasting notability. Mztourist (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is not notable, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Could possibly redirect to Abu Gharib page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse), but at a brief glance, doesn't appear to meet notability there, either. Redoryxx (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone who has a work published is notable. Basically at the time this got some news coverage, but there is no indication that in the long run his work has been viewed by academics as a notable contribution to our based knowledge. That may change, but for now we do not have the sourcing or analysis to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Institute of Telecom and Management Pune

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

Page created by a SPA or COI editor. Was speedy deleted in the past but recreated. Cleaned up the page to remove advertising cruft. Fails WP:NSCHOOLS as WP:RS are missing. Used to be based on press releases, paid adverts and primary sources. Vikram Vincent 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any notability of the topic, especially without any relevant sources. Might even qualify for a WP:SPEEDY (again). --Microhierax (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG.Can't find sources Sonofstar (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mentioned in passing here and a few passing mentions in Gbooks but nothing to establish a passing of WP:NORG. Time to get rid of these glorified adverts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is based on a press release related to admissions. Not a RS. VV 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't even notice the note at the bottom. In that case, there's practically zero about this institution. Delete Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Joyce Wadler (11 February 2005). "NYPD News". New York Times. Retrieved 16 April 2021.

[2] Brian Bellmont (24 February 2005). "'NYPD Blue' closes the caseafter 12 arresting years". Today. NBC. Retrieved 16 April 2021.

[3] Susan King (8 April 2003). "Numbers add up for 'NYPD Blue'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 April 2021.

[4] "Jacqueline Obradors". Metacritic. Retrieved 16 April 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]