Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 08	April 10 >

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 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 01:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Estate, Behbahan

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 12 people in 5 families in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "364386" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the same situation as Industrial Estate, Aghajari (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 19:04, 11 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 01:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Estate, Aghajari

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly zero in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "806426" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is only the article creator's assertion of "company town" that stopped this from being mass-deleted with the other Iran "villages". An industrial estate is not a village nor a company town, and I strongly suspect that this subject is not actually either village or company town. A fa:شهرك صنعتي‎ is indeed an industrial estate, and we shouldn't have mass-created articles whose only content is claiming them to be villages and towns. Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. appears to be a mis-identified industrial estate. The only source in the article is the census data, which does not support the assertion of this being a village or company town. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:48, 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. ✗plicit 01:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gurab, Sarayan

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly zero in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "543033" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:50, 9 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 01:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grain Development Company, Shiraz

(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 "372698" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:47, 9 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 01:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghiasabad, Ardabil

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly zero in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "030352" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:43, 9 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blink (Monk album)

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

Appears to fail WP:NSINGLE without any considerable RS. Chirota (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources found. 00:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Monk (assuming the band article survives the AfD). Apart from the Allmusic review, I found just another article in The Cincinnati Enquirer (not directly a review), which are not enough for a standalone article for an album that has not otherwise received enough coverage, has not charted on the national music charts, or garnered any certifications or accolades.--Ashley yoursmile! 07:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any reliable sources besides the ones pointed out. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:44, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hush (Monk album)

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

Appears to fail WP:NSINGLE without any considerable RS. Chirota (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources found. 00:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Monk (assuming the band article survives the AfD). Apart from the Allmusic review, I found just another review published by The Cincinnati Enquirer which are not enough for a standalone article for an album that has not otherwise received enough coverage, has not charted on the national music charts, or garnered any certifications or accolades. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any reliable sources besides the ones pointed out. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:48, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quiver (Monk album)

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

Appears to fail WP:NSINGLE without any considerable RS. Chirota (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources found. 00:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Monk (assuming the band article survives the AfD). Apart from the Allmusic review, I found just another review published by The Cincinnati Enquirer, which are not enough for a standalone article for an album that has not otherwise received enough coverage, has not charted on the national music charts, or garnered any certifications or accolades.--Ashley yoursmile! 07:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any reliable sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:40, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Station

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND. The best coverage I can find is this interview with a local newspaper; they also get a few sentences in this review of a Rob Thomas show for which they opened (not sure about the quality of this source). If this is all there is, then there isn't nearly enough significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Phoenix New Times appears to be RS where there are multiple references of the band. Chirota (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiro725: It's just one source though, while WP:BAND and WP:GNG require multiple pieces of in-depth coverage. And while I don't doubt that Phoenix New Times is reliable, it's also very much local, and this particular interview really doesn't seem to exceed routine coverage. I think we need at least one piece of in-depth coverage from a non-local RS to justify a keep. Lennart97 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - PNT is usually considered a reliable source, and I would consider it so in the music/arts/and sports fields. But Lennart97 is right, it's only a single source. I can't find anything about them in the Arizona Republic even, let alone non-local papers. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:24, 10 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 00:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosar Pourreza

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

No significant coverage cited in the article and I could not find anything myself when searching her name both in English and in Persian. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. A non-notable Instagram and YouTube user. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Need more RS for passing GNG. Chirota (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 07:59, 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 22:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enrichi Finica

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

Finica does not have any appearances that would give him presumed notability through WP:NFOOTBALL. In terms of WP:GNG, Google searches, as well as a Romanian search, did find some coverage but not enough of it appears to be significant enough to constitute a clear passing of WP:GNG.

I found an announcement about testing positive for COVID, this in GSP and another brief GSP article. There is also this post on 1923, a Rapid Bucharest fan site, which does not pass our standards at WP:RS, so should be disregarded entirely. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Romanian Liga II is a pro league 411 09:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources to prove this then please start a discussion at WT:FPL Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I added two more links about him, one from a Digisport article, one form Rapid official page 411 09:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please only vote once. None of the sources added provide significant coverage addressing Finica directly and in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to my reading of WP:FPL, Liga I is listed as fully professional. It does not list Liga II. So, deletion is reckoned correct. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 09:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a fully professional league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:19, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Watchers

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

Only one source (a Google Site - user generated), cannot find any other sources mentioning the subject. Remagoxer (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a poor article, but that in the French WP is much fuller. Unfortunately the numbers involved in this modern Protestant monastic order are not clear, so that it is not possible for me to judge its significance. However the French article has 36 footnote references and a list of 10 books though some of these are about the founder. Until the French WP decides to delete thism the English one should keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources including books listed at the French wikipedia article here which shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the fr.wiki sources look a little bit close to the subject to me, but overall there is enough in RIS to be confident that the topic is notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:12, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Mejbri

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

Subject remains non-notable. He's no closer to the Manchester United first team than he was when this article was initially nominated for deletion. He's never played a professional game, and the coverage of his career so far doesn't really meet GNG. – Pee Jay 19:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passed WP:GNG last time, still passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus at last AFD. Giant Snowman 21:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per previous outcome of AfD Discussion, passed WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not understand any of the above votes. If his career ended today, no one would know who he was in a year, ten years or however far down the road you want to go. As things stand, he's not notable. Don't judge subjects based on how notable they might become, regardless of what newspaper reports say. – Pee Jay 22:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true - he's the exception to the rule here with some very significant coverage about his multiple million-dollar transfers in several different languages which all passes WP:GNG. If his career ended today, it would certainly be reported on. You're not incorrect in saying youth players are very seldom notable, but "very seldom" implies that they can be, and this is one of those examples. SportingFlyer T·C 22:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG, even though he fails NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure why I wasn't pinged for this as page creator, but keep as per consensus of last AfD and the fact that he still passes WP:GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:GNG Devoke water 21:18, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Elanga

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

Subject remains non-notable. He's never played a competitive, first-team match as a professional, and there is nothing but routine coverage in the sources provided. – Pee Jay 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL --Kemalcan (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY, and searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 08:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time not notable. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 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 00:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Kwong

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

Possible covert G11 eligible UPE article on a non notable business person who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE search reveals hits in primary sources and self published unreliable sources. This article has all the tale signs consistent with what constitutes an WP:ADMASQ. I believe the ref section is intentionally obfuscated to irritate reviewers. I did see this source but clearly it’s as unreliable as they come. Celestina007 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Nuf sed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to get mainly name dropping in articles about other things, or hyper local coverage. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of RS. Megtetg34 (talk) 21:42, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Boswell

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

No evidence found for meeting notability criteria per WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. A minor actor with some roles in independent films and music videos (who is not even named in the Culture Catch article). Besides that, we have a run-of-the-mill sales manager at a bank, sourced to what is essentially a repackaged press release in a local community blog. No significant coverage from multiple, reliable, independent sources. Do any reliable sources even confirm the bank person is the same person as the IMDb page? Did somebody build a Frankenstein out of multiple people with the same name? --Animalparty! (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. This individual is such a Z-lister that he appears to have found a day job at a bank. No shame in that, but he's not notable enough for Wikipedia as an actor. KidAd • SPEAK 18:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Grailcombs (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply put, there is no evidence, or even indication, that this person is notable enough to have a stand-alone article in a general encyclopaedia; nothing notable about his career as an actor and nothing about his day job establishes notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Agreed. fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR --Kemalcan (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 08:04, 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 00:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beane's of Boston

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

Poorly sourced article about a dropped television pilot that never actually aired. Per WP:TVSHOW, dropped television pilots are not extended an automatic presumption of notability just because it's technically possible to verify that they existed -- rather, they need to pass WP:GNG on reliably sourced evidence of their significance, such as having aired as a one-off television film or special and passing our notability criteria for that kind of programming or being the actual subject of published analysis about noteworthy reasons for their failure. But the only footnote here is a WorldCat directory entry verifying that a single university library has a copy of the second draft of its pilot script, which is a primary source that's entirely irrelevant to establishing notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another failed pilot, but if it's burned off even before upfronts week...that's doubly a bad sign that the network had no faith in the show. Nate • (chatter) 20:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's rationale and deep dive of sources. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:59, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gazman

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Population not reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "102206" here

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails for lack of anything to indicate that the location is actually populated. For some reason Carlos tried to bulk this article out with a couple of additional sources, but both of them are bad (Geonet is run by the same people who run GNIS and is unreliable for the same reasons, WorldWeatherOnline is just another one of those algorithm-generated weather websites). Delete all articles like this by Carlos - it simply isn't worth doing WP:BEFORE on every single one of them when so many of them are fails, per WP:TNT. FOARP (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as currrent sources are not enough. Grailcombs (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - along with all of the other 'population not reported' articles with the exact same issues Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just your typical mass-produced garbage place article about some possibly nonexistent thing in the middle of nowhere. Dronebogus (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:07, 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 delete. ✗plicit 01:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galeh Gerd

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Population has not even reported in the 2016 census: Ctrl+F "245560" here

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GEOnet is a bad source as it is unreliable as to whether a location is populated (is is run by the same people, according to the same standards as WP:GNIS. The Iranian census does not describe this place as populated so it is a WP:GEOLAND fail. Another editor has added some content but it does not establish a WP:GEOLAND pass. FOARP (talk) 17:18, 9 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 01:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhrabad, Semnan

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly zero in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "239938" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a little bit sad since Fakhrabad obviously exists (otherwise why would someone have created a website about it?) but the census does not record any population and the website no longer exists. Archived versions of the website do not contain any information, the website also appears not to be an independent source and thus not reliable even if it does exist. I've checked FA wiki but the additional references there don't appear to help - the "villages of Damghan city" does not appear to be independent and is anyway not evidence of legal recognition. FOARP (talk) 18:02, 9 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 01:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donbeh-ye Nasrollah

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to tell people what "توضيح : كليه اطلاعات در آباديهاي 3 خانوار و كمتر به منظور حفظ محرمانگي با علامت * مشخص شده اند" means and how it relates to the spreadsheet row for this place being all asterisks. Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Google translate renders this as "Explanation: All information in settlements of 3 or less families is marked with * to maintain confidentiality." FOARP (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google Translate is what gets one the likes of "Locust Water" for Ab Malakh (AfD discussion). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Translation of the Farsi text: "Note: All information about ābādīs with 3 or less than 3 families have been marked with * for confidentiality reasons."
- In the 2006 census all ābādīs with less than 3 families (whether inhabited or uninhabited) were marked with *, but in more recent censuses such as the 2016 census, abandoned ābādīs (i.e., those with exactly zero population) have been marked with 0, because confidentiality does not make sense for an abandoned ābādī (no concerns about robbery, for example). This particular ābādī is completely uninhabited and abandoned according to the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "109930" here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of legal recognition required by WP:GEOLAND for an presumed pass, applying GNG fails this as well due to lack of evidenced WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 18:06, 9 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 01:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darreh Garm, Kerman

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly zero in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "099520" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only difference to the other Abadi articles here is the use of the word "old" and a link to the standardisation website. Nothing here shows legal recognition of a populated place or a WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 18:22, 9 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 01:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chahu Genow-e Bala

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Population 30 people in 14 families in the 2016 census. Still below 100 people or 20 families, so most probably not a village. Ctrl+F "252761" here

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only different thing about this compared to the other Abadi articles is the use of Fallingrain.com, but this is just an algorithm-generated weather website. Seriously, once I'm done with these C46 articles I'm going to have to spend a good 12 months only voting "Keep" on articles to get my old 50/50 delete/keep ratio back! FOARP (talk) 18:43, 9 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. Procedural close. The nominator has withdrawn, no outstanding 'delete' !votes. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Momints

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

Article has had no sources for 16 years, and consists mostly of original research. Does not meet criteria at WP:GNG; nothing beside trivial mentions. The only note-worthy article I could find is "Magic Momints". confectionerynews.com. 2003-06-16. I've read through the article again, and the references seem sufficient enough to establish notability. Nom retracted. Orcaguy (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mints. Herostratus (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep your jokes to yourself per WP:POINT and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine, Mr Crankypants. But the thing is, there are 35 articles in Category:Breath mints. Some of those are stronger than this article, but a lot aren't; and I suppose that this article could be strengthened if anyone wants to. So it doesn't really make sense to just kind of thrash around in the category and delete parts of it at random. We want to take a more holistic approach to curating this subject, I think. Either do a WP:BUNDLE nom and make the case that our readers shouldn't know about breath mints generally, or leave it be. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Herostratus, To which we have a simple reply: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - dead horse, etc. Bundle noms are a mess. Let's discuss Momints and see if we can rescue them - or not. After that discussion is finished, we can look at the next article from the series of 35. And so on and on. It's not like we need to hurry, and asking editors to look at 1 article at a time is better than asking them to look at few dozen which would scare most away. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose that's reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - But to the point that its a weak article that simply describes the entity, sure, but a whole honkin' lot of our articls are like that. Articles about mountains. About fungi species. About train stations. About villages. A lot of those just have proof-of-existence refs and are are two sentences long. The only reason for picking on this article and not those, is that they're about "serious" topics that you'd find in large general encyclopedia, and this article isn't. That not entirely indefensible, but kind of IMO, and I sure don't agree. We're not paper and we don't want to be snobs about curating what we cover. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article is a mess close to WP:TNT but this could be rescued if someone tried a rewrite. GBooks shows sources with some potential: Gearhart observed that Momints " captured chain - wide distribution at 7 - Eleven and for a short period of time they proved to be the number one mover in that particular piece of the category because of a lack of competition . I see few mentions in passing. Not enough for me to vote keep at this point, but enough to indicate this may not be a lost cause. Ping me if anyone finds better sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not any better, but here is a passing mention of the product's foundation and demise. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here is a whole article in Packaging World. Quite a long and detailed article sufficient to support a fair amount of useful material. (The first time I went to the page it forced me to sign up, I in a bogus email address and it rejected it but then when I went to the page again it let me in.) Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I did some more digging. This reads like a press release so I am not counting it (as it likely fails the requirement for independent coverage). Here is an academic ref but it fails SIGCOV (mention in passing for a single sentence, referenced to a press release). Here's another mention in passing in a trade journal: [1]. Trade journal article, not sure how in-depth. Another niche article about related marketing campaign: [2]. I am going to withdraw my weak delete and abstain as I think this is very borderline. There is a decent amount of non-indepth coverage and hints that there may be a second in-depth source, just not easily available online. And the product is defunct, so no spam concerns here (anymore, at least). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY. The article is quite significantly improved now and no longer a very good candidate for deletion. Thank you User:Orcaguy and User:Piotrus for providing the incentive to improve this article. Herostratus (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Herostratus: While the article has sources now, I'd still say it's not notable enough for inclusion. The article relies heavily on one reference; see WP:3REFS. Thank you for improving the article, but as it stands, there is only one reference used in the article with significant coverage^[1], whereas the other one mentions the product in passing^[2], not enough to establish notability.

References

^ Jim George (January 31, 2005). "Liquid mints become 'jewels' in a tube". Packaging World. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
^ Lisa DeSisto (interviewer) (February 28, 2020). "Like a Boss: Read the interview with Tony Shurman, President and CEO of Jasper Wyman & Son". Portland [Maine] Press-Herald. Retrieved April 2, 2021. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

Someone else could possibly disagree with either of our judgements on this article's notability, so I'll keep this AfD up. Best regards, Orcaguy (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll keep this AfD up... well that's right generous of you, heh.

Alright... I understand that y'all are in delete mode, but at this point deleting the article would be simple wanton destruction. It's a perfectly acceptable article now. It possibly doesn't quite exactly meet the WP:GNG (a mere guideline), depending on how you squint. But there's plenty of sources there to make a decent size article. And I mean, it is a breath mint. A breath mint. You are not going to find citations for in the The Lancet or Science or Time magazine, probably. So? That's true of a lot of mints -- and other things.

Again: if you want our coverage of mints to be limited to Certs and couple others, say so, and make your case in a general RfC somewhere, maybe List of breath mints. I don't know why, as we're not running out of server space; my general ideology is expressed at User:Herostratus/Wikipedian's Meditation. But YMMD.

So anyway, let's see. Right now the article has ten references -- one full short article, five which have maybe a sentence or two if that, and three about other stuff entirely. The articles got about seven paragraph equivalents. I'm going to be adding some more (no more full articles though), but let's take it from here. So, because I like to do this, I'll now look at 20 random articles and see how they're reffed compared to this one (so far) and how their size compares (size doesn't exactly equal quality, but it's a data point). Here goes.

Claremont Road Cricket Ground. Less ref'd, shorter article.
Yogetor spiralis. Less ref'd, shorter article.
Gujba college massacre. Better ref'd, longer article.
Public observatory. No ref's, shorter article. (Could be improved tho)
Konakalla Narayana Rao. Less ref'd, longer article. (Tagged for tone)
2001 Davis Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group IV – Zone B. Worse ref'd (all just primary sources of scores), shorter article in terms of text (longer if you count table of game results).
New Jognasury- I. No refs, similar size.
Łuczynów, Kozienice County. Less ref'd, shorter size.
Thin layer extraction. Better ref'd, longer size.
Mindjedef. Similar level of ref'ing, shorter size.
Julie Vargas. Better ref'd, shorter article.
Nessa Feddis. Hard to tell on the refs; similar level I guess. longer article.
Walnut Grove, Sumner County, Tennessee. Worse refs, similar size article.
Calcium lactate gluconate. Just two refs, but one is extensive, so better ref'd I suppose. Shorter article.
Rugby union in Romania. Better ref'd I guess. Longer article.
Mount Nittany Medical Center. Similar level of refs at best. Shorter article.
Breuningiana pulchra. Worse ref'd. Shorter article.
List of city nicknames in Ohio. Better ref'd. Longer article, altho it's really just a long list.
Putah Creek State Wildlife Area. Worse ref'd, shorter article.`
Cultural depictions of Anne Boleyn. Worse ref'd. Longer article.

So I mean this article seems roughly in the middle. So there are three million articles worse than this one, three million better, maybe. So rather than just picking on random articles here and there, maybe you should start a general discussion and whether the Wikipedia is just too large and half the articles should be deleted. Who knows, maybe that'd be popular. Til thenm there's no reason to pick on this article particularly, and that approach just ends us with random holes here and there in our coverage. Herostratus (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I already told you this is a dead horse (OTHERSTUFF etc.). This article may be salvageable, the system works, no need to rant about it. Orcaguy identified a weak, borderline article and started a discussion that may result in this being improved - the jury is still out, IMHO this is very borderline. We all helped here, one way or another, no need to complain about anything. The system works. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is a disussion on Momints, not the other articles; WP:OTHERSTUFF. I know other, possibly worse, articles exist on this website, but that is none of my concern. Their notability may or may not be challenged at some point, but that has no outcome on whether this article's topic is notable. Your personal philosophy on deletion is, of course, welcome, but hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. My comments may seem dismissive, but the guidelines exist for a reason. Arguing for or against them here is scarcely pertinent to whether or not this article gets deleted or not. To clarify, my previous reply is in regards to WP:CON, and I'd like to adhere to the guidelines on this website. Orcaguy (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as long as the article doesn't get deleted. "It was a poor article, but with some work it got WP:HEY'd to be a decent article, good article really considering the subject, but let's delete it anyway because reasons" isn't great. Yeah I get what you all are saying but I don't agree. We have a whole honkin' lot or rules and guidelines, they are supposed to help not hinder making an encyclopedia... let's see, article's existed for 16 years, it has... shuffle shuffle... 7 views a day so... 16x365x7=40,000 readers have accessed this article...so just answer me this: "For the 7 people a day who are searching on the term "momints", instead of going to this article they get a 404, and this would improve their experience because ______________". What goes in the blank? Herostratus (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, borderline per Piotrus. I found some relatively decent coverage on a search like this or (maybe) this and it's reasonable to assume more exists offline or on a site like Newspapers.com (I do have a subscription there, but my search just brings up mis-OCR's of "moment" or "morning". Herostratus's OSE arguments are not convincing, but but their cleanup is rather legit and I'd err towards keeping borderline articles rather than deleting them, unless we can be sure all relevant coverage has been found. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current consensus is that notability of the subject is borderline, so the discussion would benefit more from additional participants.

Additionally, WP:NCORP can (not should, it can be ignored given such consensus exists) be applied to the subject.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the first read, I felt like the article was actually pretty interesting from a consumer product and marketing perspective. I could see this being useful for business students examining case studies for small products that are over-whelmed by large corporate competitors. When it comes to marketing, sources can be shoddy and self-promoting, but the sources here seemed to reasonably address this product- and good editing eliminated the industry jargon from said sources. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 18:57, 11 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 01:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boneh-ye Mirza Aqa

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Population 18 people in 4 families in the 2016 census. Still below 100 people or 20 families, so most probably not a village. Ctrl+F "062024" here

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:35, 9 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 01:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burgahim

(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 "030347" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing there on the aerial photographs. Uncle G (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply no evidence that this meets our notability criteria Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 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. ✗plicit 01:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bileh Deh

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 in the 2016 census; Ctrl+F "030349" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia announcing in six languages that this is a village, all from the same source; and nothing else. There's not even anything apparently there. Usually there's a structure at least. Uncle G (talk) 23:33, 9 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 01:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bardeh Rashan, Piranshahr

(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 "040959" here

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:30, 9 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 01:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Shah

(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 "164792" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GEOnet is unreliable (made by the same people and same methodology as WP:GNIS). FOARP (talk) 18:38, 9 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 01:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agh Dunlu

(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 "042984" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable location in Iran.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Malakh

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported 75 people in 32 families in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "175941" here. But the population had been reported only 5 people in 4 families in the 2011 census; Ctrl+F the same number here. It may be a village, because the number of families is above the threshold (100 people or 20 families) for village recognition in Iran, but it is not probable because apparently people have been attracted to this place only recently.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The waterfall certainly appears to exist. This article appears to confirm that there is also a village at that location. This article about it also appears to be WP:SIGCOV. Just about gets over the line for WP:GNG, but only for the waterfall, not for the village.
BTW - me voting keep in this doesn't mean I don't think we should just delete all of C46's stub articles - the existence of a few saveable articles out of thousands is not proof of anything. I think the best thing to do is delete all per WP:TNT. 4nn1l2 - I'd also like to go and see these waterfalls! FOARP (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @FOARP: The waterfall is certainly notable. It even has a nice article on fawiki: fa:آبشار آب ملخ, but why the ābādi? Settlements have been named after the waterfall, not vice versa. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why can we not take the poor translation out, fix the first sentence, and make this about Locust Waterfall (or even ab Malakh Waterfall) instead of about "Locust Water"? Is there enough source material on the waterfall? Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seems like an uncontroversial move to me. FOARP (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would say yes, there are enough reliable sources regarding the waterfall, mostly in Farsi, such as Iran newspaper [3], Etemad[4], Hamshahri[5], etc. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these sources to the article and moved it to Ab Malakh waterfalls (plural waterfalls because there is more than one) - I know this AFD is still open but no need to stand on ceremony. 4nn1l2, you OK with withdrawing the AFD nomination now? This can be done because there have been no delete !votes.

As a general note this shows why these stubs are bad - the person who added the detail about the waterfalls to this article might well have created an article about the waterfalls (the only notable thing about Ab Malakh) had the stub not existed, but because the stub exists it was simply added as a minor note. FOARP (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as the nature of the page has been changed (from abadi to waterfalls). 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:57, 10 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 17:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMerit

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 22:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, while taking a first look, there are some reliable sources can be seen like The New York Times, Financial Times and Wall Street Journal but none of them talks indepth about this company. Just mentions hence fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Grailcombs (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company has had significant global coverage in outlets viewed as highly reliable including the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, AP, the Hindu and Forbes.It has a major social mission, pulling poor people, primarily women in India out of poverty by working within the world of AI. It is a notable company covered by recognized reliable Wikipedia sources.Miaminsurance (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with assessment of Miaminsurance. New York Times, the Wall Street Journal are major publications. Also having financial backers such as Pierre Omidyar and Michael Dell, should be worth some notability points. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 19:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with assessment of Miaminsurance and Expertwikiguy. Even if the mentions are not yet in depth, the publications that covered the entity are top-tier. In addition to having the notable financial backers that Expertwikiguy mentioned, they were able to raise significant funding in 2020, despite global economic issues. Their social mission is laudable as well, and combined with AI technology, makes for a notable endeavor. IrishChick2012 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: IrishChick2012 is a blocked UPE sockmaster, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IrishChick2012. --Blablubbs|talk 08:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a startup, with all-paid advertising. Lets examine the references:

New York times: Based in India, iMerit labels data for many of the biggest names in the technology and automobile industries. It declined to name these clients publicly, citing confidentiality agreements. But it recently revealed that its more than 2,000 workers in nine offices around the world are contributing to an online data-labeling service from Amazon called SageMaker Ground Truth. Previously, it listed Microsoft as a client. That is a paragraph inside and article. It is mention and fails WP:SIRS
Forbes 2012, former HP executive Radha Basu opened a center in Metiabruz to train young women in data analysis, cloud support and other digital services. Since then, her Palo Alto, Calif.-based social enterprise firm, iMerit, has hired more than 250 women in Metiabruz, who serve clients including Microsoft , eBay and Catholic Relief Services. They make up to 10 times what their families once earned. “They’re able to have some choice and independence but stay within the community, which means they’re developing it from within,” says Basu, who founded iMerit in 2012. That is mention as well as well and fais WP:ORIND vis-a-vis WP:SIRS
The Hindu IMerit to create jobs]. Its a press-release. Its fails WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH
Wall street Journal [6] iMerit (Asia) iMerit hires and trains economically challenged people so they can provide data services to customers around the world. Their team of trained, in-house data experts enriches and annotates the data that powers algorithms in machines learning, computer vision and other data-driven applications. To date, iMerit has provided data services to over 100 global enterprises. One paragraph listing as profile, as listing. That fails WP:SIRS. It is not-indepth, not independent. 1 of 17.
AP News And for 25-year-old Shamima Khatoon, her job annotating cars, lane markers and traffic lights at an all-female outpost of data-labeling company iMerit in Metiabruz, India, represents the only chance she has to work outside the home in her conservative Muslim community. A tiny paragraph. Fails WPCORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Clearly non-independent either. AP News is the top journalistic outfit, anywere in the west, according to jounalists who look at these things. But poor reference.

The last reference is the Wall Street Journal and you must assume it is good, per Wikipedia consensus. However, going on through the these sources which are poor and past experience finding out that WSJ puts takes in a huge number of paid advertisements. Last, why is article even on Wikipedia. It is a clear brochure with no-redeeming features. It does say that they are all women, it is a sweat-shop company, so they have paid somebody to write on an article on here. There are millions of these companies. These companys have been known about in the web gaming world for more than 20 years, at least since about 2007-2010 for mainstream IT. I remeber my mate talking about them in 1999, whe big MMORPG, APB which failed, was being started to get built. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will abstain from voting here but the page is live because I am the one who approved it through AfC using the same standard as always ("more than likely to pass AfD discussion"). I can honestly say that I HATE approving articles such as these as I know it is likely only submitted to AfC because of someone wanting to promote the business. However, being that it met notability imho, I added the advert tag to the top because of the tone of the article. Other than that, I cannot believe we can dismiss the NYT article. They do publish advertisements but they are labeled as such. They felt the company notable enough to send a reporter to the location and do an in-depth article. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on keep arguments and AFC approver CNMall41's comments above, this company meets WP:GNG, specifically having an in-depth coverage in NYT and mention in WSJ are significant and I do not agree with the nominator that these kinds of publications can be bought. It's just absurd to say that! Just because an startup gets good coverage, you cant accuse them of having paid PR, unless you can prove it.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The more stringent WP:NCORP has not been addressed thoroughly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bad-faith undisclosed paid-for spam, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko. MER-C 12:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it is notable, which it is not clear that it is, independent editors will create it later. We shouldn't reward bad-faith UPE practice (socking, and possibly extortionism as well, I read). Also note that one of the keep !voters, IrishChick2012's comment, is their first edit in three years, and the first of only two edits they've made recently, the other one being to a similar AFD. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated this a few weeks back but pulled the nomination after realizing the references weren't as bad as I thought. Having read that this was a byproduct of WP:UPE I say burn it down and let someone write it from scratch from a neutral point of view. nearlyevil 665 20:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It clearly fails WP:ORG, and is an advert by a now-blocked UPE. Java Hurricane 04:41, 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Geersing

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

Small town mayor. Meets neither WP:NACTOR or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, as small-town mayors are not inherently notable. WP:POLOUTCOMES states that "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role". I ran a search through NexisUni and Delpher, which shows the articles of all major Dutch news publications, and I could find no coverage outside of the Leeuwarder Courant, which is the local paper of Geersing's area. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: What is wrong with Leeuwarder Courant? According to GNG also regional sources are counting towards notability. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine newspaper, but mayors don't have automatic notability. Local papers will obviously cover their local mayor, but more is needed to show that a mayor is not only of significance to their own town. And for WP:GNG, multiple sources are required; the Leeuwarder Courant is one, but multiple sources need to have described the article's subject. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply below with also other sources. Besides of that also coverage in national newspaper Trouw for example: see here. SportsOlympic (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Geersing clearly passes WP:NPOL #2 and the WP:GNG. He was a member of the Frisian parliament and a mayor but never a "small town mayor". As SportsOlympic points out, Delpher contains many articles on the late politician. No lack of articles in de De krant van toen (regional) and Digibron (national) either. WP:POLOUTCOMES is not a policy or a guideline so cannot trump policies or guidelines. It's a discussion of past AfD results. When using it by way of "policy" it becomes circular argumentation. Best, gidonb (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, multiple secondary sources about the person. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and >200 newspaper articles. NPOLITICS also states “ Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage” SportsOlympic (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NPOL #2 per WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and WP:V, as well as the WP:GNG. Geersing never was a "small town mayor"! Unfortunately, the nominator fails to identify Geersing as an elected member of the provincial parliament and belittles his career. The sole support for deleting picks up nom's erroneous small town mayor line. gidonb (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Gidonb's improvements of the article. KittenKlub (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are Frisian parliamentary members covered by WP:NPOL? SportingFlyer T·C 15:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so Provincial Council of Friesland. If so, then the article should be kept. --Enos733 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was my sense, but I wanted to discuss it because I'm not familiar with these provincial councils. He passes WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 19:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At most Weak keep -- The local newspaper is RS, but the lack of coverage elsewhere must point to questions of his notability. The population of the area of which he was mayor (according to Dutch WP) seems to be just under 10,000. Members of provincial councils are local politicians, not national ones. I think I argued the opposite a few months ago and was contradicted. He comes on the fringes of notability at most. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the references in the article (7 out of 12) are from national, not from regional press. As Peterkingiron correctly points out, both count toward notability. In fact there are many more references in the regional press. I stopped adding as notability was already clearly established. WP:NEXIST also applies. gidonb (talk) 15:34, 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 00:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etheda Springs, California

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

As noted at User:Hog Farm/springs, this is part of a cleanup effort of California geostubs with "Springs" in their names. Etheda Springs appears to have been a resort active in the 1930s and 1940s, although I found a single passing mention in a 1928 newspaper result about "Etheda Springs subdivision" at Reedley. However, everything else calls this a resort.

The coverage is trivial, mainly consisting of a few real estate listings and a larger number of old announcements from when newspapers use to print local goings-on announcements like "Mr. and Mrs. so-and-so just return from four days at the Etheda Springs resort". As a resort site, this doesn't get the WP:GEOLAND free pass, and I don't think the coverage rises to WP:GNG, as nothing I saw is really in-depth. Hog Farm _Talk 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. I also checked newspapers.com and found only trivial coverage. JSTOR had nothing for "Etheda Springs". GBooks had a hit found in Gudde, but actually searching Gudde found nothing? The other GBooks hits seemed to be name place lists. As this locale is not legally recognized, and it has only trivial coverage, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. Cxbrx (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom's very detailed analysis, and insufficient coverage to meet GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 21:52, 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Vasil Levski

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

Fails WP:GNG. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is a notable statue, separate and distinct from any notability the embassy itself may have. I merged the content to the embassy's page but it was reverted without real explanation. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe merge it's grand-spanking total of one sentence to the embassy's page, too? AdoTang (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request: @El cid, el campeador: Can you please also notify WikiProject Public Art? I've added a very brief notice at WikiProject Sculpture as well. Also, I've added ~~four~~ six sources to the article, including two written in Bulgarian. More research to come. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of a deletion sort topic re public art. But I have added a topic on the WikiProject's talk page. Let me know if you have any questions about it. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is the information of very little general interest, but the image is so poor that it takes a while to find the bust. Athel cb (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but level of interest is subjective and the image has nothing to do with subject notability... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The poor quality of the image has everything to do with the quality of the page. If the author of the page can't provide an image that adequately illustrates what the page is about then not enough effort has been put into it.
    - Uh, yeah, that's not really how this works... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: I've added 6 additional sources to the article. I am still trying to find details about the artist, as well as dimensions and other artistic details for Description section, but there's now at least a little context about who advocated for the sculpture's installation, when the monument was dedicated, and subsequent ceremonial visits by government officials. Some of the sources are in Bulgarian. I've also invited the creator of the Bulgarian Wikipedia article to assist or share their comments. Hoping editors can have a bit more time to flesh out this entry, rather than deleting. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk)
Merge Adding more sources does not necessarily mean notably, it just may mean they have better PR resources. Currently the Embassy of Bulgaria has less information than the statue and is more notable. Merge information on the Bust of Vasil Levski page in to the Embassy of Bulgaria page. It would also be good to add some of the information on the bust AND other memorials and tributes to Vasil Levski page. Another such memorial is the the relief of Vasil Levski at the Bulgarian embassy in Paris. Myotus (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: recommended that I clarify my vote. I recommend to delete the page, as the sculpture does not meet notability for its own page but the content should be moved and used in both the Embassy of Bulgaria and the Vasil Levski pages.

Beyond the facts on the bust in question, answer the "so what" question. What is it about Bust of Vasil Levski that is important to the larger themes of art/Bulgarian history? Context could include other public commemorative statues of Vasil Levski (the relief of Vasil Levski at the Bulgarian embassy in Paris comes to mind). Myotus (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: one very large issue that needs to be addressed if any of the pages content is to be moved to another page. There is no identification of the sculptor, neither on the Wikipedia page nor on any of the pages that are cited. This is very concerning. It really does reenforce the non-notably of the object. Unless the sculptor's name can be identified and added I would not even recommend the content being moved. Myotus (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been corrected. Myotus (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been significantly improved, however, much of the most important information lacks citations. On a side note - It is unfortunate that both artists referenced, Vladimir Ginovski and Ivan Bitrakov do not have articles on Wikipedia as both have significant bodies of work. I hope that can be addressed in the future. Myotus (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it: I have contacted today the Wikipedia editors from Bulgarian section and they helped me to improve the Bulgarian version of the article. I did my best to translate the new facts in English and I have added them to the nominated for deletion article. I hope its new version will meet the criteria to be kept and it will not be removed. I hope in the next while to find more fact and update both versions. Re: an image of the monument - in June 2000 as an academic mentor of university students, I attended an IEEE competition in Arlington and the Bulgarian ambassador invited us to visit the embassy. I had opportunity to take some pictures of the monument. In January 2021 I scanned and uploaded an image of the monument but it was also nominated for deletion because it is on Bulgarian soil and the Bulgarian laws apply. According to the folks from the Bulgarian section of Wikipedia, the monument is outside the Bulgarian embassy and this is not considers as Bulgarian soil (if an American can access it without permissions from the Embassy, this place is not considers as under the Bulgarian jurisdictions). So the nomination for deletion of the image is disputable. Here is the link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monument_to_Vasil_Levski_in_front_of_the_Bulgarian_Embassy_in_Washington,_USA.png --Isip2 westboro (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Isip2 westboro, Thanks for your work here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Isip2 westboro: It might be more work than worthwhile but who owns the copyright on the sculpture? The artists estate or the Bulgarian government? If the latter, get the embassy to take a picture and make the photo available on a Creative Commons Share-a-like license. Myotus (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has been significantly improved and expanded since this discussion started and now has many references from a wide range of reliable sources. VocalIndia (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - much of the 'improvement' to this article focuses on tangential issues, and much of the content relating to the statue itself are unsourced. The fact that the artist visited art galleries in NYC when visiting the US is not relevant to this article and does not establish notability of the statue, though a source is provided. Further, really none of the sources provide in-depth coverage, and some are unreliable, such as eurochicago which is an unregulated blog. There are also very short press releases from the embassy itself. The fact that the statue was included in a collection of 130 illustrations or that it is no more than mentioned in a laundry list of Sights of Interest do not establish notability. I applaud attempts to improve the article, but in no way is notability established. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I would argue that two of the above votes to delete the article have nothing to do with notability. There's more work needed here, I'm glad to see the article has been expanded and I hope additional sourcing can be folded into the text once libraries and other institutions have reopened. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vasil Levski article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ... because... ? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an informative page which has been quite improved over the course of this AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:10, 8 April 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)} 14:36, 9 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 17:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heino Hankewitz

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

After 12 years in CAT:NN, I'm taking this to AfD. He has had success and been recognised for it, but I don't see it meeting WP:N, there isn't the coverage. Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I dont see any shred of notability here. No coverage, no RS, nothing. --hroest 19:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found some coverage - 1, 2 and couple in Google books, but those are passing mention, no SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google gives many hits but probably fails WP:SIGCOV. If deleted, then probably first case in enwiki history when we delete the Estonian person with the Estonian national decoration (ie in this case Order of the Estonian Red Cross)--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notabale --Devoke water 09:07, 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 00:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venture resources

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

After 12 years in CAT:NN, I am bringing this to AfD. I couldn't find enough coverage to show this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the still-accessible sources in the article even mention the term. A search shows various companies using “Venture resources” or some variant of it as a corporate name, but zero uses of the term as described here. This seems to be an attempt to force a neologism into existence by creating a Wikipedia article. I think List of venture resource firms should also go. Mccapra (talk) 05:23, 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 00:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Komikoo.com

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

This was a comic website. It is now dead, as are all the references in this article. Before leads to a few old web pages that discuss the website in a trivial way. I can find no indication that this website was ever notable. Tagged for advert and orphan since 2011. Desertarun (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get one hit talking about the site in Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:51, 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. Trolling, no valid rationale, nominator now indeffed (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

László Tóth (racing driver)

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

Wikidata is broken. If deleted, recreate page. SteveBrownIreland (talk) 13:10, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 13:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep and close. This is a ridiculous nomination and it's clear it's trolling and completely contrary to any deletion criteria. EGGIDICAE🥚 14:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page appears twice in Wikidata. This is likely a bug! --SteveBrownIreland (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to delete it on English Wikipedia, that's a reason to fix it on Wikidata. TAXIDICAE💰 15:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: WP:SKCRIT#1: no argument for deletion. Problems with Wikidata cannot be dealt with here. Please use d:WD:DELREQ for any deletion requests on Wikidata. Java Hurricane 16:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - no valid reason given for deletion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 9 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 17:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiernan Brooks

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

The player clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL; see Soccerbase.

This Nottingham Post article is fairly good and there's a small bit of coverage in Worksop Guardian but not enough for WP:GNG in my opinion. I would say delete for now or draftify (although I note that Notts County aren't playing in a FPL currently). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He has not played in a fully pro league listed here WP:FPL --Kemalcan (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:43, 9 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. While a few references were supplied, this discussion concluded that the sources failed to provide in-depth coverage of Graczyk. Additionally, the participants determined that said references did not meet the standard to be considered reliable sources to the point where the claims made within were still shrouded in doubt, resulting a firm consensus to delete. ✗plicit 13:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Graczyk

AfDs for this article:

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

Sculptor of unclear notability. It seems like this article was kept in 2007 because of the medals that he earned, but those seem to be routine. Additionally, there were arguments that he was "well-known" and "well-regarded" but those are not supported by references. Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning delete~~ it's hard to evaluate this article without any sources. The Polish version isn't helpful either. My guess is that there are some reliable Polish sources, if only due to the artist's interesting life story, but they may be pre-internet and hard to find. A search for his name plus "sculptor" in Polish didn't turn up much. Curiocurio (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to delete. Agree with Possibly's comments below. Curiocurio (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curiocurio, It would be nice if you and User:Possibly addressed the sources/awards I found and discussed in my comment below. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: the sources you found seem to be in Polish, which I do not read. But you have broken them down (thank you) in English to several trivial mentions for small galleries, a couple of mentions in books, and a prize that you are assuming in good faith is not a hoax. Great and diligent research, but it is not enough to support an article. Even if we consider the prize to be on the same level as the Nobel Prize, just for example, we still do not have enough sourcing to verify much of anything. --- Possibly (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, That's a fair critique, thank you for addressing it. I still think that the prize makes him notable, but yes, sourcing for it is poor. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article was expanded (but not created) by the subject's relative (User:Michal Graczyk~plwiki); this also explains why big part of the article here and on en wiki are likely not verifiable (WP:OR...). While this fact is unreferenced, he received the Meritorious Activist of Culture Polish govt' award. Other than that, I see very little, a biography on a minor Polish gallery website: [7] (this also states he won the above award, but I am wary that this source may be based on his Wikipedia biography...). Digging through old refs, he had an exhibition in another minor gallery that came with a self-written note (first person) plus some CV-like info here: [8]. Here's a bio + cv on the pages of yet another minor gallery ([9]). I call them minor as they don't have entries on Polish Wikipedia (and seem to be out of business as their pages are dead now anyway). The latter (Leśna Galeria) was a Graczyk family gallery (and a minor local tourist attraction): [10]. That gallery probably still exists just their page broke; in 2019 it still contributed to an exhibition [11] which called Jan Graczyk "famous". For what it's worth, that description (and exhibition) is from a project (the 2019 Polish edition of the Long Night of Museums) by Ursus, Warsaw (a district of the Polish capital). A bit more digging gave me snippets in some books - not any modern biography (since they don't list the dates of his death), however. He was called a talented "amateur artist" and has at least a few sentences describing his life in this 1978 book ([12]), I can't confirm how in-depth the coverage is (snippet view). The fact that he won a "II Award" is m mentioned in a 1976 book here, snippet view prevents me from confirming what award that was. That's all I found, it's pretty borderline. In the end, I'd vote weak keep per the Meritorious Activist of Culture (AGF it is a true and not a hoax claim), since I think that an encyclopedia is a place for people who receive such awards. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article plainly contains no reliable sources. The article is on Jan Graczyk and was created by the user Michal Graczyk~enwiki. So we have a quite large article with no sources created by someone with a very similar name. Since a search returns no sources, the only option here is delete. We can't publish what appears to be a memorial page based on family recollection, with no published WP:RS that can be used to verify what the article says.--- Possibly (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Correspoding deletion discussion on pl wiki is here: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2021:03:24:Jan Graczyk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 01:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article contains no reliable sources, which are an absolute must to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article was kept on pl wiki, as editors involved did not accept my criticism of [13] as possibly unreliable, and concluded that awards/exhibitons/coverage is enough for pl wiki standards. I still have some doubts about the reliability of sources, but I already changed my vote above a while ago to keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 12 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 00:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Shirazi

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources and notable achievements fails GNG and NCRICKET. Setreis (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Confirmed and blocked sockpuppet account. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has played 4 FC and 4 LA games so he does pass NCRICKET in its current form. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4 FC and 4 LA games, but I'm only seeing match reports and some stuff about him going into decent, nothing that could really be seen as significant coverage. There may be stuff locally though as he had a reasonable minor counties career. No real redirect as he played for two differing sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is not there at all to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 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. Despite the new sources, participants remained unconvinced of assertion that Abbs' is a notable subject. ✗plicit 13:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Abbs

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

No significant coverage per WP:NSPORT. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Prong 5 of WP:NCOLLATH is limited to Division I head coaches, and Trine is a Division III program. Accordingly, this discussion should rise or fall on WP:GNG. I searched Newspapers.com and found only passing mentions. A Google search turned up some non-independent coverage from Trine (e.g., this and this), but such coverage doesn't count toward GNG. The best I found in terms of independent coverage was a local TV piece about Abbs working from home during COVID (here) and this piece from the KPC Media Group in Kendallville, Indiana. Also this from Ink Free News but I'm not sure it's a reliable source. Particularly for a current coach in the age of the Internet, I would expect to see more to persuade me of a GNG pass. Leaning "delete" but holding final judgment til I see what others might come up with. Cbl62 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went looking for sources last November and came to the same conclusion as Cbl62: Talk:Troy Abbs#Notability. I suspect that would be true for most current MIAA coaches. Mackensen (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep reasonable discussions above, but for some reason I've been able to turn some online articles where others have not. I think there's been some recent activity with their conference starting up a spring football season (see: covid), but I also turned a number of newsworthy articles with some details around his Division III Region 4 Coach of the Year from the American Football Coaches Association. Take another gander please, I think you'll find this is a pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a couple of examples of SIGCOV? My searches didn't turn up any, but I'm happy to have another look. Cbl62 (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put some in the article. It's local or quasi-regional, but there's significant content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To eval new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - out of all of the sources added to the article, this is the only one I'd consider "significant" and independent coverage of the subject. The rest of the sources are not substantial enough for GNG, and I'm not seeing anything else in my search. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm finding a lot of minor mentions in a cursory news search, but nothing that definitely hits significant coverage for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:59, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. I apologise. I nominated this in error (non-admin closure) Fiddle Faddle 12:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabesh Kalita

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. References also fail. One fails verification, the two others are passing mentions Fiddle Faddle 12:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 12:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN - mistaken nomination Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject, a member of the legislature of the Indian state Assam, passes WP:NPOL, which states that "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians who have held [...] (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels". - Tristan Surtel (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. I missed that. mea culpa. Withdrawing in a moment Fiddle Faddle 12:45, 9 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 13:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishrat Jahan

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

Non Notable Politician (non elected) and lawyer. fails WP:POLITICIAN. Starofearth (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Starofearth (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Starofearth (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Starofearth (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Starofearth (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes GNG. Lots of articles on his interaction with the Indian justice system. Mottezen (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the creator of the page and feel it satisfies Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage of WP:NPOL. Contrary to claim of nom, the subject was an elected figure. VV 08:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressing a possible concern: From WP:BIO1E, The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Both the CAA protests and the subject grew in coverage and hence the rationale for independent pages.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. VV 08:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep:The subject got plenty of coverage as she was accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and got arrested. I dont think thats alone is required for GNG as I couldn't find any other sources. But given the high amount of press coverage and the fact was she was was a municipal councilor, I think this is a weak keep. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, and because I have added sources and information from sources to the article - news coverage has been sustained, focused on her and in-depth, e.g. The Quint, Scroll.in, The Quint, Scroll.in, and her role in events last year as well as the ongoing court case is substantial and well-documented. Some biographical information is also available about her career and her family. Beccaynr (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Additional in-depth coverage focused on her, with biographical information, context, and commentary: The Wire (June 2020). And to clarify my previous comment, WP:BLP1E does not appear to apply due to the multiple events (protests, arrests, incarcerations, wedding, ongoing court case) as well as her substantial and well-documented role. She also was not low-profile before her arrests because she is an activist and politician, e.g. participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign. Beccaynr (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the subject has significant press coverage and is an elected figure.defcon5 (talk) 08:00, 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 17:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha

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

Fails NPOL. Longstanding consensus that candidates for office are not inherently notable, and that articles about a campaign launch are WP:ROUTINE election coverage. While this office might be different than most political offices, it's still decided by a vote, and she is a long-shot candidate. No countries have yet to endorse her candidacy. Mottezen (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as page creator. WP:NPOL says that "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." I would argue that Arora passes the WP:GNG due to the specific coverage of her in reliable sources. Although I agree her candidacy has essentially no chance, the coverage of her as an individual is high-quality. It's not as though she's running for a County Board seat somewhere - as you imply, this is a high-profile position. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued to add one other thing. Not to be overlong, but I especially disagree that this is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Beyond the fact that that guideline does not mention the launch of political campaigns, Arora's candidacy has gathered attention especially because it is *not* routine. No Secretary-General has ever faced this kind of challenge before and it is outside the norms of the United Nations system. 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:NPOL notes that unelected candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those claiming she passes GNG should note that all the sources are firmly in the WP:BLP1E territory. Consensus is that candidates for public office that received disproportionate election coverage because they were running a hopeless campaign against a high-profile incumbent were still to be excluded from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahid Buttar (3rd nomination). Mottezen (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Mottezen, I think that's a good point. The guideline says that articles should not be kept when all three conditions are met - 1) Person covered only in relation to one event 2) Otherwise low-profile 3) Insignificant event or person's role in event not documented in reliable sources. In this case, I agree that 1) and 2) are applicable. However, I think 3) is not met and the article should be kept. This is clearly a significant event, and Arora's role in it has been widely covered by reliable sources (including the CBC, though it's not currently in the article). However, I see your argument and a WP:BLP1E deletion would not be unreasonable. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this subject through the eyes of BLP1E, the event in question is her candidacy to become secretary general in 2021. Is it significant? If it's doomed from the start and ignored by power brokers, as some commentators have noted, then it isn't, so 3) is satisfied. Mottezen (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is most likely failing NPOL. But her notability can be easily established by general notability criteria. She has recieved plenty of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources which makes her easily passes WP:GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the amount of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, I reckon Arora tends to meet GNG. That said, even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 10:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably - there's good international coverage of her run for the UN seat, but this really feels like a WP:BLP1E to me. I don't think this is particularly significant per BLP1E#3. SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the proposal to delete the article quite odd when the election has not yet even been completed and nominations are not closed. This article has multiple reliable sources in multiple languages around the world. This would also affect multiple other pages on the site such as 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Even if not nominated, she is still a pioneer for a future female UN leader one day. Given the existing gender gap on wikipedia, I think we should tread carefully. ─ Qetuadgjzcbm ^{^(talk)} 22:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our general rule here is that candidates for political positions are don't have any sort of inherent notability, in part due to BLP1E. She's already covered on the page you mention. It looks like this will come down to whether people think the candidacy is important enough on BLP1E grounds, but I think it's correct to object if it's true that she does have absolutely no chance (as the sources have said), we can review whether there's a need for a stand-alone article again in time, if no new reasons for notability arise. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets GNG. [14] --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there is pretty clearly adequate news coverage, and it doesn't seem that anyone's disputing that particular point. Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection, even if it doesn't end up translating into a win or even a plausible showing. Just the candidacy is unusual. The difference between this case and Shahid Buttar's case (linked above) is that it's routine for American congresspeople to have primary challengers. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under GNG. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:16, 12 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 13:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appinventiv

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

Remade after draftification. While some of the sources provided may pass WP:GNG, I don't think all 3 of them pass GNG, particularly the Economic Times one which is clearly based off an interview or press release. WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up additional strong sources, although feel free to double check. I found some https://ksusentinel.com articles, and it calls itself a newspaper, but the appearance of the website looks a bit like a blog to me, and it has no "About Us" page to confirm that it has an editorial staff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My Google search found only primary or affiliated sources. Nothing to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the reasoning by the nom. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, beside PR no signs of notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This non notable and likely paid puff piece. Citterz (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm looking to add more refrences. Please have a look at the latest citation given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shovapa Trinada (talk • contribs)~~

Blocked sock. MER-C 09:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nom ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 12:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The question of UPE is definitely possible. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm looking to improve the article. Added a new source that should meet one of the criteria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shovapa Trinada (talk • contribs)~~

Delete – none of the sources added since the AfD was started does anything to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. They are trivial mentions in lists of apps, and/or press releases. Obvious UPE issues as well, with a group of SPAs tag teaming to create and recreate the same text. --bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 09:51, 10 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⁺⁺ 11:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt Aside from the fact that this has been created three times (!), most recently by a blocked sock (!), it's obviously purely promotional in nature, and about a completely non-notable ROTM company at that. Fails pretty much all there is to fail. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 12 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 Prairie Avenue District. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance

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

I feel that this organization fails the criteria laid out under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I am also open to a redirect/merger PDNA with Prairie Avenue District and Prairie Avenue. Mpen320 (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and redirect as suggested, rather than an outright deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and redirect as suggested, rather than an outright deletion as per Bearian. Citterz (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the subject is not notable and therefore not kept then any well-referenced content here should sensibly merged to Prairie Avenue District (and carefully to the FA Prairie Avenue as well) rather than outright deleted given the overlap & context. I haven't done a proper WP:BEFORE search yet to decide between keep & merge though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Prairie Avenue District: based on the above after a search for significant coverage in independent reliable sources turned up nothing. The referenced material that is merged needs a lot of cleanup with regards to tone; most of it probably doesn't need to be merged over. I didn't see much in the article about Prairie Avenue itself, so nothing probably needs to be merged there besides possibly the single referenced mention of "The Festival on Prairie Avenue". — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prairie Avenue District. Not seeing anything that indicates notability or coverage outside the neighborhood itself, or focus on the organization versus the neighborhood. Members are occasionally quoted in RS about Chicago-related matters e.g.[15] but nothing that I feel would meet SIGCOV. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There's a lot of text in this article, but the bulk of it is quite promotional in tone, and the sources do not really show independent notability. jp×g 03:32, 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 no consensus. Insufficient discussion on notability for a consensus to exist. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saïd bin Saïd Tabbara

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

Can't find any in-depth coverage in independent sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources already in the article are sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mccapra. Mottezen (talk) 08:27, 9 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 Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Pollard (cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Sources may exists offline or locally though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Another that should have been BOLDly redirected though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players - there's no debate to be had here. Clear redirect. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players as per all. Citterz (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per previous comments. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:43, 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 redirect to List of Buckinghamshire County Cricket Club List A players. The consensus is still clear after a relist. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denzil Owen

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Buckinghamshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List A match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Sources may exist offline or locally, especially as he had a reasonable minor counties career. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, and no coverage, is redirected/deleted and a suitable WP:ATD exists. Another that should have been BOLDly redirected though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article in no way meets GNG. That is the minimum requirement for any inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Buckinghamshire County Cricket Club List A players - fails WP:GNG but we must consider ATD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Buckinghamshire County Cricket Club List A players as per all. Citterz (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 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 redirect to List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players. Sandstein 07:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Whyborn

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List A game, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Sources may exists locally or offline though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Another that should have been BOLDly redirected though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very long line of articles that do not meet GNG. GNG is the minimum requirement to have any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 9 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 McGhee Tyson Airport. Sandstein 07:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles McGhee Tyson

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. His father is notable, but he isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to McGhee Tyson Airport with a short namesake para. Lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to being a notable soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment per Mztourist Rajuiu (talk) 14:44, 11 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 13:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soura Nath

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

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

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

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

19 year old photographer, does not meet GNG. The blurb "His works got recognized by several national and International organizations", is sourced to 35awards and Viewbug and while perhaps true in the strictly technical sense, said recognition is insignificant. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails GNG and written for promotional purpose.13:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Did I say it right? I meant what everyone else said. AdoTang (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks. Mz7 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Did some changes of links and add more words to improve the biography section. Has won a lot of recognitions and appreciation for photography and got features in national and international magazines.Creativework27 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasoning by Creativework27. I found related references to keep this article.Advance14 (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Advance14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He looks like a notable photographer. The sources already in the article are sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subject.Georgeart01 (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)— Georgeart01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, there is not a single reliable secondary independent source in the article. Most of the sources are profiles in social media / photography databases that were most probably written by Nath himself. Another source (WePhoto Portrait Ebook vol.8) has Nath as an author. Searching doesn't bring up much more on this young photographer.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:CREATIVE, wikipedia is not here for the promotion of someones work, may also be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bogus sourcing; likely a promotional autobiography. If a checkuser happens to be passing through, the Keep votes are obvious candidates for CU.--- Possibly (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject of this article does not meet notability requirements for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. I agree that there are some fishy-looking !iVote-keeps above. Netherzone (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet GNG or CREATIVE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 08:02, 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. Sandstein 07:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Rama Varma High School

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

~~A non notable schools. Fails GNG YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Lacks citations, and needs a good amount of work, but it seems like a rather notable school. Largest in the area, with several notable alumni. Hell, it's got a museum too. But the lack of citations is what makes this a weak keep. AdoTang (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notability seems fairly clear to me. The autobiographical book My Mother Called Me Unni: A Doctor's Tale of Migration discusses it in some detail, though it is through the filter of personal experience and anecdote (Google Books link, see pp. 20-30 and to some extent pp.119-120). Since the school has changed names a couple of times, and even the present name has some variations (some of them listed in the article), searching for sources is not straightforward, but based on the searches I have carried out I'd say it is very likely that there are sources. (Note that the nominator is a sockpuppet of a blocked user, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man. The article could still be deleted if the school is found not to be notable, but it was not a good-faith nomination.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea, on what basis you confirmed that I'm I am a sock of user: Phoenix Man. It's still not confirmed. They are just enquiring about it. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source that is in-depth is based on personal experience. Which doesn't cut it for the standards of notability. Even if it wasn't though, there would have to be "multiple" in-depth, independent sources. So, one on it's own doesn't cut it. There isn't anything from what I could find that does either. So, I'm not seeing what makes this keepable. Also, how exactly is the nominator a sockpuppet? As far as I can tell they are still very much active, there's zero about them potentially being a sockpuppet on their talk page, and I haven't found a report about it either. Someone should report them if they are a sock or not throw out unsubstantiated accusations. Not that it matters to the AfD anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, this user is a confirmed sock. You may also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wahhid. The other SPI mentioned here also confirmes it and is waiting for administrator action. This user also has history of nominating lot of articles about schools for AFD. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmorwiki: I'm aware that's the accusation since you've said they are in other places. The problem is that in the meantime they are still contributing and haven't been blocked. While it looks like the other accounts that they are supposedly connected to seems to have been. So, either they aren't really a sock, they aren't going to be blocked even though they are one, or it just hasn't been resolved yet. Whatever the case, from the investigation discussion it seems not as cut as dry as your making out to be and the investigation is on going. I don't believe Wikipedia (or AfDs) should grind to a holt just because someone is being accused of something. Especially in cases where it's not clear that they actually did it or are going to get blocked. That and the linked discussion is especially convoluted. Even the admins trying to resolve the whole thing has said as much. Which really doesn't help. Given all that, I rather procced as normal until there's clear evidence and a solid outcome to determine that we shouldn't. BTW, there's also nothing inherently wrong with nominating a bunch of schools articles for deletion. You've nominated more then a few yourself. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, I have no issues with this user nominating schools for AFD. In fact, I had voted as Delete in most of the AFD's this user opened up because most of them failed GNG. What I tried to convey was, Bonadea was completely right. Thats all. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the oldest schools in the state. See this source from Hindu published in 2003. [16]. One HUNDRED and fifty-seven years old. That's the age of Sree Rama Varma High School, (S. R. V. School), bang in the heart of Kochi has a great story to unfold.; this is the opening sentence and I am unable to read the full article as subscription is required. This school has an historical significance and printed sources published during its 150th anniversary might be available in Malayalam newspapers. But its hard to find. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with Kashmorwiki, a lot of junk exist on Wikipedia. It is certainty in good condition and may be improved.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call an article where if the un-sourced material gets deleted all that's left is the notable alumni one that's in "good condition." Let alone improvable. Otherwise, some someone should provide sources outside of the notable alumni section to improve it with. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, just for your information, the nom has been finally blocked as a sock. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for letting me know. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - historically significant; I agree with the arguments of the keep voters in this case. Also, the AfD was started by a confirmed block-evading sockpuppet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: is there a policy or guideline somewhere about how to handle AfDs that were started by confirmed socks? I can understand striking out their comments, but I can't find anything in the policies that says AfDs created by socks can't go through with the process if there has already been substantive discussion by legitimate users when it's confirmed that they are a sockpuppet. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: There's just WP:CSK#4, which does not apply if other editors have made substantive comments. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as people aren't swayed too much by Phoenix Man's comments then I guess I'm okay for the discussion to stand. I just feel it's hard for a discussion started by a vandalism-only sock to not have a strong influence from that sock. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 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 07:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRL

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

This appears to be a rather promotion page created several years ago in 2013. GDallimore submitted it for a WP:PROD, but it was reversed by the article's creator.
I'm surprised no one has noticed this article before, but I am nominating it now because it does not meet WP:GNG. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A Google Scholar search for 'OpenRL ray tracing' reveals some substantial independent coverage of the technology. I'm inclined to think it falls below our notability threshold, though, and as it stands the article is not OK. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - I'm the author ad have discussed the pending deletion with the original software authors of OpenRL. While OpenRL does have a seed role in later real-time ray tracing technologies like DirectX raytracing, we're fine with retiring this page in 2021. — Kevin Bjorke (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2021 (PDT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons you listed. Reads like an ad; it's even got the ™ there too, just to let you know that it's one. AdoTang (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nom, not enough significant coverage available yet. Citterz (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 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 redirect to Arthur Javis University. No policy-based argument for notability has been made. Sandstein 07:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Javis Archibong

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

~~News coverage is not enough to pass GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No true notability, article is literally an advert trying to promote its subject and their works. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, I have reviewed the article and removed claims and references that may be percieved as promotions.Tomiwa2020 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Arthur Javis Archibong is a notable Nigerian in cross river state, who contributes to education at grassroot level through scholarship and education grants, He also founded Arthur javis University to help education. This article is in no way trying to promote the subject. His dad was also a notable Nigeria who was a military governor of Cross River state. Tomiwa2020 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTINHERITED, whether or not his father is notable has no relevance Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I know notability cannot be inherited, I mentioned that to butress the point that he is a notable Nigerian.Tomiwa2020 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arthur Javis University: Querying with "Arthur Jarvis Archibong" -wikipedia do turn up some sources about the university along with some minor coverage of the subject. However, this seems to be the only coverage the subject has received so the combined coverage is not enough for BASIC due to overlaps in coverage. It looks like the subject meets none of the additional criteria for biographies (NACADEMIC, an alternative criteria, comes the closest). GNG is not met here due to not receiving significant coverage.
Redirect per ATD-R. The person may also become notable in the future per NACADEMIC, so preserving the content for now is desirable. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 9 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 Sylvania, New South Wales#Commercial areas. Some content can be merged from history if desited. Sandstein 06:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Shopping Centre (Australia)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Southgate Shopping Centre (Sylvania)

Articles for deletion/Southgate Shopping Centre (Australia)

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

This is one of a number of articles on minor shopping centres that have been created or recreated in Sydney or nearby in the last few days. It has been created before and was deleted under a slightly different name.(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southgate Shopping Centre (Sylvania)). The creator claims it has been improved, but I can't see any new evidence that shows that it is significant. Grahame (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I do not even know why this discussion is even happening on this article especially when I created that article through the WP:AFC. I'm sure many users would agree that articles that are accepted through the AFC are ones that are notable and meet the WP:Criteria in which articles must notable. I know this Southgate Shopping Centre has been through 2 WP:AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southgate, Sylvania this one was a separate article made in 2011 for the same shopping centre just under a different name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southgate Shopping Centre (Sylvania) was done 4 years ago back and created by me. This was when I was new to Wikipedia and that shopping centre did not have many articles on it and did not meet the notability criteria. After that AFD it was voted to be a redirect. However in December 2020 I found 2 articles from St George and Sutherland Shire Leader detailing its history and notability, so I gave it a try by using the existing redirected article and then using the WP:AFC so then my hard work would not be deleted without any help from fellow users. As for the AFC I have found nothing that's against the rules for User:Bkissin (talk) to accept this AFC. I have also noticed that in the article history that Grahame (talk) put a notability tag after it was accepted through the AFC and then added a speedy deletion tag that it was "previously deleted". The tag was then removed by an unamed user but was reverted back to the tag. However User:ONUnicorn (talk) removed the tag with the reasons Decline WP:G4. 1. the result of the previous discussion was not delete, but redirect. 2. The content was moved to draft, and substantial sourced information about the history was added, addressing concerns in the AFD. 3. The article was accepted by AFC before being moved back to mainspace. Consensus can change. I have also noticed that Grahame (talk) put a notability tag on the Rowen's Arcade article which was created through the AFC on the same date as Southgate which was then accepted on the same date by the same user. - User:BugMenn (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing AfC is not an automatic validation of notability. It's not a G4 candidate, but that doesn't make it immune from AfD. Please argue significant coverage by reliable sources, not Wikipedia processes. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still comes up short per WP:GNG, as non-trivial, non-routine RS coverage comes from one source, the St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader. Incidental coverage includes coverage about a store in the mall and incidents in stores at the mall. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect as second choice. I was asked on my talk page to comment on this discussion. The current version of the article definitely is an improvement over the version that was redirected as a result of the prior AFD. However, it's borderline whether it meets notabilty guidelines. The article at present cites 12 sources. I would say they are all reliable for facts, but they don't all weigh equally when assessing notability. In this instance, I find two things that to me are indications of notability; the article in the Australian Financial Review, and the cumulative effect of articles in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader about the mall's expansion and the flashback articles. The one in the Australian Financial Review is stronger, as that is a national paper whereas the Leader seems to be regional. I do not think the articles about accidents at the mall contribute to notability as they are not about the mall. Now, if the mall was known as exceptionally dangerous, with articles talking about how it should be shut down because of how many incidents happen there, then they would contribute to notability, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I discount the ISPT and Cordell Connect sources as they do not seem to be independent (the website of the mall's owner and the contractor, respectively). They are reliable for facts about the mall, but do not contribute to notability. I did a Google search, and didn't come up with anything that isn't currently in the article, but I didn't spend much time or effort on it, so someone doing a more in depth search may find something I didn't. I think there's enough here for me to come down as a weak keep, but barely. My second choice would be to redirect again, leaving the history available for someone to build on down the road if they come up with more. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the WP:CANVASSING going on, there is not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can anyone explain why a merge to Sylvania, New South Wales is not inappropriate (and required to be assessed before deletion as per WP:ATD)? Deus et lex (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected before but it is now been recreated. I have no objection to the redirection being restored.--Grahame (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect I think the notability of the mall is quite questionable, but the coverage in St George and Sutherland Shire Leader seems like notable history of commercial development in Sylvania, New South Wales. That history section could be condensed substantially and added to the subsection on Sylvania about commercial areas. Suriname0 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nom and reasoning by onel5969. Not enough coverage for GNG yet. Citterz (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Suriname0. None of the deletion proponents have shown that that is inappropriate, and if an alternative is available it must be preferred over deletion as per WP:ATD. Deus et lex (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why don't we keep this article if there is a confusion in the debate and makes no sense. I know for a fact that there are users on Wikipedia who have no life and pride themselves in deleting articles. Surely the users that vote redirect actually want it kept. Also Grahame (talk) is jealous that this article passed the WP:AFC. This article also does have significant Notability. - User:BugMenn (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nonsensical comment about WP:AFC. Being accepted by AFC doesn't insure that an article won't be nominated for deletion.--Grahame (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sylvania, New South Wales where it's already mentioned. Fails WP:ORG with no in-depth non-local coverage. Fails WP:NBUILD with no evidence of "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".----Pontificalibus 11:31, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good News Agency

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

Only sources on page were 3 repeated links to the website. Having a ton of trouble finding sources showing notability, despite indications on the page toward notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first page of their website quotes "final Report of the Decade for a Culture of Peace project (2001-2010) presented to the UN General Assembly" as source. - Ref. http://goodnewsagency.org/en.

I haven't been able to find any sources relating to the UN. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nom not enough coverage yet to pass for GNG. Citterz (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Osseiran

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

Originally with 4 links, all dead, WP:BEFORE gave me absolutely 0 results, no sign of notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless ways in which the subject's name could be rendered in the Roman alphabet, so searches in it are unlikely to come up with anything. It needs someone who understand Arabic to search in that alphabet. I would point out that dead-linked sources were removed from the article (not by the nominator) before it was nominated here, although sources do not have to be available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed forgot to search in arabic. I added some references but cannot say anything about if those sources are [[WP:RS]]. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak keep. Shia Mufti of Sidon isn’t a very important role so does not carry anything like inherent notability. There is a fair sprinkling of press coverage, some of it local and not all of it in much depth. He only has 252 followers on Facebook though, where he seems to post uncontroversial things about once a month. I think this is a WP:GNG pass however.Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 1 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) 01:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I was being too generous. Don’t know. Mccapra (talk) 18:16, 12 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 13:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Vigeland

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted page still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST Sources include YouTube videos, a tweet, and a high school graduation announcement. I also suggest a WP:SALT to prevent persistent page recreation. KidAd • SPEAK 04:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much by way of notable citations, she basically does her job. Likely still too soon for being at the "Majority Report" site, perhaps notable in a few years. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree that she fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. T.B.A. (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn’t a notable person, and this article basically tells of an ordinary reporter. This article also barely came out of being a stub. User:Burgundian Feudalism
Delete not every person who writes/speak political commentary is notable. This is some atrociously poor sourcing and scapping the bottom of the barrel when you dig up a high school graduation announcement to bad out the article. It reminds me of when I was going through and reviewing lots of articles on Miss x state winners (Miss Nebraska, Miss Kansas, Miss Kentucky, etc.). Over and over again about the only thing I could find on the woman since she held the title was a local announcement of her marriage in a local newspapers paid marriage annoucement section, as well as various sourcing on Linkedin. Although this is not as bad as the articles we have that directly source information to the census. I always want to know how people are that sure that David Mackenzie at such an such a location in the 1930 or 1940 census is the same David Mackenzie that would later be notable. Do not get me started on the 1920 census botching the names of both my grandmother's biological father and her step father.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Res Ipsa (Philadelphia restaurant)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All coverage is in the form of routine restaurant reviews covered by mostly local magazines (WP:PRODUCTREV), as well as a trivial NYT mention and a couple more local sources saying that the business closed last year. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The restaurant received attention from Philadelphia's paper of record, or nearest such publication, the Philadelphia Inquirer — not a "local magazine" by any stretch, even if Philadelphia Magazine roughly fits that description. The restaurant also received attention from Bon Appétit, the nation's preeminent food and restaurant publication. Additionally, several sources exist that have not been included in the article, such as an interview with the head chef, published by the James Beard Foundation, a review from The Infatuation, another mention from Bon Appétit, a review in Condé Nast Traveler, and a feature about the restaurant's construction on Sprudge. More exist. — Mainly 15:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To address the point about the Inquirer, I've lived in Philly for half my life. I was born there, moved away, came back. I've also worked as a journalist in the area through various internship opportunities. The Inquirer is a local magazine in that its coverage is confined to the Philadelphia area, so it is unsurprising that they would be covering a restaurant in Philadelphia. Furthermore, the author, Craig LaBan, is the Inquirer's restaurant critic, and his review was routine. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 16:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure how your Philly bona fides matter here. The Inquirer isn't a magazine. If you dismiss all local reviews as "unsurprising" products of proximity or inevitable coverage how does any "local" establishment gain notability? Does a New York City or LA restaurant only gain notability when someone from the Chicago Tribune shows up? I don't know why one would chauvinistically dismiss an important publication because it's relatively provincial when compared to, say, The New York Times or Wall Street Journal. — Mainly 16:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to disengage after I make this statement, because it is unlikely that either of us will change each other's minds. As I mentioned earlier, I used to work as a journalist in Philadelphia, for a reputable music publication. While in that position, I was asked to review new music by artists with ties to the city, which ranged from demos recorded in a teenager's bedroom to a new single by an established band that had just concluded a worldwide tour. Similarly, a Philadelphia food critic will be asked, as part of their job, to do a routine review of a new restaurant in the city.

I mentioned WP:PRODUCTREV in my initial nomination for deletion. That policy states that brief and routine reviews (including Zagat) do not qualify towards the notability requirement. It also states that the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications.

I am going to step away now. I hope that, at the very least, you can see where I'm coming from. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 21:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. — Mainly 03:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article & added sources. — Mainly 00:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator cites WP:PRODUCTREV but seems to be operating by a standard far stricter than what that guideline dictates. Several of the reviews and other pieces of coverage are clearly not routine. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a run-of-the-mill restaurant that happened to serve good food. If we have to keep it, rewrite it, because it reads like an advertisement. Yeah, it reads like an advertisement for a closed restaurant, I know. AdoTang (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are adequate and the fact that the pandemic put it out of business last year means that there's no concern about advert/promotion. We should cover small businesses like this as well as the huge chains to avoid systemic bias. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 9 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists influenced by Eminem

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

This "list" is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It does not elaborate on what it means by being "influenced" by Eminem (any qualitative/quantitative analysis?) A collection of rappers/singers/artists mentioning Eminem in a random interview does not make it encyclopedic to deem it "influence". This list raises more questions than answers, and I do not see any point of its existence. HĐ (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- yes, we should delete this article. It is arbitrary, very poorly written and all of these artists can be included as influences on Eminem's main page. ADTN1210 (talk) 11:40, April 9, 2021 (UTC)
Delete per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per nomination arguments --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do not oppose deleting this article. I only fear that voting for this may result in its deletion, while the others possibly may not end up deleted. So if the other ones go and if this comment can then be used as a “delete” vote.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a POV fancruft used for POV pushing and providing a false notion that "everyone has been influenced by my favorite artist". We don't need that here. TolWol56 (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an informative list article per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anyone who says they were influenced by Eminem can have that fact stated at their own article, if it is backed up by reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists influenced by Christina Aguilera

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

This article is straight-up WP:FANCRUFT and WP:POINT. Sections "Background", "Context and analysis", and "Legacy" are WP:CFORK and can be reasonably incorporated into the article Christina Aguilera (that's not to say that the vast majority of these sections read like an essay with the format "critic A said this, critic B said that, so C said this, which made D that"). The definitions of what it means by "influenced by Christina Aguilera", as explained in the "Definition" section, is straight-up WP:OR. I do not see a point of including each-and-every artist who has mentioned Aguilera by name in interviews. This is not what Wikipedia is. HĐ (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christina Aguilera#Legacy, per the result in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 19#List of artists influenced by Christina Aguilera. feminist (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Christina Aguilera#Legacy, per the result in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 19#List of artists influenced by Christina Aguilera. as per above. Citterz (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Not sure if nom can raises their own opinions again, but I don't think redirect is a good idea. Per WP:RFD#5 redirecting "List of artists influenced by Christina Aguilera" to "Christina Aguilera" is rather nonsensical, and per WP:RFD#2 this redirect is confusing. This kind of redirect is also potentially harmful, since readers may expect another "List of artists influenced by [ABC]", which is implausible. HĐ (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- RD#5 is about why we don't redirect unrelated topics. This is clearly a subtopic of Christina Aguilera, so if who she influenced is covered at Christina Aguilera#Legacy then redirecting this list there is completely appropriate and sensible. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would still be rather harmful, as readers would automatically consider similar redirects (i.e. "List of artists influenced by Britney Spears", which is rather bizarre given that Spears's legacy is even more considerable). If one redirect gives an impression to the readers that there are similar ones, then I wouldn't favor redirect. If the consensus is to redirect, however, I'd suggest protecting the redirect so that a new article shall not be created--as I can see, this list has been newly created by an IP address within a few months. HĐ (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination argument. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. First of all, I appreciate HĐ for giving times nominating all these similar articles. This topic was previously raised on WP:AFCHD (Taylor Swift), but people did not execute the issue entirely. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do not oppose deleting this article. I only fear that voting for this may result in its deletion, while the others possibly may not end up deleted. So if the other ones go and if this comment can then be used as a “delete” vote.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a POV fancruft used for POV pushing and providing a false notion that "everyone has been influenced by my favorite artist". We don't need that here. TolWol56 (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an informative list article per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anyone who says they were influenced by Xtina can have that fact stated at their own article, if it is backed up by reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just FAN/LISTCRUFT. For those interested see the page for Madonna. Noah ^💬 20:16, 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. Bordering on no consensus, depending on how you look at it, but certainly there's no consensus to delete. Most people think that there are (if perhaps barely) sufficient sources for an article, even if not necessarily a biography. Sandstein 06:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FitGirl

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

Article is about a person who pirates computer games and posts them online. The article is nothing more than a sentence, and the sources are questionable at best. It does not appear the subject meets our notability guidelines for inclusion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like given the sources - which are considered reliable per WP:RSP - the person was marginally notable. The article is indeed pretty short, unfortunately, but I do think enough has been written about them that they merit inclusion. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but a reader coming to a one-fact article is likely to react "Er … So what?". This is a biography that can never be a biography, of someone whose life is undocumented, whose name is not known, and whose works are barely documented. Surely there's some other way that this fact can be presented, not as a biography? We shouldn't try to shoehorn absolutely everything into the form of a biography. What is the context for this single fact? Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uncle G: This doesn't really look like a biography to me. If kept, I'd suggest moving to FitGirl Repacks, the name of the site/repack project. I'd like to note I've heard of this before. It seems quite well known. I'll have to check the sources, but I lean towards keep. (edit: I checked the sources, I say keep) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found the This Latvian biographical article is a stub notice at the bottom to be a strong indicator, as well as the first sentence of the article. ☺ If we can make an article about the WWW site, or some other context that isn't a biography of a person (a sub-topic of video game piracy perhaps, as that is how one current source is apparently addressing it), that has scope for expansion and isn't a permanent-stub, that's a different matter. But it hasn't been shown what that is or that that's possible, yet. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Uncle G: I had missed that, I changed that to {{Videogame-website-stub}}. (if there is a better stub category feel free to change it again, I couldn't find a software piracy stub template) Even if a subject would be a stub forever, I don't agree that would be a reason for deletion if the subject is notable. Not every subject requires a lengthy article. Slywriter If I'm not mistaken, FitGirl Repacks is not considered to be part of "the scene". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy from day 1 we have never kept things that can never expand into articles. Later rewrites such Special:Permalink/1674677#What to keep, what to delete, for one example, made this clearer, but this has always been policy, from the days of Larry Sanger onwards. There are ways to rename and refactor, but we do not keep a permanent-stub biography that can never become a biography. Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Do not delete anything that might in the future become an encyclopedia topic. is also listed at the first link. It's a balance and only citing half of it is a bit misleading. Not to other stuff exists, but we have tens of thousands (if not millions) of perma-bio-stubs kept based off of SNGs. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Keep ( no suitable merge target)~~somewhere into the warez scene family of articles.~~ Though all warez related articles really need cleanup as they haven't been touched in 5 or 6 years. Slywriter (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Alexis Jazz, Having gotten lost in the en-wiki articles for several hours after writing that, I would agree that she would be outside the scene and changing vote accordingly. Slywriter (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Torrent Freak and Kotaku aren't reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, TorrentFreak is reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alexis Jazz. Could do with a few new sources but definitely seems notable. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequately sourced BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: It already wasn't a BLP anymore when you voted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 4 !votes and you have commented 5 times already. You might be bludgeoning just a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Nope, clearly not. Just correcting misunderstandings. If you hadn't called an article that isn't a BLP a BLP there would have been no need to correct you. Bludgeoning isn't measured merely by quantity, one has to be repeating themselves, which I am not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I wouldn't know what WP:bludgeon is about. Shoo. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Kotaku source a. only talks about FitGirl for a few paragraphs, b. is an interview, and c. explicitly says it contacted many uploaders and spoke only to the ones that responded (ie, it's an article about torrent uploaders in general, not about FitGirl in particular). This is not significant coverage. Lowercaserho (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two reliable sources seems strong enough to establish notability. Melmann 11:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails to establish notability. You cannot possibly write a good and comprehensive article with only two citations, and even those are on shaky ground regarding them being in-depth and independent. Namcokid 47 18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The second TorrentFreak source constitutes significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Is this an article about a person or a project? Both of the sources are clearly speaking about FitGirl as being a pseudonym for person who compresses and uploads video games; people in this discussion are referring to 'FitGirl Repacks' as a project - is it a group of people (in which case WP:NCORP would presumably apply)? Or is it just the website which is notable (WP:NWEB). I'd like to understand what it is I'm assessing before offering a vote. I'll also note that I'm quite concerned that we seem to have a link to the website in the article: FitGirl may operate in a pirate ecosystem where copyright laws are ignored,^[1] but Wikipedia does not. Links to websites publishing copyright violations are prohibited by our copyright policy (see also WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO). GirthSummit_(blether) 08:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Girth Summit: from what I can tell, links to copyright-violating websites are acceptable when discussing such websites. For example, see Library Genesis, Sci-Hub, The Pirate Bay, etc. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Elli, do you have a policy link for that view? I'm not aware of any such exception, but it's possible that I'm mistaken. GirthSummit_(blether) 21:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Girth Summit: there isn't a particular policy documenting this, but I think the clear intent of WP:COPYLINK is to prevent linking to pirated versions of works - which indeed is contributory infringement. WP:NOTCENSORED, however, means that we can include these details about piracy sites themselves. Also, linking to the homepage is different from linking to a particular pirated work on the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Elli, well I confess that copyvio isn't my specialism - I'll consult with some of me learnèd colleagues and see what the policy position is, maybe you're right that a homepage is OK if there aren't any violations there. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Striking copyvio concerns. A closer reading of WP:LINKVIO revealed the sentence In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

It makes more sense to think of FitGirl as a project "FitGirl repacks". FitGirl is a pseudonym of a person (or group of people) who maintains a website called "FitGirl Repacks". In this context, the pseudonym and the project are the same thing, since the pseudonym is not used for any other purpose. Even when FitGirl pseudonym appears on other sites, it always denotes the official communication from the "FitGirl repacks" project. I'm not sure whether Wikipedia allows link to official (piracy) website in this context. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see more relevant reliable sources online. However, I don't want to post them to Wikipedia before I read Wikipedia's policies on piracy and links to piracy resources. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm also confused as the editors here say it is a biography but the article states this is a company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's confusing. Perhaps we should rename the article "FitGirl Repacks". It looks like that term is already used in the lead sentence, infobox, and logo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does article say anything about a company? I searched the source for word "company" as well, but did not find anything. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple reliable sources including TorrentFreak and Kotaku support that the subject meets WP:GNG. We may disapprove of the subject matter, but notability certainly seems satisfied to me. Also, on the subject of the length of the article, given the subject of the article is likely violating quite a few laws, it is perhaps not that surprising that we don't have a ton of details about her personally. But the coverage is robust enough that it certainly seems appropriate to have an article about her. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable, while there's only three sources currently on the article, they're relatively in-depth and explain the subject well. And from a quick Google search, the site comes up on many 'best torrent sites' lists from TorrentFreak, which could possibly be incorporated. Waxworker (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
^ Ernesto, Van der Sar. "Meet FitGirl, The Repack 'Queen' Of Pirated Games". Torrentfreak. TF Publishing. Retrieved 12 April 2021.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Best of Luck Nikki. Consensus was that the article fails WP:V and WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murtuza Kutianawala

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

Unsourced Biography of Living Person and the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect to Best of Luck Nikki, which is the only semi-significant role by this actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is a biogrpahy of a living person with no sources, we need to remove it with all possible haste.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 6 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) 01:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect to Best of Luck Nikki as per above. Citterz (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 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 no consensus. There's little discussion, and given the apparent potential for confusion, any new nomination should make sure that we don't confuse this person with the subject of the last AfD (if they are indeed different people). Sandstein 07:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumud Das

AfDs for this article:

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

This journalist was found in 2013 to be non-notable, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumud Das. The information in this article is from or prior to 2013, and so already considered by the prior AFD. Naïve Google search finds LinkedIn and Facebook and shows that he writes for the Economic Times. It appears that not much has changed in eight years. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The person Kumud Das [17] mentioned in your AFD remark is a different person. Kumud Das is not only a journalist but also a noted writer in Assamese language. To avoid confusion, here is a video of Kumud Das while hosting his popular TV show - [18] Nalbarian (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wp:GNG -- Eatcha 05:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eatcha, could you please elaborate? He is a author of several books and a leading TV journalist of a major TV channel in Assam (Check the article and references). I think namesake (people having identical monikers in a nation of 1.3 billion) is the only problem with him. Nalbarian (talk) 06:16, 1 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) 01:51, 9 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. If a redirect is desired, one can be created (and perhaps contested) separately. Sandstein 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween (Dreamworld)

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

Lacks notability. Sources to press releases repeated by sources of dubious importance/reliability, and to primary sources. Every theme park has these theme weeks, months, events, and they all announce them as something special. That doesn't mean that they actually get significant attention (i.e. beyond sources repeating or rehashing these press releases). Fram (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful and sourced to Dreamworld (Australia) per WP:ATD. Deus et lex (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: the current article lacks sources needed to establish notability, and there's no reason to assume that more/better sources exist. Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what about WP:ATD - why is a merge or redirect not inappropriate? Deus et lex (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No objection, but this seems an unlikely search term. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The search term will probably be "Happy Halloween" so could be included on a disambig page or at the top of another main article. Deus et lex (talk) 10:45, 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) 01:48, 9 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. Sandstein 07:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Sood

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. This was deleted by PROD in 2018 for lacking WP:GNG-worthy sources and then recreated in 2020, but the sources present now aren't an improvement: out of six footnotes, three are IMDb-style film directories that aren't support for notability at all, two are podcasts and the only one that actually comes from a real media outlet just briefly namechecks her existence in an article about her cousin Ashwin's divorce from Sarah McLachlan, and thus isn't about Veena for the purposes of establishing Veena's notability. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have articles just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of third-party media coverage about her to establish the significance of her performances, not just film directories and interviews where she's talking about herself in the first person on podcasts. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is an award winning[19] (UBCP/ACTRA’s Sam Payne Award in 2014, the Lorena Gale Woman of Distinction Award in 2017, a 2018 Leo Award nomination for Best Performance in a Music, Comedy, or Variety Program or Series, and a 2019 recipient of The North Shore Fund Award and The Sam Payne Award for her accomplishments as an actress, and contributions to the creative community) and internationally recognized actress, who was given 131 credits for her TV show appearances in about 20 years and appeared in 27 movies. She was named among 100 most influential people in BC. [20]. Everytime she is mentioned in a piece of new she is referred as an award winning actress. [21]. I think the sum of all of the above easily let her pass WP:ANYBIO in my books. Kolma8 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every award that exists is always an automatic "notable because award-winning" freebie. In order to be an award that makes its winners notable for winning it, that award has to be a top-level award that gets broad media coverage — Oscar, Emmy, BAFTA, Canadian Screen Award, that sort of thing — and ANYBIO does not just indiscriminately keep everybody who's ever won just any award that exists. All of the awards you named in your rationale would be perfectly fine to mention in an article that was well-sourced, but exactly zero of them are "inherently" notable enough to exempt Veena Sood from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourceability just because the body text has the word "award" in it.

And when it comes to "notable because she's had roles", even that still requires reliable source coverage about her and her performances, and is not automatically passed just because any particular number of roles can be listed. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 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) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Seems to be a notable actress but sources may not be reliable , add more related sources. Georgeart01 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources you've added haven't changed anything. We're not just looking for sources that glancingly verify the fact that she's had roles, by briefly mentioning her name in a film's cast list but failing to contain any substantive content about her performance — we're looking for sources that single her out for special attention that goes well above and beyond just having her name mentioned in them: news articles about her, film reviews that zero in on her performance being a standout part of the film, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to me like a borderline case for meeting GNG, but just on the right side. Some sources I found:

Calgary's own comedy: 40 years of hilarity with Loose Moose; Newspaper; August 18, 2017 | StarMetro Calgary (Alberta, Canada); Author: Aaron Chatha. (Article is about Loose Moose - includes some paragraphs about Sood.)
Performing Asian Canadian in Vancouver; Yhap, Beverly.Canadian Theatre Review Iss. 85, (Winter 1995): 5-8. (Sood was one of four people interviewed for the article, again some paragraphs specifically relating to her.)
FEELING MINNEAPOLIS - CANDIDATE CO-STAR HAS PRINCELY TIE; July 26, 2004; Calgary Sun, The (Alberta, Canada); Author: LOUIS B. HOBSON, CALGARY SUN. (Around 350 words specifically about Sood)
There are also some brief commentaries on her performances in periodicals like The Village Voice and Variety, which wouldn't be enough to meet GNG on their own.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:08, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwendolyn Göbel

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just linked this to Wikidata and its other-language versions. Feeling pretty ambiguous about notability, though – she's been in some (by German standards) fairly high-profile stuff, but seemingly always in minor roles or as an on-off-appearance. Probably WP:TOOSOON at the end of the day. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We absolutely cannot have an unsourced biography of a living person. This needs to be deleted immediately unless someone can place reliable sources in the article immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 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) 01:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found, the German wiki article is about the same as this one with one source. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 9 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 07:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manga Productions

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search linked me to unreliable sources which do not possess a reputation for fact checking nor possess editorial oversight. Furthermore, even the singular source used in the article clearly states it’s a sponsored post thus as unreliable as they come. Celestina007 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made this new article by expanding The Journey (2021 film) and Toei Animation. Well, maybe should we consult WikiProject Anime and Manga whether this new animation studio is notable enough or not? Rtnf (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This company definitely does not have the sourcing to warrant an article at this time, however, since most of its works are still fairly new, it is definitely possible it could get more coverage down the line. Link20XX (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A second source has been added, and Al Arabiya is RS (AFAIK), but the article is based on the company's press release, and in any case covers the film, not the company, so doesn't do anything to establish notability of the latter. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. While I could live with draftifying, per the previous !vote, that would only make sense if this is likely to go from zero to notable in the space of a few months, of which we've no guarantee. I say delete now, and recreate later if and when notability exists. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 12 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 07:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Obidike

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

Possible promotion on subject's request →Enock4seth ^(talk) 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Probably this should be considered in conjunction with the page on her foundation, STEMi Makers Africa, which also seems like a promotional piece atm. Furius (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with Enock4seth, the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 20:14, 9 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. Consensus here is to keep. Concerns with promotional tone should be addressed by editing/talk page discussion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trishneet Arora

AfDs for this article:

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

Most links are dead and the last AfD wasn’t properly addressed, the awards and funding related sections clearly depict Promotional work, the subject is a forbes 30 u 30 holder but that doesn’t make him notable as these awards are very manipulative. Posting it up here for a discussion. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are multiple WP:RS news articles over a period of 2 years which easily makes the subject notable. This might require cleanup. But AFD is not a venue for cleanup. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article lists 20 sources. All live, or available as archives ("Most links are dead", c'mon). The nominator has not addressed any of these and is making specious and weak arguments. What source, specifically, is a problem? Why? The coverage is real and significant in many reliable sources. Previous AfDs have been riven with socks and canvassing on both sides, including the nominator of the last one who got blocked during the AfD. The noms claim of "manipulative" is unsupported. -- GreenC 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GreenC, I’ve already addressed it at the talk page, when no one replied i raised it to AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 05:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has reliable reference from global magazines, TV channels includes BBC and Fortune Magazine there were many recent articles on this person which were not listed on Wiki, I added them. He's popular entrepreneur globally and movie maker Sunil Bohra has already announced movie on his life. State of New Mexico has announced 25th August 2017 as "Trishneet Arora Day", a day on his name. I request to remove the deletion nomination. Techloveralwys (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techloveralwys (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough and WP:RS links are working. There are other awards also apart from Forbes.Sonofstar (talk) 11:36, 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. Clear consensus to delete. Only keep !vote is misreading WP:NPOL in an overbroad manner. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline Beechler

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

Discovered this article since the other Idaho Democratic Party chair is up for deletion as well. Chairs of political parties at the state level aren't automatically notable under WP:NPOL, and the only coverage I can find on her not in the article is about her failed city council race (for a town where councillors would not be presumed notable), so also fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a part of a coordinated deletion attempt, made minutes after Fred Cornforth was nominated. As I said there, per WP:NPOL, "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office. As the chair of a major party at the state-wide level, this individual meets WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 00:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not coordinated - I discovered the article when I saw the other article up for AfD and did a before search for her. She never held a position that qualified for WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians and judges who have held state/province–wide office, per WP:NPOL. The Idaho Democratic Party is state-wide. She is the chair of it. KidAd • SPEAK 00:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think "state/provincial-wide office" should be interpreted as a position at the state/province itself like governor, secretary of state, or member of a legislative assembly and does not include state-wide positions solely within a party. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding as well. Someone who holds political office at a state level has either been elected or appointed and directly serves constituents, being the leader of a state party is just a job. SportingFlyer T·C 11:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

being the leader of a state party is just a job is your personal opinion and not policy. KidAd • SPEAK 05:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By "just a job," I mean it's not an elected position, or a position answerable to constituents, which is really the justification for WP:NPOL - if you've been the member of a legislature, the assumption is you've been written about significantly per GNG at some point. The same is not true regarding members of local political parties. SportingFlyer T·C 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About all that's written about her is in context of losing the election to xyz candidate. Nothing of substance found beside that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and the referencing outside of routine campaign coverage is not enough for a GNG pass. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES: Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons.. An example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Nehring (2nd nomination), which resulted in the deletion of a California GOP Chair. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who have universally lost in the elections they have run in are not notable. The one exception is very rarely US senate canddiates, not state senate ones. The last Idaho political candidate I created an article on (possibly the last political candidate I created an article on) was Raul Labrador. He was then a US House candidate, a race he won. However since he was a member of the Idaho legislature when he was running for US House, he was without question notable. In this case Beechler was even defeated when she ran for city council, she is just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the US being the "leader" of the state party aparatus is just a job. In some other countries being a leader of the party involves a lot more power and influence, but as things stand in the US leaders of state parties are not default notable. Many of them are notable for other reasons. For one thing it is unclear in the US who is more important, the state party chair, or state members of the party national committee. We do have an article on Michigan's current (at least assuming the article is up to date) Republic National Committeeman, Keith Butler (Michigan politician), but he is notable first and foremost as a religious leader, probably was notable as a member of the Detroit City Council, and has done some other things over the years that justify notability. Him being notable in no way means all 300 people who are major party state heads or national committe memebers (I think each state has 2 national committee memebers at any given time) are default notable. The fact of the matter is, some "major" political parties in the US have very little power, and it is the candidate and office holders from the party, not the appointed officials of the party, who really develop most of the politcies and positions of the party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know that my count of how many people would be notable if we made Beechler's postion notable works out to about the membership of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, well that is 400, but close enough. If you look at the article we only have articles on maybe half the current members if that. It is the New Hampshire House of Representatives alone that makes me wonder if our view that every member of every legislature over a first level sub-national division at least in a government that has a federal form (such as US, Germany, Brazil, India, Mexico and I am sure there are others, I think Nigeria would qualify as well) is maybe including way too many politicians. Yet we keep finding articles on people who do not meet our fairly broad politician inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — politicians are notable if they satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL or have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources all of which the subject of our discussion doesn’t satisfy.

@KidAd, I consider your rationale for !voting a keep to be extremely unfair to me, whenever I opened the new pages feed your name was always one of the firsts I look out for because I believed your knowledge of WP:NPOL was flawless, well, up until recently, correct me if I’m wrong but haven’t I always reviewed your articles the very day they were created? Have I not reviewed over a dozen articles of yours moderately fast? saving you the anxiety of waiting? To now insinuate that myself & SportingFlyer(who by the way contributes extremely positively to the growth of this collaborative project) are somehow coordinating attacks against you is like i said, extremely unfair to me. Celestina007 (talk) 21:41, 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.

[1] Jim George (January 31, 2005). "Liquid mints become 'jewels' in a tube". Packaging World. Retrieved April 2, 2021.

[2] Lisa DeSisto (interviewer) (February 28, 2020). "Like a Boss: Read the interview with Tony Shurman, President and CEO of Jasper Wyman & Son". Portland [Maine] Press-Herald. Retrieved April 2, 2021. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

[3] Ernesto, Van der Sar. "Meet FitGirl, The Repack 'Queen' Of Pirated Games". Torrentfreak. TF Publishing. Retrieved 12 April 2021.

[1]

[2]

[1]