Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 01 February 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Every single Keep comment (bar one) here fails WP:ITSNOTABLE (as does the first Delete comment, to be fair). However, the Delete comments are generally policy-based and reference the fact that "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" per BASIC is required. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Skinner (surgeon)

[edit]
Alexander Skinner (surgeon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing coverage to establish WP:GNG. Simply owning thousands of acres doesn't inherently make one notable-- there are 27.376 million acres in va alone, according to google. Everything I got was he participated in a duel. this provides a decent amount of coverage, but a publisher of coloring books doesn't strike me as a reliable source here. JSTOR suggests an obituary, but it looks more like "local person died" than "a notable person died". Passing mention in [1] and [2], but I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources that establishes GNG. PROD contested. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Deleteopedia (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a peculiar nomination; even stranger than the proposition that deletion would be uncontroversial. Owning lots of land seems to be a straw man as this is not the main basis of the subject's notability. And appearing in lots of sources is not a lack of notability; quite the contrary. The book George Washington's Kentucky Land seems to be quite respectable and well-researched and, insofar as it covers the subject in detail, is fine for our purpose. And the subject appears in plenty of other works including The Centenary of Louisville; Kentucky Pioneer Doctors; Medicine in Kentucky; The Encyclopedia of Louisville; The American Struggle for the British West India Carrying-trade; The Field of Honor; Medicine in Virginia in the Eighteenth Century; and, of course, numerous records of the Continental Army and the Revolutionary War. It is especially engaging to read that the subject was indicted by a grand jury for "profane swearing". As such details have yet to be added to the article, the policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
● COMMENT Hi, Andrew🐉 I'll make my full post later, but a quick heads up for you. You correctly set up a good argument above, pointing out your sources need not be cited in the article, then in the rebuttal below ARoseWolf, also correctly, clubs you over the head with “WP:ATD only applies if WP:N”. You have no answer back. There isn't one, because N > ATD, by definition, always. Also true, always, by definition, is NNC > N > ATD, because WP:NNC doesn't simply support your argument, it literally IS your argument. The best version of it, that drops "yet to be added", because all your sources have to do is exist, somewhere. The End. Sorry ARoseWolf, couldn't let you get away with that haha. I'm Team Keep. Deleteopedia (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let me address these sources brought as evidence of notability:
George Washington's Kentucky Land - The subject does receive significant coverage in this well researched book. All of the other sources would be considered passing mentions. Simply appearing in a literary work does not confer notability. The notability requirement states that the subject must receive sigcov in multiple reliable and independent sources. This requirement is not met. A subjects Army record is fine to use if notability is confirmed or if it is presumed but presumed notability can be rebutted as is the case here. WP:ATD only applies if notability has been established which it has not as per WP:N. I also conducted a WP:BEFORE to see if I could find anything further but could not. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG actually says that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". That's what we have here -- a good detailed source and numerous other sources that provide other details about the subject, such as their views on duelling, their role in the medical history of Louisville and so forth. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to quote something then at least quote the whole something and don't cherry pick to meet your own subjective opinions. I'll let others go there and read it for themselves to find out what is missing from your selective usage. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bringing up essays and treating them like they are equal to policy doesn't exactly scream relevance. There is a policy, it says "SIGNIFICANT coverage in MULTIPLE sources" for a reason. Nothing else matters, period, whether you or I like it or not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you want that then go start your own blog/website or petition to have the rules changed. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The General Notability Guideline says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Generally but not always. Dream Focus 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't going to do this. I was going to just let everyone go to GNG and read it themselves but since you decided to push it further I will now set the record straight. The actual wording of what you posted as "fact" from GNG says this, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." And if you dig further into what it means by "multiple sources" it means sources who tell different things about the subject. Sources who repeat the same information are not considered multiple sources. Sources that do not give the subject significant in-depth coverage are not relevant in regards to notability. If you have five books and they mostly tell the same things about the subject they are counted as ONE source. If you thousands of mentions within a source or sources they do not stack and do not count as significant coverage and so do not apply to notability. That's the measure by which every article and every subject is judged, period, end of discussion. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule of guideline that requires "in-depth" coverage. Only "significant". And significant means significant enough to indicate notability. If that sounds circular, you are correct, that is how it was designed. Significant coverage can be a single sentence, depending what the sentence says. Or, or it might be many single sentences across many sources. This is all a matter of opinion of course what is significant coverage. But "in-depth" is not a requirement for GNG. -- GreenC 03:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per 7&6=thirteen. Article is vastly improved. I would concur with Andrew that it is much easier to delete articles and move on than put the effort in to tie the string around others flowers and elevate a life from the vicissitude of the fates. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how the article has been 'vastly improved'. The sources in the article are primary, passing, passing, primary, passing, seemingly passing, passing. And this book, the sole source that really contributes to GNG in any measure, has nothing to indicate it's reliable other than it "seeming" to be well researched-- it isn't published by a reputable publisher, and seems to be written by an amatuer historian. GNG doesn't ask for passing mentions and mentions in primary sources, but for coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" , and is both secondary and reliable. This has not been demonstrated. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This one is hard. The subject gets a few paragraphs about himself in one source, and then some passing mentions.I couldn't find anything better in GB or GS. I thought about how to call it and in the end I was right in the middle of the fence. I was going to abstain but Eddie makes a good point above: the book George Washington's Kentucky Land is either self-published or published by some local publisher with little reputation, and the author is an amateur historian. This is just not good enough to make the subject, covered briefly in such a book, notable, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give this another week and see if any fresh perspectives come forward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Davidstewartharvey, could you list the sources you feel provide "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Because I've yet to see them. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The article has enough references based on this principle of WP:Basic Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* COMMENT - BOOM! Finally someone posts it. I've been waiting for it, but didn't expect it to come with possibly the greatest "be careful what you wish for" moment ever. He literally asked for it! Wow Davidstewartharvey you are my new hero. Look how much ink was spilled over "multiple SigCov, blah, blah" first. Its the very first subject specific PEOPLE section! This surgeon was a people right? yep, check. Deleteopedia (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only source that has been found that actually gives significant coverage on the individual, George Washington's Kentucky Land appears to have been self-published - at the very least, I can find absolutely no other mention of its publisher, "Lake Orion Book ≥Distributors≥≥" in any other context aside from this single book. In addition, there is nothing I can find that shows that the author could be considered an expert in the field. Thus, that source can not be considered a Reliable Source at all. Every other source that has been brought up since this AFD started is, as Eddie already mentioned, just very passing mention that does little more than establish that he existed. When the only actual source that provides any semblance of a claim to notability is, itself, a non-reliable source, the individual simply cannot be considered to have passed the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Skeggs

[edit]
Tony Skeggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please, at least for cricketers from English-speaking countries, at least consider taking them to WT:CRIC first, there will be people who can find more information than I can, and they will be able to find them from better places than just CI and CA. For English teams, a Google search and/or database certainly won't be the be-all-and-end all. Bobo. 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - C&P-ing from Anthony Foot - Just because you are incapable of finding information yourself does not mean it doesn't exist. AfD should never be the reflex reaction. AfD debates are not the way to get articles improved. Take these issues to other places first. Bobo. 10:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wholly non-notable. I am not sure I even agree with Bobo192's suggestion elsewhere that "no other sports are criticised as much as cricket". There have been plenty of deletions recently of similar non-notable footballers and low-level football leagues. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in terms of cricketers who clearly reach standards of inclusion on Wikipedia. If people did work to expand these themselves instead of criticizing them, we would get somewhere as a project, but people would rather hack the project down for the sake of not being bothered to do the work themselves. It's much easier. Bobo. 11:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Those defending this article are attempting to impose on Wikipedia systemic bias where we keep rubbish articles on players if they are from the UK but delete the rubbish articles on players from south Asia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Define "rubbish articles"? Articles that people haven't been bothered to update for the last 11 years? Don't blame the article creators for that please. Blame those who would sooner delete than improve. kthxbai. Bobo. 20:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afzal Ahmed

[edit]
Afzal Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in coverage, clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Khan (cricketer)

[edit]
Akbar Khan (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in coverage, clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1973)

[edit]
Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1973) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in coverage, clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan D'Arcy

[edit]
Jan D'Arcy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A working actress, but truly zero significant roles. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant roles include key episodes of David Lynch's TWIN PEAKS (the original Pilot, two different series, the original ABC 1990 series and Showtime 2017 revival), a famous episode of THE X-FILES called "Tooms", the movie ALIVE, and more. Has also appeared in TV movies like Better Off Dead and in many major TV shows, including: The Commish, L.A. Law, 21 Jump Street, Jake and the Fatman, Highlander, Hot Pursuit, The Outer Limits, Arrow and Wiseguy, probably more. Passes WP:NACTOR, long career plus "cult status". -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Zoob

[edit]
Mr. Zoob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not appear to satisfy WP:NBAND. – DarkGlow (✉) 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am something of a scholar of Eastern European rock music during the Communist era (long story), and this band has an interesting tale of playing rock during the harshest years of Communist Poland. Unfortunately, unless their name has different spellings, I can find no reliable media coverage beyond their own websites. Online sources are highly unlikely because they were most active in the pre-Internet years, but I can also find nothing via Google Books, except for a few brief mentions in works about their hometown. Alas, their history will have to be written down elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You should have seen the Top 30 website (LP3) to get acquainted with their good chart results. There are some stories about them in the music press of these years (Non Stop, Magazyn Muzyczny), unfortunately I do not have access to them right now. Perhaps somebody can help with it. Besides, no, there's been only one spelling of the name, meaning in some convoluted way "A gentleman from the UB (secret police)". Kicior99 (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to "Rock music in Poland". Would hate to lose the history of this band 22:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The Rock music in Poland article is such a mess that it may not deserve to have things merged into it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the new source for top 30 track, I am striking my Delete, but I am not convinced enough this is a credible source to place a Keep. I will stay neutral. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Babar Azam. Editorial decision whether to merge or not, no clear consensus either way from the relatively-small number of participants below. Daniel (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Babar Azam

[edit]
List of international cricket centuries by Babar Azam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The consensus about such lists is that they should at least have a minimum of 25 centuries in international format WP:NLIST. -Lesenwriter (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is not established, clearly, and with one delete argument and the comment about the RfC, I don't feel comfortable just closing this as "don't delete but figure it out elsewhere".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Nguyen (scientist)

[edit]
Hung Nguyen (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find just two references to this individual, both brief [5][6]. Darouet (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RandomCanadian's argument is the most persuasive per policy and is generally supported. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Leendertz

[edit]
Fabian Leendertz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see only passing references to this scientist in the news over the last few days, because they're part of a 13-member WHO team investigating COVID-19. Darouet (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few more sources mentioning Leendertz's work investigating the origins of the Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea:
He was also interviewed by the Financial Times in this piece:
While this article requires more work, I do believe Leendertz is a notable epidemiologist, and not just for his latest involvement in the latest WHO investigations.
ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above source-bombing all seems to be mostly about the same few things (Ebola, there's a few about Covid), and the doctor's name + academic credentials being trivially mentioned due to him being quoted (what appears to be the case from the BBC piece and others) falls well too short of WP:SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Ohio's 2nd congressional district election

[edit]
2006 Ohio's 2nd congressional district election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating a bunch of articles from the same year in a bundle, but I'm keeping this one separate - sure, this one isn't notable, but the other problem is that this page feels more like an excuse for both candidates to throw mud at each other through a wikipedia page. Take away that and there's nothing left. Theleekycauldron (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article seems like nothing more than a character assassination piece for both candidates. There's nothing there to suggest any sort of unbiased notability that could be salvaged. Love of Corey (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - possible this violates WP:BLP? -Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) at 04:38 PST (sorry had to sign manually)
How exactly would it be notable? Forgive me, I wasn't 25 years old in 2006, but I'd expect you'd offer evidence of WP:RS that covered this or a way of rewriting this article to avoid the character assassination angle (or at the very least make it more neutral). Love of Corey (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this concurrent discussion, a number of editors suggest that the a congressional district election does meet WP:GNG. The fact that some pages were created and others not is not evidence of against notability (see WP:OSE). As for your specific comment here, it is certainly possible to prune the prose to capture the most important elements of the race (but that is not what AfD is about). --Enos733 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not acceptable. We should've had articles for every congressional race by this point, then. Love of Corey (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all close elections are notable, and coverage of the elections surrounding it doesn't make this notable - that's why we have articles by state and by year. Theleekycauldron (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We would've had more articles on such elections if that were the case. Love of Corey (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Swordman97: Love of Corey supports deletion. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it. Swordman97 talk to me 01:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Having one more crack at getting a result in this...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more with feeling.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siva Sivani Institute of Management

[edit]
Siva Sivani Institute of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After observing the article had been flagged for notability concerns, I did a before search & it appears they do not have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax.(non-admin closure) Blablubbs|talk 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Taylor

[edit]
Cody Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is not notable and does not have much references to being with. Looks promotional to begin with.

Also, the sole source https://filmmusicreporter.com/, looks like it is spam and probably a hoax, and not supported by better sources. Starzoner (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I don't think there's a consensus to Delete here, especially as two of the Delete comments are merely "not notable". The article is not close enough to the previous version to qualify for G4, by the way. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar (singer)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sahar (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Previously deleted in June 2020 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahar (singer). Tagged with WP:G4 today but the tag was removed with the edit summary " Check this new AfD on fa wiki, I think we can wait for the result". I'm not sure that AfDs on fa-wiki have any bearing here. John B123 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Foxnpichu OK.Reza Amper (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Comment - In the previous AfD a few months ago, a participant mentioned that articles on this singer have been deleted in Persian Wikipedia at least six times due to lack of notability. Here in English Wikipedia, we have had several recent AfDs on Iranian entertainers in which supporters claim the entertainers deserve to be here because they are suppressed in their home country and that's why they have no media notice. You can expect arguments about how they're "famous" anyway. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Bahram (2nd nomination). That one was also for an article that had been deleted shortly before but recreated by folks who ignored the guidelines. My own annoying experience in that AfD causes me to stay neutral in this one, for now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll also refrain from voting--I'm a firm believer that in order to do a fair AfD investigation one needs to know the particular language where sources can be searched--but I will state this: To be famous is not necessarily to be notable. Some feel otherwise, but as far as wikipedia is concerned, notability has to be backed up by consensus agreed reliable sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Iranian alternative culture persons are systematically suppressed by the Iranian theocratic regime. The few available sources are naturally not from mainstream Iranian media. The Islamic Republic of Iran wants to portray its people and diaspora as it suits its agenda; I would not want to help with that.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since people have argued she is notable enough despite being deleted in the past, I suppose I will also throw in a Weak Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, having had a look at this again, I'm changing to Speedy Delete under G4 and borderline G11. This has been a really messy AfD, and I thought that the other Keep !votes were showing some signs of notability, but it seems to just be lots of promotion and claiming her high follower count is enough for notability (Remember, most of those "followers" could just be alt accounts and/or bots). Foxnpichu (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article is very popular among Iranians who have more than 3 million followers on Instagram. Mehdii1589 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I've mentioned, Instagram followers are no way to indicate notability. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dear friend, if the number of followers is not a reason for fame, then it can be said that she is in famous programs like BBC And Manoto network is present and her songs have more than 10 million views on YouTube, so these are not celebrities, so what brings fame?

Mehdii1589 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • You have clearly not read GNG, which indicates that, for an individual to be notable, they must have significant non-trivial coverage from non-promotional, reliable sources. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeat Comment - The last three votes were predicted in my "Neutral Comment" above, and none of them are based on established Wikipedia policy. Sahar is "famous" but this can't be proven because of government repression and that makes her notable...? WRONG. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I vowed above to stay neutral for a while, but am compelled to cast my own vote in light of the poor knowledge of Wikipedia policies displayed by the "Keep" and "Weak Keep" voters here. I am absolutely convinced that the Iranian media suppresses talented entertainers, but that is a problem that is much bigger than Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not equipped to fix it. The larger problem could be discussed at Censorship in Iran, but helping to promote unlucky entertainers is not one of Wikipedia's functions. If anyone thinks that notability guidelines should be loosened for Iranian entertainers but nobody else, go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and try to make a convincing argument there. This particular discussion is about the notability of Sahar, and (as mentioned above) her Persian stage name and birth name are freely available in the article. Via Google Translate, a search brings up sites that are invariably promotional announcements and social media chatter that are informative but unreliable for our purposes here. Therefore she is not notable, as already decided multiple times over in Persian Wikipedia. Good luck to her. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Government repression means no press exposure and therefore no sources to cite. This is what drags all Iran-related subjects that are not regime-approved back to the dark.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note the words used in the Keep/Weak Keep votes. The singer has "some popular songs" (Kieran207). She is "famous" but with no reliable evidence presented (Reza Amper, Mehdii1589). It "could be argued" that she is notable (Expertwikiguy). She is the victim of "repression" (Elias Z). Per WP policy, all of these are weak and useless arguments on behalf of the singer, and problems in Iran should be discussed elsewhere. I implore all voters and admins to observe the notice at the top on how this is not a majority vote. Again, good luck to her and other Iranian entertainers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the BBC article is what swings this from neutral to weak keep Spiderone 21:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I don't speak Persian, I'll refrain from expressing a keep/delete opinion, at least for now. I do want to mention draftification as another alternative. I am skeptical of the argumements advanced here by some participants that the lack of sources covering the subject is due to censorship and government suppression in Iran. There is a huge Iranian diaspora outside of Iran, with a similarly large number of publications (in Persian and in other languages), and those are not controlled by the Iranian government. If the subject is as popular and famous as is being claimed here, there would be some coverage of her in some of these diaspora publications. Perhaps such coverage does exists, but it still has to be found and produced. Nsk92 (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines as she is not a notable singer. Rondolinda (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "popular" and "instagram followers" aren't reasons to keep. Can we build a neutral, verifiable article with sufficient content to be encyclopedic? It appears this topic may be notable, and I realize non-English sources may be difficult to locate, but it seems that those who are arguing to keep the article would have access to those sources. I am relisting this in hopes those sources are brought forth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: The BBC article is solely about her. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete the article. This person is a popular and well-known person among Iranians, although he is covered by the Iranian domestic media.

They do not because she operates outside Iran, which is why there are few resources Mehdii1589 (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time with feeling. Can we get any more sourcing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metadentobunus

[edit]
Metadentobunus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating because this page is quite unnotable, contains little content, and has no reliable references. Phantasm99 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A SCIENTIST HAS LEFT
A DESCRIPTION MOST QUOTABLE
OH FORTUNATE BUG
WE DEEM THY NAME NOTABLE
Burma-shave
--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial entity

[edit]
Territorial entity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another neologism by two sockpuppets (ChemTerm and Androox) of banned User:Tobias Conradi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). No citations are likely, because this is entirely made up of whole cloth.

  • Delete WP:CSD#G5 — in accord with previous decisions, such as:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. I'm sure you can get lots of ghits about this phrase, but so what? This is essentially original research, which in 20 years we have never published. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearian; looking at the mentioned ghits a bit more in depth, "territorial entity" is used to explicate another entity such as a political, legal entity or administrative entity. Most of the references to this phrase are references to such entities that have territory – in contrast to those that don't. For example an international organization is a non-territorial entity of international law (so a legal entity) – if one wanted to contrast such a legal entity with all those that have territory, he/she might say "territorial entity", but this only has meaning in a very narrow context, and "territorial entity" otherwise has no independent substance; that would still be talking about legal entities. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOR and WP:DENY. Nothing here is worth any ATD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Armenian Weekly. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khatchig Mouradian

[edit]
Khatchig Mouradian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article of a junior, unaffiliated scholar seems to have been created some while back, mainly with the use of self-published sources. The article reads like an entry for self-promotion and to quote another editor who highlighted its issues on its talk page more than a year ago:

  1. "Many of the sources cited for claims are written by the subject, and I challenge the use of subject written material when used as the sole support of claims in an article."
  2. "There are numerous claims which are cited to links that do not support the claim. Sometimes this is because the link is to a general site such as a school. Sometimes the claim is taken out of context from the source. Sometimes, the claim just doesn't appear in the source."
  3. "There are various external links throughout the article to sites such as Blogspot. I challenge the use of such external links and don't think they are justified in being there."

Recommend deletion due to lack of sufficient notability (aside from a recently published book and a handful of articles and interviews the author has carried out) and excessive reliance on otherwise faulty sources. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't synonymous with the Weekly. He didn't found the paper and isn't associated with it to such a close degree as to justify a redirect. He should be treated as a person, and as such, the merits of the article be judged accordingly. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not necessary for something to be synonymous to be a valid redirect. This redirect would meet, at minimum, WP:RKEEP#1 (potentially useful page history) and #5 (I find this sort of redirect useful). (t · c) buidhe 08:47, 30 January 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Bhat

[edit]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It's up to editors to decide whether a redirect should be created and if so, where this term should redirect to. But there is no consensus for any of the proposed redirects here. Sandstein 08:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duology

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Duology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined procedurally with the previous AfD in 2008. The original rationale, by Carchasm (talk · contribs), read: just a definition not a broad concept - there's a lack of sources on this on JSTOR, Scholar or common litcrit places (OWL, Johns Hopkins, etc.) from which to write a page, which is basically the same problem as in the 2008 AfD. I have not made my own investigation into sources, but I support deletion based on presumption of WP:BEFORE and the previous nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is general consensus to retain the article. Although some participants who favoured deletion invoked WP:BLP1E, most other commentators felt that it did not apply in this instance to the extent of meriting deletion. Note also that a concurrent move request ended up with the article having been moved to the subject's real name: Keith Gill (investor). El_C 15:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeepFuckingValue

[edit]
DeepFuckingValue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a living person known primarily for a single event, the GameStop short squeeze. WP:BLP1E applies. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - WP:BLP1E does not apply since points 2 and 3 are not met. Their role in the event is very well-documented, and they are not likely to remain low-profile otherwise. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." DeepFuckingValue sought out interviews with media, making them fail this criteria and BLP1E. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough info here that it makes sense to split it off from the main article. It could be merged, but that wouldn't be ideal. It's more than just a passing mention. Benjamin (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - #3 "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Event is significant and the individual's role is substantial and well-documented. UserTwoSix (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Elliot, seems to satisfy WP:BLP and WP:GNG as this person has seen much media coverage. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Reuters doxxed someone, and then everyone else wrote about the doxxing. 64.246.153.97 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. Mutharasan

[edit]
R. Mutharasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was proposed for deletion by me a while ago but the tag got removed by a user who did not explain in the summary as to why it should not be PROD'ed. Anyway, the subject of this article is a non notable politician who doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or any criterion from WP:NPOL. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tristin Stuteville

[edit]
Tristin Stuteville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I Can't see GNG, Fails NFOOTY never having played at top class level of womens football (soccer)as required by FPL JW 1961 Talk 19:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rough consensus was that the actor's body of work over a period of time, as well as coverage received, satisfied the relevant notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annette McCarthy

[edit]
Annette McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With one borderline significant role (Twin Peaks), does not meet WP:NACTOR, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Simply a working actress for a few years. Onel5969 TT me 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant roles include famous cult arc on TWIN PEAKS, hired directly by David Lynch himself, plus the 1985 cult horror movie CREATURE, a famous episode of RIPTIDE that parodied MOONLIGHTING and was written about in Entertainment Weekly and The LA Times, that got buzz at the time for mocking/parodying "Moonlighting", which beat it in the ratings, leading to "Riptide"'s cancellation. (She played a mock version of Cybill Shepherd's role.) Also an arc on BAYWATCH and multiple major TV shows in the 80s and 90s (incl. St. Elsewhere, The Twilight Zone, Happy Days, Beauty and the Beast, Magnum, P.I., The Fall Guy, and Night Court), plus a string of TV and feature films. Her arc in Twin Peaks was quite long (half a dozen or so episodes) notable for a few reasons - her arc came during a much-maligned sequence of weaker episodes and her arc was one of the most-notorious, giving her a lot of cult attention at the time and still in the fandom. One of her episodes was notable too for being one of Diane Keaton's first and last directing ventures in TV, very noteworthy at the time. I know notability isn't inherited but comes from a mini acting dynasty too (niece of actress Joan Hackett). Retired now but once quite notable, major credits AND sources on page, passes WP:NACTOR plus definite "cult status". -- --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of evidence for WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a good number of minor roles and several bigger ones adds up to a reasonable body of work over a lifetime, covered in multiple sources, so I think it just meets WP:NACTOR. Much improved over the earlier fanboi-ish versions. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: As for now, having appeared on several episodes of two large franchises is better than most articles nominated here. However, I am not entirely convinced of HistoricalAccountings praise for McCarthy's supposed cult status without any sources to draw from as most of the citations in the article is just a reference to her credits rather than anything that pertains to her cultural relevancy. — BriefEdits (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: I think the articles on RIPTIDE (the ones that still exist, like The LA Times one) and essays (pop cultural and academic) in books on the TWIN PEAKS role plus coverage on that in everything from TV Guide to NY Times attest to her cult status (some of which are cited in the article) and those roles along with BAYWATCH, the cult movie CREATURE as well, plus a string of major TV shows and quite a few TV and feature films should be enough for WP:NACTOR and cult horror/sci-fi status, as the projects are a variety of cult and mainstream. There are other articles and interviews by the Twin Peaks fandom that might go towards that cult status (plus more probably for the horror/sci-fi movie and other TV show fandoms), plus explains some of the directors she worked with, the poor critical reception and the allusions to classic movies, but I don't think they can be included in the article itself due to their nature. Here's a few of the TP ones off the bat.HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://detroederum.wordpress.com/boger/tv-peaks/annette-mccarthy/
https://www.lostinthemovies.com/2017/04/evelyn-marsh-twin-peaks-character.html
https://charlesevans.medium.com/twin-peaks-the-second-season-a-look-back-and-why-you-dont-have-to-hate-it-just-because-bdff9e2e6358
https://25yearslatersite.com/2017/08/25/the-surprising-other-reason-for-the-twin-peaks-allusion-to-sunset-boulevard/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as G4, re-post, and G12, copyright violations. — Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matrubhaban School & College, Cuttack

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Matrubhaban School & College, Cuttack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG SpareSeiko (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails the GNG: the first source isn't independent, and the second "source" is a "no results found" statement from a search engine. By the way, an admin might want to check for WP:G4 eligibility; the article was previously deleted at AfD for substantially similar reasons. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 14:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Peter

[edit]
Saira Peter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't satisfy WP:BASIC SpareSeiko (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already checked for the sources online on the web. I still think he doesn't qualify WP:BASIC. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a female opera singer Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in West Virginia. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 West Virginia's 2nd congressional district election

[edit]
2006 West Virginia's 2nd congressional district election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not pass WP:SPLIT or WP:GNG. It talks more about Capito's opponent than it does about the race in general. It's not even one of her closest races. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it John Broughton! You weren't being malicious in your edits, you were trying to improve the encyclopedia. Bkissin (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, deleted under G7 by User:Fastily. Hut 8.5 19:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netert Mudat Egyptian Scarab Map

[edit]
Netert Mudat Egyptian Scarab Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable – possibly a fringe theory or hoax. Of the 8 sources cited in the current version, only two actually mention this artefact. These are in a title called Present Pursuits of the Past, which claims to be an academic journal, but is not listed in any journal databases or library catalogues, and requires readers be invited by another member, pay an annual fee of $275, and "adhere to a strict non-disclosure agreement" to access it, so it is impossible to judge whether it is a reliable source or verify any of the material it's used as a reference for. One of the cited authors is also the creator of the page (User:Paleoarchaeo, formerly User:Nathandloper), who has been adding references to his 'discovery' across related pages. Searches for additional sources only turned up social media posts tracing back to the same person. – Joe (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My sincerest apologies to everyone. It seems this Mr. Preston Waters who I was contacted by to write up the paper on this scarab (and subsequent Q & A piece) last year may himself not be legitimate. Although I was not paid anything to write the paper, I was told if I wrote it, it would be published in the journal for their organization, of which I was free to join for free the first year and then $275 annually after that. Seemed like a good opportunity to connect with others in the field. I was sent a digital version of the journal (as it seems hyksosneter was too), but had not received anything in print nor access to the full research database he said they were building on the new website, "due to operational issues related to COVID this past year" I was told. That sounded like a valid reason. I've tried contacting this individual over the past few days, and have had no response. I now see their website is down too. Based on the conversations I've seen here and other places, I undertook an investigation into it myself, and as others have stated, also agree this may not be a legitimate journal as I have been led to believe. As such, even though I wrote it and agree with the archaeological findings, I also agree with the motion to delete this article entry for the time being. I would not want an unverified journal as a primary source, as it may not have actually been peer-reviewed like I was told it was. Again, please accept my apologies. I should have done a better job of vetting the journal and organization it seems. Now to make sure I can figure out how to cancel this "membership" so I don't end up getting charged $275. Good looking out Wiki team. Paleoarchaeo — Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paleoarchaeo: Do not forget the spanish entryǃ Udimu (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Udimu: he didn't create that, we need someone to take it to their equivalent of AfD. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But he's done a good job of removing the sources and asking in edit summaries for the article to be deleted. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Haji Syed Ahmad Ali Khan Bahadur 'Qayamat'

[edit]
Nawab Haji Syed Ahmad Ali Khan Bahadur 'Qayamat' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current sources doesn't show WP:GNG SwashWafer (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwashWafer (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.M. Salim

[edit]
A.M. Salim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not significant enough to pass WP:NPOL SwashWafer (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwashWafer (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hengest Records

[edit]
Hengest Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Non-notable small record label that does not appear to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I was going to redirect it but realised that there are two possible targets, Live in Geneva (Wishbone Ash album) and Victim You, neither of which would take priority. My WP:BEFORE search was only coming up with Discogs, Twitter, Spirit of Metal, LinkedIn etc. Nothing coming up in Google News, Google Books or ProQuest. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per accurate reasoning by Spiderone. Another unnotable record label. Couldn't find anything that establishes notability. COI also applies, as the article was created by a user whose sole Wikipedia activity this was, and GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Martin Looby appears to be the founder of the label as well. I can't believe that I missed that! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have missed that too, actually! So, the COI is obvious as this was written by Looby himself. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NCORP. Even without the COI this struggles to demonstrate any notability: the articles for the two albums mentioned above are both unsourced so they fail WP:NALBUM, and while it's likely that coverage of albums by British hard rock bands as well known as Wishbone Ash and Saxon do exist somewhere in print form, I don't think we can pin a record label's notability on the presumed notability of two albums released on the label. It also appears that the label barely released anything else after these two records. Richard3120 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahime Atabay

[edit]
Rahime Atabay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Turkish search only came up with stats databases and Wikipedia mirrors. Google News has this, this and this, all of which are just name checks. Her profile on the Turkish Football Federation has no international caps (not even at youth level) and, since she was last recorded two years ago playing in the amateur third tier, it seems highly unlikely that she will ever pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Looks to fail WP:GNG as well but, as ever, if sources showing signficant coverage are found, please let me know. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your point? Jay eyem (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Payment Services Organisation

[edit]
Irish Payment Services Organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, most sources I found were trivial and did not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Article seems promotional overall. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is the article was significantly rewritten and reworked after the nomination for deletion, which also included the addition of seven new sources. An analysis from other users regarding those sources would benefit this discussion at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinyaşi principality

[edit]
Pinyaşi principality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was moved to draft space then again submitted for release without any improvements, I tried to find some sources about what it might be, but WP:TNT is best I guess. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here I link to the former deletion discussion.

This was the version it was when it was draftyfied and this the one it was re-released in main space wikipedia. No major improvements made besides a wl and adding categories. And this was made by the releasing editor, not by the creator of the article. Here and here, I link to the discussions I held before nominating it for deletion this time.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete the article, just a name dispute?.

frat070699 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frat070699 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a name dispute. What the article describes now, is what as to me makes some sense, but I really have some doubts if what I wrote is correct. this was the version released in Main space wikipedia. With a phrase like Shahkulu Koci Bey was also killed, and his death was divided into two as Shahkulu gentlemen, Salmas and Somay, and some of them were linked to the Ottoman Empire. What does this mean? Two are some of them and why does it matter that they are linked to the Ottoman Empire? Then Shahkulu Mir Aziz got all the weapons and sent them to Van. For this reason, the Shahkulu Sons were called “Gazıkıran”. What is Gazirkan? The ones who receive weapons in Van? Is the article originally called Shakulu sons about a principality, a dynasty or Gazirkan? If such questions are not answered reasonably, TNT is the best.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you said, I need to improve the article but there is a wrong situation here, not a solution, you can fix where you find wrong. just a name dispute?. Frat070699 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frat070699 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

It is not a name dispute, the dispute is about what the article is about and if the subject is notable enough to remain in main space Wikipedia. There is not a single member of the Shakulu sons/principality which can be wikilinked to of from.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I see an article on a minor polity (not a sovereign state). It has a series of citations that look credible to me (though I have not checked them). The dispute (reflected in this AFD) appears to be over detail. If it does not quite make sense, that needs to be resolved by editing or by tagging for clarification. Discussion of these matters should take place on the article's talk page, NOT though an AFD nomination. It is clearly not a case for TNT unless it is utter rubbish and unsupported by the sources cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Glasser

[edit]
Holly Glasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable journalist who is EIC of a non-notable magazine. There is 0 coverage of her and her filmography roles are, well, pretty much non existent so also fails WP:NACTOR CUPIDICAE💕 15:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aderonke Apata

[edit]
Aderonke Apata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NOT ADVOCACY, and NOT TABLOID. This personal story, however harrowing, is not encyclopedic content. That other publications print this is not evidence that we should DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is backed up by several reliable sources, including articles from The Guardian, NBC News, The Independent, The Telegraph, and HuffPost. All of extensive coverage is more than enough to establish and justify notability. If you don't like certain parts of the article, then please feel free to remove them, but advocacy alone doesn't mean we should just get rid of an article. Also, the point of view I wrote the article from reflects the point of view of the RSes, and in terms of lgbt topics, reality leans to the left, but If you don't like that, change the point of view. There are even several books that mention Apata X-Editor (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DGG has also failed to explain what specific problems the article even has. If you list the problems, I could fix them. X-Editor (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an improved version of the article here in which I have removed all of the unreliable sources and trimmed the lede to be more neutral. X-Editor (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's poorly written, then fix the article. A poorly written article alone is no justification for deletion. X-Editor (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep: while there may be some issues with the article (such as it possibly being a bit too detailed about her story, and I'm not too sure about the "Awards and honours" section: is being Ranked No. 41 in the Rainbow List from The Independent that significant to be included?); I think there is just enough coverage of the person to keep the article: the sources in the article that talk about her are - I think - in depth enough to keep. Issues with the article itself aren't enough to warrant deletion, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to draftifying this article (as Celestina007 seems to be arguing for in their delete !vote above) - although I still think it should be kept (and then possibly trimmed down quite a bit). Seagull123 Φ 16:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Seagull123: I made some edits significantly trimming the article. If you want to do trimming of your own, please feel free to do so. X-Editor (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest very much more trimming of the bio section is needed--the details are in the sources; and certainly we should remove the trivial awards and placements; After it's written as much as possible, it might be clearer to see if there is actually any notability . A poorly written article -- or any article -- that is unfixable to a NPOV standard is a justification for deletion. If someone thinks they can fix it, the question is whether it can be done here, moved to draft, or the article started over. . DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: What content in the bio would you suggest trimming? X-Editor (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This afternoon I read every one of the newspaper and web accounts cited, and a good deal else, (except for her book). It is the case, as in almost all survivor stories, that almost the entire account of the horrendous events is due to the person's own statements (and, as is inevitable, the news and similar sources essentially copy each other for this period.) (I also read two lengthy handbooks on how to evaluate such accounts--the conclusion is basically that for humanitarian purposes the only ethical thing is to take them as they are given unless they can be shown impossible--and this is to some degree the direction of current law in the EC, though not the US). My previous experience is with survivor stories from a different continent and generation, and my interest in them is their evaluation for historical purposes, which is another question entirely (as is the way such accounts should be handled in an encyclopedia). What concerns me more about this article is that for the events in the UK the sources also essentially copy each other--this is usually the result of effective PR.
It might be possible to write about this in a way which is objective but not unsympathetic, but this is beyond my abilities. I am not sure anyone here can really do it. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: All sources copy each other to some extent, but all the sources that mention her don't just contain the same information. Some have unique info that can only be found in one or two or a few sources. I also think it would be very hard to write the article from an objective but not unsympathetic POV as the bias in the sources Wikipedia uses often reflects onto WP. And yes, good PR can result in a Wiki article as long as the PR gets picked by and verified by multiple different independent media outlets. X-Editor (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, even high-quality PR copied into WP cannot make an acceptable NPOV article. At least, in the 14 years I've been working with articles on people and organizations, I have never seen it, though well-done responsible PR can in some cases serve as a source for straightforward undisputed factual materials that can with caution be used in a encyclopedia article. PR by its very nature is neither independent or NPOV. The very few honest declared paid editors in WP tell me that it is very difficult to support a business writing NPOV articles for Wikipedia , because their clients do not generally accept NPOV work. And it's also the case that a proper NPOV Wikipedia article about a worthy cause or useful product can incidentally serve to some degree for PR as well as information.
All of us can very easily deal with commercial PR; but when its PR for a sympathetic cause it becomes much more difficult. That's why I don't want to edit this article -- i don't want to seem unfriendly, or act as if I did not recognize the problem or applaud the heroism. And I find it very difficult even to write this. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: PR is a huge part of actvism tho, so it's really difficult to separate the two. I am not a paid editor BTW. If there were articles criticizing her, I would've added them and their content too. At this point, I think it would be best to end our discussion here as we can't seem to come to any sort of agreement. X-Editor (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I do agree with you that "PRi s a huge part of activism." NOTADVERTISING applies to activism just as much as commercial enterprise. It isn't appropriate for us to bend the rules in favor of those causes we support--that's the opposite of NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: As I said before, if there were reliable sources criticizing her, I would've added the content from those sources to the article, but I couldn't find any, which is why it may seem to you that the content is not neutral. I'll admit however, that the original article's POV was bad, which is why I trimmed the lede and removed lots of unreliable sources and their content from the article. I'm also surprised that no one has closed this deletion discussion yet. I guess it's because of our long conversation, so I think it would be best if we end our discussion here and let another user make the closing decision for this deletion. X-Editor (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to point out that the exchange of vies in the discussion is often more valuable than the decision on the particular article. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Fair point, but this discussion has dragged on for quite a while. X-Editor (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As needs to be repeated far too often: *content is no justification for deletion and AfD is not cleanup*. An activist who has been in UK media for multiple years, high-profile, recognised, discussed in depth in peer-reviewed literature.[1][2] There seem to be some very high bars being put up to justify deletion here.

References

  1. ^ Chelvan, S. "The DSSH Model and the Voice of the Silenced: Aderonke Apata—The Queer Refugee: "I Am a Lesbian"". The Queer Outside in Law: Recognising LGBTIQ People in the United Kingdom. Springer International Publishing. pp. 79–105. ISBN 978-3-030-48830-7.
  2. ^ Adur, Shweta M. "Sexual Rights and Globalization". Companion to Sexuality Studies. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 427–444. ISBN 978-1-119-31504-9.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I had no idea she was in peer reviewed literature. Thanks for finding those! X-Editor (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to USS Harry F. Bauer. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry F. Bauer

[edit]
Harry F. Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains significant coverage to write an article with per GNG. -- GreenC 21:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.
This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references are about Bauer though. Three are in relation to the ship named after him, one is about a ship that he served on, and one is focused on a completely different person. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference in the article shows ample information about him, and his heroic action that earned him a silver star and got a ship named after him. The fact that it then mentions information about that ship afterwards is not relevant. He is notable for his actions, and winning a significant award and honor for it. Dream Focus 00:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, insufficient SIGCOV of the individual to meet GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm inclined go with selective merge with USS Gregory (DD-82) given that the narrative goes with that ship rather than the destroyer which honored him, but merger to either ship is preferable. It's the same story as with the run of "sailors after whom destroyers were named" articles; I'm also seeing the same problem here as with the Ault article, that almost all the biography is unsourced. It seems to me that the principle ought to be that these sailors and marines are documented in the article either on the ship named after them, or on that of the ship/battle where their notable action occurred. I prefer the latter but in particular I just don't see what we are gaining by, in most of these instances, repeating the same story of their heroism in three different articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on adding sources. At AFD, I assume that those who vote will do their own search and see whether sources exist. This goes for the proposer. And you are supposed to be looking at sources, whether they are cited in Wikipedia or not. WP:Notability does not depend on article quality. As I said, dumping lots of AFDs all at once is just an attempt to get the article axed. I can't update all these articles that quickly. You could add sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is trendings towards a merge result, but Mangoe brings something overlooked amidst all of these ship namesake AfDs. Bauer is both the namesake of a ship (USS Harry F. Bauer), but was also the commander of another ship (USS Gregory) when he carried out the actions that led to a ship being named after him. This is different from the other AfDs, where the subjects were just serving as aviators/crew. Whether this merits a merge/redirect to the Gregory article instead of the Bauer article is worth discussing further. Also, this is the only AfD in this batch that I've closed in which 7&6=thirteen has explicitly said that they were adding sources to, and given the difference in command level I mentioned earlier, is another reason to relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been expanded and new sources added. Sources contain biographical information about Bauer who was both the captain of one ship and had another ship named for him. Even if you were to merge it is not all clear which ship would get the redirect, and there is enough material to merge that it becomes a WEIGHT issue. A separate article solves all these problems and there is sufficient sourcing for GNG. -- GreenC 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is still the same in that none of them are actually focused on Bauer himself. Three are in relation to the ship named after him, one is about the Gregory, and one is focused on a completely different person who served on the Gregory. Both the Gregory sources are quick mentions, so I think that the weight of what coverage there is leans more towards USS Harry F. Bauer. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in GNG says a source must be "focused", that is an invented high bar. Sources contain biographical information which is sufficient to wrote an article with. Sources contain significant coverage, as others here have stated. You are welcome to disagree, it is an opinion, but what is your point, of course you disagree you didn't !vote to Keep. -- GreenC 21:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does say coverage needs to be "Direct and in detail", which really only leaves his Silver Star citation and the opening paragraph of the USS Bauer's DANFS entry. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Moslehi

[edit]
Roxana Moslehi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page does not contain any external sources that is not a peer-reviewed article by the same scholar. There seems to be no notability according to WP:PROF. RoxMosDel (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She hasn't achieved anything beyond what a normal scientist in her field would do. The "awards" she has aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. She has some highly-cited research, including first-authored papers with Google Scholar citation counts 325, 163, 59, 46, ... and several others with even more citations on which she was not first author. The article is puffed up with minor and non-notable accomplishments and badly-sourced evaluations of her work, and it could use being severely trimmed back, but I think this is enough for a borderline pass of WP:PROF#C1. I note also that the nominator is a WP:SPA whose login (judging from its name) seems to have been created for the sole purpose of hiding the identity of a more-experienced editor (one who at least is familiar with our academic notability guidelines, not true of most new editors); to me that looks like a likely case of WP:BADHAND "inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. The number of citations, particularly considering how variable the ranges are from field to field has never been a criterion for notability inside/outside of Wikipedia. And yes, you are right, I'm an experienced user and for obvious reasons decided to make this suggestion using a temporary username, which is not against policies. But please let's focus on the topic of the discussion and not my identity. Please also note nomination for deletion is not vandalism (per definition of badhand)RoxMosDel (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of RoxMosDel does appear to be a violation of WP:SCRUTINY, so it is against policy. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this is not correct. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses. RoxMosDel (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per David Eppstein. I'm also not sure if the COI tag on the page is actually justified. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So my new method of analyzing notability in a way that normalizes to subfield is to look at a few credential parameters in both the subject and their coauthors using Scopus. This allows people in very low-cited topics a better chance of gaining NPROF C1, and mediates the appearance of high citation counts for people who publish in extremely high-citation/publication subfields. I look at the subject's and their coauthors' current professional position, PhD graduation year, total number of citing documents (slightly different from total cites), number of publications, h-index, and cite count of highest-cited paper overall, as first author, and as senior (last) author. I'll fill in the position and PhD year at a later point, but here are Dr. Moslehi's coauthors from her 3 highest-cited papers (1, 2, 3), her most recent paper (3), highest-cited first-author paper (4), and highest-cited last-author paper (5). I've bolded the people with much better credentials and italicized those who are comparably-credentialed.
author metrics
Caption text
Name Professional position PhD grad year Total citing docs # Publications h-index Overall highest cite Highest first-author cite Highest senior-author cite
Roxana Moslehi assoc. prof, SUNY Albany 2000 2421 43 20 559 254 32
Steven Narod TBD TBD 36799 832 120 4916 660 2544
Harvey Risch TBD TBD 15878 172 69 2475 633 633
Anne Dørum TBD TBD 2482 60 22 886 102 46
Susan Neuhausen Morris & Horowitz Families Professor, City of Hope TBD 20919 366 84 4916 242 187
Hakan Olsson TBD TBD 16918 274 63 2475 149 309
Diane Provencher TBD TBD 8662 231 48 1067 120 217
Paolo Radice TBD TBD 13590 320 65 2475 35 171
Gareth Evans Professor? 1992? (MD) 29565 623 110 2475 729 311
Susan Bishop TBD TBD 559 1 1 559 - -
Jean Brunet TBD TBD 3505 45 28 559 113 294
Bruce Ponder Emeritus prof., Cambridge 1978 35021 482 117 2717 461 1621
JGM Klijn TBD TBD 30269 346 91 3601 379 1313
Ilana Cass TBD TBD 2687 71 24 380 380 167
Rae Lynn Baldwin TBD TBD 2365 38 26 380 271 82
Taz Varkey TBD TBD 448 2 2 380 - -
Beth Karlan TBD TBD 26951 471 92 4205 165 380
Ellen Warner TBD TBD 9367 182 42 2475 900 119
William Foulkes TBD TBD 22333 617 94 1948 1948 660
Pamela Goodwin TBD TBD 12538 193 62 1795 697 338
Wendy Meschino TBD TBD 5353 114 37 900 10 53
John Blondal TBD TBD 609 8 7 313 29 -
Colleen Paterson TBD TBD 313 1 1 313 - -
Hilmi Ozcelik TBD TBD 5344 117 43 755 186 130
Paul Goss TBD TBD 19363 304 74 1795 1580 786
Diane Allingham-Hawkins TBD TBD 1135 23 10 376 376 30
Nancy Hamel TBD TBD 3229 75 31 313 64 -
Lisa Di Prospero TBD TBD 766 4 4 386 74 -
Velita Contiga TBD TBD 313 1 1 313 - -
Corrine Serruya TBD TBD 530 4 4 313 - -
Meri Klein TBD TBD 430 2 2 313 - -
Joanne Honeyford TBD TBD 429 6 4 313 - -
Alexander Liede TBD TBD 1973 65 22 319 319 31
Gord Glendon TBD TBD 5268 137 43 716 3 15
Cristy Stagnar TBD TBD 105 9 4 56 - -
Sneha Srinivasan TBD TBD 0 1 0 0 - -
Pawel Radziszowski TBD TBD 0 1 0 0 - -
David Carpenter prof., SUNY Albany 1964 31611 474 66 4142 269 238
Igor Kuznetsov TBD TBD 431 24 10 149 118 149
Michael McDuffie TBD TBD 33 2 1 32 - 1
William Chu TBD TBD 873 10 10 254 28 -
David Fishman TBD TBD 10207 150 54 2734 207 192
Abbie Fields TBD TBD 1401 45 20 254 69 144
David Smotkin TBD TBD 1399 23 16 483 483 17
Yehuda Ben-David TBD TBD 674 25 11 254 24 -
From these numbers, it appears her subfield has exceptionally high publication rates and citations. Among all her coauthors, including those who are undergrads with 1 paper, the (median, average, Dr. Moslehi; italicized when comparable, bold when much higher) for each of the parameters is: total citing docs: (2482, 8557, 2421); total pubs: (60, 155, 43); h-index: (24, 37, 20); citation of highest cited papers: overall: (559, 1268, 559), first-author: (118, 268, 254), last-author: (53, 249, 32). Among coauthors with 10 or more pubs: (7008, 11892, 2421); (144, 217, 43); (43, 51, 20); (984, 1680, 559); (248, 374, 254); (169, 350, 32). Considering only NPROF C1, based on these metrics, I would lean towards delete (not a !vote), as she does not appear to be highly cited in her field. If she has considerable independent media references she might just meet other NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lainx, do you consider every professor in any field who has 2–3000 citations notable? I've only recently started voting in academic AfDs, but from assessing citation counts and h-indices using Scopus it's become very clear that subfields differ enormously in the typical values for those metrics. For example, in pure math 250 citing docs and an h-index of 9 can be notable, but there are also fields where the average post-doc with 5+ years working can have like 3000 citations and an h-index of 25. Surely different criteria should be used depending on the subfield? JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willie York

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Willie York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. While he did receive SIGCOV, he doesn't seem to be much more than a local personality. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saizul Amin

[edit]
Saizul Amin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per removed PROD, completely non-notable cricketer / journalist. Fails both WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Only coverage of subject is from sources he has close connection with, and this seems to be an Autobiography Spike 'em (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only just noticed that the article has had any claims to notability removed since I PRODded and has now been CSDed. Spike 'em (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floyds Row

[edit]
Floyds Row (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to routine local coverage of concert announcements and reviews of their first album on blogs. While the collected sources could maybe justify an article about their only published record, I don't think we have enough coverage to establish that the band meets WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references vary, but are legitimate sources within the United Kingdom and the United States. Similar acts: The High Level Ranters, as well as Lady Maisery, and perhaps Bearfoot (American band), Cadillac Sky, Cornmeal (band), Greensky Bluegrass, Poor Man's Whiskey, and Railroad Earth. SNX35 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. The Oxford Sessions received substantial coverage and most sources used in the article mostly pertain to that. Same with the tours or performances. Only two sources in the lead actually talk about the ensemble. A google search didn't turn up much except for the album reviews. Ashleyyoursmile! 13:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It might meet WP:MUSICBIO with radio airplay mentioned, but there is still not significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Not relisting this for a third time, and no real consensus below given low participation. No issue with someone renominating this without waiting any period of time if so desired. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National English School, Kolkata

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
National English School, Kolkata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL RationalPuff (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that the inclusion of "B.Ed college called National College of Education was also established for training teachers with degrees in Bachelor of Education. (B.Ed)" just about makes it notable. --Bduke (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is normal MILL coverage all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  17:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ji-young (tennis)

[edit]
Kim Ji-young (tennis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to ITF Tennis, has not won any titles that would qualify her for WP:NTENNIS. Tennis Explorer lists all of her results and there is no record of any appearance in the main draw of a WTA tournament or Grand Slam. She had a couple of qualifying appearances for WTA tournaments but never made it through. I can't see any Fed Cup appearances either nor evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karmachakra(Anime)

[edit]
Karmachakra(Anime) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without explanation or improvement. Currently, it is wholly uncited, with no indication of notability. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Leaning Keep, maybe Draftify): There seems to be legitimate coverage from Indian newspapers such as The Times of India here and Hindustan Times here. A little more niche, but still with editorial oversight: Animation Express. I could maybe see an WP:NFF argument to draftify (it's always hard to judge production status for animation), but given the nature of this being the first of its kind, I would lean to this being considered notable even if the project failed to release for some reason. That said, WP:NEXIST is the only rationale I see to keep it... the current state of the article is atrocious, and doesn't provide any actual information. -2pou (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Markos Gakos

[edit]
Markos Gakos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I agree with User:Chalk19's comment on the AfD for Georgios Gakos in that it looks like Markos fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as well. For the latter, I have checked Football Critic, Soccerway, Soccerpunter and Besoccer and found no appearances listed in a WP:FPL. In terms of GNG, all I can find is this match report, which is insufficient. Searching his Greek name comes up with nothing useful. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyonheart

[edit]
Lyonheart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Not a single reliable source is cited, only official social media pages. A Google search turned up no independent coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal diesel marine

[edit]
Ideal diesel marine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two for the Win

[edit]
Two for the Win (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable TV film, nothing of use found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Usual run of the mill promotional coverage and film database sites was all that was found Donaldd23 (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekvita

[edit]
Ekvita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Routine coverage only. References are press releases. Reads as a PR piece, listing the company's wares. Undisclosed paid editor (though the editor claims not to be) given their persistence in trying to get this into mainspace, bypassing AfC where it was declined twice and then rejected, and based on certain offwiki evidence sent to [email protected]. Bringing to AfD as author objected to WP:PROD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Leaving aside the article creator's avoidance of the AfC rejections by other editors and subsequent attempts to remove the AfD and other tags, this article merely describes a consultancy firm going about its business, supported by PR announcements which fall under "trivial coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find further listings such as this but not evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. I clearly got carried away with this one. I apologise for getting fixated on that old AfD. I'll close this as a speedy keep since the links provided by DiamondRemley39 point to the subject meeting WP:AUTHOR. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Ted Staunton

[edit]
Ted Staunton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some years ago, a page of this name was deleted via an AfD (see here). The reasons for deletion were that no reliable/independent sources were used in the article; instead said article filled its reference section with Good Reads and the like. The new article, though not a copy, has the same problems: it does not use reliable sources to cover this person's life and the source situation has changed only slightly since the last time around. Yes, he has written lots of books but they don't seem to have the number of reliable reviews asked for in WP:AUTHOR. Regarding WP:ANYBIO, I don't think the John Spray Mystery Award is sufficient to make its recipients notable by default. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabin

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Cabin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HistoricalAccountings - just out of interest, why was this relisted? The consensus seems clear enough. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If the sources are ever verified and found to be substantive, ping for undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Markovski

[edit]
Tomi Markovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable football coach. None of his playing or coaching positions put him through NFOOTY. Article dePRODed by creator based on number of references he added. It's hard to assess them accurately as they're all offline, but it seems to me they amount to routine transfer-like updates. I say GNG isn't met. --BlameRuiner (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: please can you analyse the sources for us, given they are all offline? GiantSnowman 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that I am unable to verify the coverage given it is all offline (strange) and Geschichte has failed to provide any analysis as requested, which leads me to thing they can't... GiantSnowman 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Wilder

[edit]
Lily Wilder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically WP:BLP1E with a dash of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. It is super charming that a little girl found a dinosaur footprint, but it does not make her encyclopedically notable. We're not here to document every cute little human-interest story that hits the news, and at four years old, it's unlikely that Lily has much other claim to notability (yet). The discovery, yes. Her personally, not so much.

As it stands this is an exact copy of the Notable Incidents section in the Grallator article; I'm not opposed to a redirect there, but I figured AfD would be a better venue than requests for merge as it's higher-visibility. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we should not be creating a BLP for three year old children who occasionally make the news. The fossil discovery is notable so it would make sense to repurpose the article with that focus, but I’m not volunteering. Mccapra (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC) PS the article creator has agreed on his talk page that this shouldn’t be a BLP and the article should focus on the scientific significance of the discovery. Mccapra (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She could be moved to a sub-section or a brief mention about the species of dinosaur, she's not notable by herself. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and repurpose) I created this article and i learned a lot about Wikipedia's notability policy after this incident. I love Wikipedia so its policies are respectful to me. I strongly agree with Mccapra's suggestion. Thanks everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcherphd (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their nomination, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Mz7 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Music Tours and Travels

[edit]
Sunshine Music Tours and Travels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NFILM, Lack WP:SIGCOV. No significant sources as per WP:RS/WP:RSP. - Hatchens (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Fest

[edit]
Indie Fest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this while reviewing a draft. Long story short, this is a vanity award that doesn't seem to have actually received any coverage for the award organization itself. I state that it's a vanity award as the organization charges winners for their prizes, starting at $40 for a roll of stickers and over $400 for a statue. Awards are given out by the dozens each month, so it's a pay to play type of deal where if you pay, you can win. They also charge for submissions and also state that they will help promote the film. Another sign of it being a scam/vanity award is that the same address is used for the Impact Doc Awards, which has similar issues. I don't know if this started as legitimate, but the most recent version seems to be just pure vanity. I know that this isn't a cause in and of itself to delete, but I did want to add this as a bit of a preamble.

As far as the sources in the article go, here's a rundown:

  1. Mail Tribune: This is an article written about a former local resident winning the award and isn't about the organization. It's also not a wider reporting of the people who won. This is a case of a paper reporting on a local person, so not the greatest sign of notability for the award.
  2. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: Same issue here.
  3. The Portlander: Same situation.
  4. GlamSham: This is a reprint of a press release since the same info was reprinted elsewhere verbatim and has typical PR wording, so it's a primary source.
  5. WMNF: Looks to be routine notification of a local event.
  6. Times of India: Only briefly mentioned.
  7. NJ.com: Briefly mentioned in relation to coverage of a local person whose film is being screened at another event.
  8. GlamSham: Reprint of a press release about a screening at another festival, only briefly mentioned.
  9. Times of India: Looks to be based off a press release about a screening at another film festival, only briefly named.
  10. CLATL: Database notification of event, info is likely supplied by the filmmakers so primary at best. Indie FEST is only briefly mentioned.
  11. HuffPo: It was posted by the director of the film so at best this is a primary source.
  12. IndieFest: Primary source.

I tried finding coverage and there's no real coverage of the actual film festival itself. Most of the coverage is like the above: press releases, passing trivial mentions, or local news sources reporting on a current or former local resident. What I think contributes to this is that the film festival has all of the hallmarks of a vanity award, as most outlets aren't going to cover film festivals like that. There were some false positives as more than one film festival uses the term "indie fest", but I just couldn't find anything. I don't think that the local coverage is enough to establish notability for this film festival. If there were outlets reporting on the awards then that would help a lot, but that doesn't seem to be out there either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, but I'd have to find sourcing for it. That said, it would be worthwhile to create an essay type page about vanity awards. I'd have to look into info about the business and organization vanity awards since I'm not as familiar with those as I am books and film, but I think I could ask at some of the applicable WikiProjects for help on that end. That's not a bad idea! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MarnetteD: I've started my draft here. For now it's more of a narrative, but it's a start. I think I may bring this up at the film, company/organization, and book WikiProjects to see if they have anything to add or suggest. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG as carefully and thoroughly argued by the nominator. Normally I might take minor newspaper coverage like the newspaper stories on various winners listed as sources on good faith, but the evidence that it's a vanity award makes me think a higher standard is necessary. It would be possible for a vanity-award pseudo-film-festival to still be notable, for instance if we had multiple in-depth publications independently exposing it as such, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, when I've seen people discuss whether or not an award is notable they tend to look at whether there are outlets that report the winners. For example, outlets like Locus Online or Dread Central will print listings of awards ceremonies that they view to be notable or major, like the Hugo or World Fantasy Awards, or film festivals like FantasiaFest. Those types of listings would be a sign of notability for an award since these types of articles tend to be fairly selective. Articles like the ones listed above aren't as useful for establishing notability because of the reasons I've stated above - that they're usually solicited somehow doesn't help. (IE, they're approached by the winner or their marketing team) I don't know if there's a notability guideline for awards, but if not perhaps there should be. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Started a draft here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually looks like there's one here as an essay. It would be worth working on that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ASA Productions and Enterprises

[edit]
ASA Productions and Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olga poznává život

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Olga poznává život (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero indication of notability. Redlink author, so not suitable for redirect. No sources found on a (admittedly limited in that I can't read Czech) search, and the cz.wiki article has no sources either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that the topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Daily Student

[edit]
Indiana Daily Student (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Indiana Daily Student does not appear to meet Wikipedia's established notability guidelines. Three of the existing references merely point to the main page of various social media accounts of the IDS, four point directly to the organization's self-published website (including one that links directly to a donation page), one links directly to a press release from the University of Indiana, and the remaining one provides no information about the 'IDS except the name of the paper and that the IDS had an affiliation with the source's publisher. I really can't find any references to the IDS from a reliable, independent source that has covered the paper in a substantial way way. As such, I think this article's topic fails to meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generic Q5 TV Mobile cellphone

[edit]
Generic Q5 TV Mobile cellphone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable reference design for a generic mobile phone manufactured by OEMs in China under countless brand names, and references for this are spotty at best. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 08:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 08:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ball State University. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ball State Daily News

[edit]
The Ball State Daily News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Ball State Daily News does not appear to be notable. One of the current sources is a blogspot, five of the sources are published on the Ball State University website (*.bsu.edu), another source is the website of the paper itself, and two others are self-published awards ceremonies. I really can't find any references to the paper from a reliable, independent source that has covered it in a substantial way. As such, I think this article's topic fails to meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue Exponent

[edit]
Purdue Exponent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The current article cites very few sources, and the sources that it cites are only those that verify the job and credentials of a single alumna who has her own Wikipedia page. One of the sources listed is "Purdue Exponent staff," with no further specification, indicating that there may have been a WP:COI involved in the creation and editing the page. I've looked, and I can't find any reliable sources that make reference to the newspaper in any non-trivial way. For that reason, the paper does not appear to meet WP:GNG and the page should be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig swanson

[edit]
Craig swanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Co-founder of CreativeLive, does not pass GNG. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrew's School (Sevierville, Tennessee)

[edit]
St. Andrew's School (Sevierville, Tennessee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks to be a non-notable school. The article is sourced only to the school's website and to a government database that includes all schools. Neither moves the needle under the GNG, and a BEFORE search finds nothing better. This isn't terribly surprising - very few 45-pupil schools are notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Harvey

[edit]
John R. Harvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm almost sorry to nominate this article for deletion, because it was full of fun fabrications, but unfortunately the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO, in particular WP:POET or WP:PROF. Sorry! Chrisahn (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to USS Charles E. Brannon. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Brannon

[edit]
Charles E. Brannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to USS Bassett. Consensus that the topic is not notable. Any useful content is preserved in the page history and may be merged into other articles as deemed appropriate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar R. Bassett

[edit]
Edgar R. Bassett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to USS Doyle C. Barnes. Consensus that the topic is not notable. Any useful content is preserved in the page history and may be merged into other articles as deemed appropriate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Clayton Barnes

[edit]
Doyle Clayton Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:47, 23 January 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 USS Paul G. Baker (DE-642). Consensus that the topic is not notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul G. Baker

[edit]
Paul G. Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to USS Austin (DE-15). Consensus that the subject is not notable, but some content about them could be merged into the target article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Arnold Austin

[edit]
John Arnold Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete with expressed permission to undelete, redirect and then merge from behind the redirect, the content to an overarching list, should it be created. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Dva

[edit]
Ras Dva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Previous prod by User:Kinu. I did also consider the sources provided at Talk:Ras Dva but they seem to amount to one short superlative of dubious relability and few other mentions in passing, no substantial coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Could be included in a one-line mention in the Industrial Music article, I don't see merit in keeping it as an article by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's unfortunate but not unexpected to see this Afd; Music labels don't have specific notability criteria like artists/bands, so the default is the company/business criteria. This creates a conundrum because most indie labels derive their notability from the bands & releases they produce and/or from the people/entities that establish the label, both of which are explicitly excluded from the business notability criteria. Add to that the fact that it is rare to have the label itself as a topic of secondary sources - in this case I was able to track down a couple of "label reports" in contemporary scene zines that treat on Ras Dva, but only as far as discussing upcoming releases, not the label operations or history. So, while I would love to see this article survive I have to reluctantly admit that without any more specific notability criteria for labels this article doesn't meet the letter of the existing specifications. Now, I can think of a dozen similar labels that either don't have articles (probably due to the same problem with notability) or could be similarly threatened with deletion for those that do... what would be the most appropriate article to maintain some of this info if individual articles are not warranted? (edit: would it be appropriate to create something like "List of Industrial Music Labels" and with redirects for specific label names to the list for those without articles, and to add the list link to the Industrial Music template?) -- t_kiehne (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tkiehne, Existence of similar articles invokves WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (irrelevant / nominate them for discussion here...). How to save relevant information is a more valid question (keeping in mind WP:ITSUSEFUL, however). Options include 1) identifying a target where this can be merged (or even creating one, and yes I think your proposed list of industrial music labels is a very sensible idea in this context) or 2) transwiki to a relevant wiki in wikia/fandom or even wikibooks. There is also the option of 3) user draftification if someone thinks they can improve it in the future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Piotrus - For the list idea, I am inspired by something like this List of electronic music festivals - though I don't see the number of labels that are predominantly "industrial" (and related genres) as being quite as numerous as the number of festivals on this list, the format is attractive in that it can give enough useful information for those labels who don't have enough notability to warrant standalone article, such as what we are talking about with this Afd. Label redirects to this list will allow cross-reference from band/artist and other articles that mention label(s) if no standalone article exists. If this sounds like a viable option I am more than happy to begin constructing the list. -- t_kiehne (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Automobiltechnik

[edit]
Hay Automobiltechnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Current name (MusashiEurope) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article deprodded in 2018. This company does not seem to pass WP:NCORP. I can't find any reliable sources that aren't just passing mentions of the company. Mbdfar (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In 2018 I added and referenced information on the company's takeover (to become MusashiEurope), but felt that such routine coverage could not sustain an article here, so I then placed a PROD: "Searches are finding only routine announcement coverage of the sale of the company, which is insufficient for WP:NCORP. Nothing better found to address the longstanding notability and referencing concerns.". The PROD was removed without comment: perhaps it was felt a company with a substantial main factory needs a fuller discussion (but I can only speculate)? Anyway, while there are routine listings, etc., under neither the previous nor current company names am I seeing the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability here, nor is there an article on the acquiring company which could provide a redirect target. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy (delete) to User:Gabinho's userspace. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ciprian Lucaci

[edit]
Ciprian Lucaci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NRU; for example, there are no Challenge Cup appearances or international caps. A WP:BEFORE search did not come up with any sources that would allow him to pass WP:GNG. Sources found here and here are just routine coverage of U19 rugby and do not help with establishing biographical notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gabinho:, the Romanian league isn't listed as a professional league as per the list for point 2, if you believe this to be incorrect you need to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union to see if it should be included. Currently because of this reason the player fails point 2 and so fails WP:NRU. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails our way too broad inclusion criteria for Rugby players. For the record some people use football broadly to include related sports such as rugby. Wait, we accept the horribly broad fully pro league guidelines on things other than soccer. Things are worse John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Johnpacklambert:, Lucaci is a rugby union player and not a footballer. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we just wait for an admin to close and then we can move the content to somewhere like User:Gabinho/Ciprian Lucaci Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Porsha Williams

[edit]
Porsha Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:GNG and lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. The person is a secondary reality tv personality, has only appeared in 'The Real Housewives', and lacks any sufficient resume, significant occupation, or media coverage outside of the show. If we are to create WP articles for every single folk on reality shows like Real Housewives, The Apprentice, Big Brother, etc there would be thousands of them. Bionic (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AngelOfDestiny: The issue is not just about the sources cited in the article, it's about the content & adequate notability according to WP:BLP. None of the media coverage discusses the person from an outside-real housewives perspective. Bionic (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Firstly, that happened only recently and it's a very minor part of the article. secondly, that is not outside of her role on "RHOA" either, that's part of the show's storyline. Bionic (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was answering your question asking for an example of coverage outside of RHOA. I do not consider her BLM activism to be solely a RHOA storyline. It may be recent, and it is currently only a small part of the article, but it does show that this individual has received coverage on something outside of her appearances on a reality show. However, I will obviously respect whatever the consensus is at the end. Aoba47 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will actually strike my vote and leave it as a comment. I said earlier this month that I would be retiring from Wikipedia so I should really step away before falling down the rabbit hole again lol. I hope that my comment is helpful even if consensus forms against keeping this article, and this was an interesting discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not very familiar with the deletion policy for BLP, but I am seeing considerable amount of films/shows this person has been involved in, so I think the subject should be notable for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ:That's actually not true. As you can see on the filmography section, a considerable amount of roles is nowhere to be found. Only a few cameos & appearances as herself. Bionic (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: But where are those 'significant roles'? I don't see them anywhere. She only has had a few cameos & appearances as herself, and the number of followers on social networking sites is not the criterion to have a standalone WP article. There are random people with millions of followers on social media, should we have an article for each one of them as well? Bionic (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I never heard of her before, and a quick survey of my (White) friends shows not a single one ever heard of her. On the other hand, she seems to have quite the base of fans. That's all. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Ahmed (cricketer)

[edit]
Naseer Ahmed (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The basic issue of the award lacking independent coverage was not resolved. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook Excellence Award ("Texty")

[edit]
Textbook Excellence Award ("Texty") (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References look non-independent, and I wasn't able to find any good independent coverage. Appears unnotable. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - having edited textbooks while a college instructor for almost two decades, and opened a library for a charter school last year, I've never heard of this award. DGG, what do you think? Bearian (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it is possible to make an article at all, it would be on the sponsoring organization, Textbook and Academic Authors Association, for this is only one of their several awards. The association operates by providing various tutoring and educational programs to authors, and awards for books. The purpose of the awards is promotional, and most of the information on the web is various publishers advertising their books. It's a genuine organization, not one that is irresponsibly PR oriented, but I am not aware of it having any particular importance , nor its awards being considered significant . An article could only be reasonably be written by someone without coi, for otherwise it would degenerate into PR--it is extremely difficult to cover such organizations in a NPOV with a conflict of interest, more so than almost any other subject. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A weak keep, but a keep nonetheless. Certainly no consensus to delete. Rough consensus was that the sources mentioned satisfied GNG. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Wolf

[edit]
Crimson Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable anime, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since April 2020. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The film is covered in The Complete Anime Guide: Japanese Animation Film Directory & Resource Guide. Considering that this came out in 1993 and is in Japanese, it would be good to make a request to look at Japanese-language sources to find further coverage, including in databases of offline sources. There just may not be much English-language or print online coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Erik, Were you able to check the extent of the coverage in that source? Is it just mentioned in passing, or does it have its own paragraph, section or chapter? And does it go beyond a plot summary / list of actors / etc.? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell. Screenshot here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Erik, Huh. Does look like it may have its own entry... but it could be just two line-long. Without knowing if the coverage is non-trivial I will abstain. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Erik. AfDs and PRODs based around the nominator being unfamiliar with the language (or culture) of a subject are an irritant of mine. Of course, not all anime not discussed in English is notable (quite the contrary), but considering the context of this work and its coverage elsewhere, I suspect a multilingual WP:BEFORE is needed. Willing to change my !vote if it pans out there's nothing in Japanese either. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Japanese Wikipedia lists no sources but it's understandable since the film was released pre-Internet and it seems to have been based on a manga. The title Kurenai no ōkami to ashikase no hitsuji (紅の狼と足枷の羊) is also not the correct original title of the work; it's a work by another author that's not related to the subject of the article. I will be editing it. lullabying (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside (Barrie-James O'Neill song)

[edit]
Riverside (Barrie-James O'Neill song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Song does not have significant third-party coverage, has not charted, has not been made commercially available on digital music sites etc. WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT applies. No plausible redirect targets, as the article on the primary artist (Barrie-James O'Neill) does not discuss anything regarding this song, and adding information on this song to that page would constitute undue puffery. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Comfort object. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedtime toy

[edit]
Bedtime toy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As usual, deprodded without explanation or addressing of PROD rationale from Piotrus: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar."

Children use a variety of toys for a variety of reasons, I do not see what makes the concept that Stuffed animals can be slept with an independently notable topic, or sources that show this definition isn't original research. Reywas92Talk 04:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claims made above that there are no sources are false, as usual. For example, see The Guardian, which has run several features on the topic. There are scholarly studies too and a professor tells us that about a third of adults sleep with soft toys. So it's time to fess up. Me, I'm the sort of geek whose soft toys are micro-organisms such as Yersinia pestis, aka the Black Death, but I don't take those to bed. When I was young, I would read The Children's Encyclopædia in bed but, nowadays, I play with Wikipedia instead, of course! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual, my claims are not false because as usual, this source does not provide separate notability for the made-up "bedtime toy" construction, but rather the main articles Stuffed toy and Comfort object, because those are the actual notable topics. The former now has Stuffed toy#Use, for how people use them, with a link to the latter, and a redirect for this unused term is not necessary. Reywas92Talk 18:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stuffed toy#Use - As Reywas92 said, that is really the main article on the topic, which does not need to be WP:SPLIT into an independent article. Even the source that Andrew provided above is referring specifically to stuffed toys, and does not even use the phrase "bedtime toy". While its not super common, I do see that term being used in some sources as another name for the topic, so I think that a Redirect to the main article would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic center of Belarus

[edit]
Geographic center of Belarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability with substantive sources. There is a small marker at this location [36] but every country has a center and sources don't establish notability of this one. Prod removed without explaination as usual. Reywas92Talk 04:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 04:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 04:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This is standard information for any country, and Belarus should not be singled out because someone is unfamiliar with the location. The size of the "marker" should not dictate the "nobility." There should not even be questions about the nobility here as it is geographic identification. Additionally, an image and references were added. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable The Keep !votes should be disregarded by the closer as they don't provide any evidence that the topic is notable (I can't find any either). A merge to geography of Belarus is possible, but probably not List of extreme points of Belarus which has similar notability issues. (t · c) buidhe 13:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

→Very interesting... By the same token, "Not notable !votes should be disregarded because they do not provide any evidence..."Partizan Kuzya (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are geographic center points for many countries on Wikipedia: Australia, the USA, Canada, most of the US states, even|center points of the US counties. Why is it OK to discriminate against Belarus? If Belarusian geographic center is deleted, we need to nominate to delete all of those other world geographic centers.Partizan Kuzya (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax. Sam Walton (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella boy III (2020 film)

[edit]
Cinderella boy III (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as Cinderella boy II (2019 film) MB 03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MB 03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MB 03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Savona, California

[edit]
Savona, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one's just a weird one. Starting off the weirdness is the claim that it's on the Northern Pacific, which makes no sense as the NP does not and appears to have never gone through this area. There's no place labelled Savona on topographic maps, this does not have a GNIS entry, and it does not appear in Gudde. This calls it a railroad station, that was originally named Camino and then Compton before settling on Savona. There's several other passing mentions of Savona Station, as well as a number of references to a place in Europe. I don't think this meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG and the reference to the Northern Pacific is just baffling. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Using JSTOR, Google scholar, GEOREF, I found the same mottly collection of passing references and surnames. None of them qualifies this entity (nonentity ?) for notabilty under WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. I did add a possible bus stop to Hog Farm's list of what Savona might be. Using Google books, I found the below quote on page 131 of:
United States. Interstate Commerce Commission, 1960. Interstate Commerce Commission Reports Vol. 72-Motor Carrier Cases). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C.
"The Greyhound Corporation. Certificate No. M0-1501 Sub Original Sheet no. 13
Interstate Routes within the State of California.
48. Between Savona and Oroville : From the junction of U. S. Highway 99E and unnumbered highway south of Chico (Savona) , over unnumbered highway via Durham Junction to Oroville." Paul H. (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cub (novel series)

[edit]
Super Cub (novel series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability in the form of significant coverage in independent sources, per WP:GNG. No claims to meeting any of the specific criteria in WP:NBOOK, such as winning significant awards or being the subject of a substantial review in a reliable publication. No reviews cited at all. The only sources cited that are independent of the publisher or author are a number of brief blog posts at content-hungry sites like animenewsnetwork.com. e.g. [37][38] (the second one was the best source I could find, outside what's currently cited in the article), which consist entirely of a rehash of a product announcement or press release from the publisher, merely repeating claims for future plans or future projects, or restating a summary of the premise of the work. No evidence of actual journalism, independent reporting, or analysis typical of a real secondary source. It's fine to cite a few news blogs here and there in an article, but when that's all you've got, then the topic hasn't received enough coverage to meet the minimum guidelines for a stand-alone article. The announced plans for a film or TV adaptation doesn't meet WP:NFF because principal photography/animation has not commenced. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first volume of the novel was reviewed by The Asahi Shimbun (link). Series has been covered on websites such as Anime News Network, Dengeki (link), Natalie (link), and Animate (link), all of which are considered reliable per WP:ANIME/RS. With the anime adaptation coming, it's sure to receive even more coverage. lullabying (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting over a few hundred words? These sources are all exactly what I meant: rehashes of press releases by content hungry blogs, and one and only one capsule review. The first criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (books) emphasizes non-trivial coverage, and gives a detailed definition of what non-trivial means. The Asahi Shimbun review has only one sentence of actual criticism and commentary on the book itself, containing only two actual assertions: the book is charming, and the style is straightforward and simple. That's it. It is trivial. And even if this capsule review was somehow considered non-trivial, the minimum is two, not one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources used are considered reliable per WP:ANIME/RS. lullabying (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never suggested they were not reliable. I think I've repeated it enough times that it's clear the issue is trivial coverage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It can't be trivial if it's being covered in a wide variety of reliable sources in multiple languages. In my brief searching, I've found coverage in English, Japanese, and Portuguese. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The notability criteria are not whatever you made up five minutes ago, and "being covered in a wide variety of reliable sources in multiple languages" isn't one. The languages aren't relevant. The depth of coverage is what matters. A hundred trivial, shallow blog posts in a hundred languages doesn't equal one in-depth, substantial review or report about the subject by a secondary source that has carried out actual research and reporting. Reading whatever is in the company's press release and paraphrasing it for a blog post is not real reporting. The criteria for what is non-trivial are explained in detail in the guidelines I referenced, WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. We routinely delete articles about products and aspiring public figures which have only received exactly the kinds of coverage that this rests on: lightweight newsblogs that churn out content based on press releases. When ever fact in the blog post is a 1 to 1 match with the most recent press release from the company, that is trivial coverage from trivial sources. Newsblogs may also be capable of real journalism, real criticism and commentary, but we have seen none of that here. The Asahi Shimbun is a major newspaper but major newspapers include trivial blurbs on trivial subjects. On any other subject, deleting this article would be a slam dunk, because the lack of serous coverage is obvious. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say this meets WP:NFF since it has a release date (April 2021). I would be very surprised if an anime scheduled to air in 2 months has not begun principal production. Jumpytoo Talk 04:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or maybe production never began and nobody cared enough to report it because it's not notable. We can't make assumptions; notability requires verifiable evidence. You're filling in the blanks based entirely on release dates attributed to nobody except to the company's own website, not to any independent reporting. We don't have third party secondary sources telling us any of this and that's the critical test that tells us something is notable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or maybe you are just speculating. They released key visuals to the public just two weeks ago. It's extremely unlikely for them to be doing things like that this close to release if they aren't going to release it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • They released. What you're telling me is a subject can be considered notable based entirely on press releases issued by the article's subject. What happend to the need for independent secondary sources? This is not even close to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Who else is supposed to release information about an upcoming product? News reporters use press releases all the time as a basis for their articles. All. The. Time. The third-party, reliable sources cited in the article (and a few more are on the article talk page now) are reporting on information from the company. There is no requirement (and has never a requirement) that those reliable third-party sources have to use second-party sources as sources. That's simply absurd. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Jumpytoo, it meets WP:NFF as it is covered by many websites. Setreis (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has an anime television series upcoming. That is what we generally consider enough notability for an article. Link20XX (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG, so whether it meets anything else is irrelevant. It's received coverage in multiple languages (see my comments above) in multiple reliable sources, so definitely not trivial coverage. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Curtain Trilogy

[edit]
Red Curtain Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable DVD release. Info available on each film's page. No need for a page of a random collection of films. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Apart from the DVD box, which indeed wouldn't justify an article, the term is widely used in publications and the press to refer to these three films, as shown by the search links above (books, news, scholar, WP refs [incl. EB], NYT). It's even subject to academic theses. I can't see an obvious REDIRECT target where this article's content could be merged. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is properly sourced as to why this term is used to encompass the three films; this isn't a "20 Funniest Comedies of the 90s (as defined by whatever is in the Warner Bros. library)" compilation type of cash-in, but endorsed by the man who brought the films to life (and it just isn't used to sell discs). Nate • (chatter) 04:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current sources passes WP:BASIC. Setreis (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BASIC applies to people, this is a DVD set. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_February_2&oldid=1006086230"