Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 15	January 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep; editors noted the existence of sources that can be added, but this work still needs to be done. An alternative may be to merge this content into a supertopic article, where it can be developed until it is ready to break out into a separate article again. BD2412 T 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dor Rajputs

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

Last edited three years ago, not a significant clan and only passing reference in the single source kept here. There is no possibility to expand and fails WP:GNG and also I think WP:NOTDICTIONARY Heba Aisha (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My google book search found lots of hits on this. Seems like a clan with documented events going back hundreds of years. Jeepday (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rajput clans would seem to be a decent solution? If someone wants to write more information about Dor Rajputs, presumably it can go there? If a huge amount of information about Dor Rajputs is written, then the article can be branched out again. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - independet third party sources are available see WP:BEFORE before nominating for AfD Jethwarp (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I was the nominator of these articles for delition. There could be numerous sources that may have passing mention I.e one word reference to these caste as all of these are minor clan of Rajput caste, a notable caste group. But all those sources donot have info (other than those indicating it as a part of Rajput caste) to write a seperate article. As any uninvolved person can see that we donot have sources to indicate wat do they eat? What are the Culture and traditiona etc etc of these castes. That's why all these articles were one or two line article for years and some of them were tagged as not satisfying WP:GNG....As per WP:NOTDICTIONARY these shouldn't be created as seperate article. I would like to advice Jethwarp to include them in Rajput Clans with minor info we can derive from the sources.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing quite a few hits on Google Books which seem to mention the Dor Rajputs in Medieval India and what land they held and their part in various religious struggles in their area. The article needs work, but it's not an issue of notability from what I can tell. - Aoidh (talk) 03:28, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica: This Monster Lives

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

This article is about a non-notable book, and has no sources. I tried to search for sources, and all of them I found were either trivial mentions, or just places to buy this book. In addition, the tone of the article is very poetic/idiomatic, which violates the Manual of Style. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. All I found were bookstore entries. I have also found an IndieWire article, but that's just a chapter of the book. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the criteria at WP:NBOOK, which require at least non-trivial professional reviews. It's rather odd that this book escaped notice at a time when Metallica was heavily in the news, with a recent album and movie. It must have been poorly promoted, as it received no reliable reviews that I can find. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 04:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Stubbs, David (2004-12-04). "The Guardian: The Guide: Preview books: Metallica: This Monster Lives Joe Berlinger (With Greg Milner)". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
Morast, Robert (January 2005). "Metallica: This Monster Lives". Library Journal. Vol. 130, no. 1. p. 414. ISSN 0363-0277.
"Metallica: This Monster Lives: The Inside Story of Some Kind of Monster". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 251, no. 46. 2004-11-15. p. 54. ISSN 0000-0019. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
Shea, Rachel Hartigan (2005-12-18). "Metallica: This Monster Lives - The Inside Story of Some Kind of Monster". Book World. Vol. 35, no. 50. The Washington Post Company. p. 11.
Oei, Lily (2004-03-05). "Berlinger grooves on 'Metallica' book". Daily Variety. Vol. 282, no. 50. p. 40. ISSN 0011-5509.
Light, Alan (2005-07-03). "Music Chronicle: Metallica". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-05-29. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
DeBarros, Anthony (2004-12-02). "Music stars' lives are page-turners. Metallica: This Monster Lives". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
Dansby, Andrew (2004-11-27). "For hard-core fans - Coffee-table volumes delve into rock's best". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.

Sources with quotes

Stubbs, David (2004-12-04). "The Guardian: The Guide: Preview books: Metallica: This Monster Lives Joe Berlinger (With Greg Milner)". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
The book notes:

Berlinger's account of the making of the movie is an invaluable accompaniment, despite its deadly earnest tone; we learn how hacked off both Megadeth's Dave Mustaine and therapist (sorry, "performance enhancement coach") Phil Towle were with the results, as well as the shameful emotions of the film-makers themselves, hoping that "something bad (but not too bad)" would happen to make the project interesting.
Morast, Robert (January 2005). "Metallica: This Monster Lives". Library Journal. Vol. 130, no. 1. p. 414. ISSN 0363-0277.
The review notes:

This companion to the acclaimed Metallica documentary that Berlinger codirected with Bruce Sinofsky is burdened by the expectation that it should reveal even more about the band than the film did. In this sense, Berlinger doesn't deliver, wasting too many pages justifying his editing decisions and philosophizing on objectivity.
"Metallica: This Monster Lives: The Inside Story of Some Kind of Monster". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 251, no. 46. 2004-11-15. p. 54. ISSN 0000-0019. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
The review notes:

In an absorbing narrative, Berlinger (with rock journalist Milner) describes just what it took--the myriad decisions and risks--to turn nearly 1,600 hours of footage into a story that delivers an emotional impact that is all the greater for being true. This book should be required reading for aspiring filmmakers because it reveals the huge difference between turning the cameras on a contrived situation that purports to be "reality" and making a cinema verité or nonfiction film.
Shea, Rachel Hartigan (2005-12-18). "Metallica: This Monster Lives - The Inside Story of Some Kind of Monster". Book World. Vol. 35, no. 50. The Washington Post Company. p. 11.
Oei, Lily (2004-03-05). "Berlinger grooves on 'Metallica' book". Daily Variety. Vol. 282, no. 50. p. 40. ISSN 0011-5509.
The article notes:

"Metallica" is derived from the unprecedented access granted by the band to Berlinger and his long-time production partner, Bruce Sinofsky. Tome will include exclusive photographs, some taken by Berlinger."
Light, Alan (2005-07-03). "Music Chronicle: Metallica". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-05-29. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
The review notes:

But the book gradually takes on the momentum of a suspense novel, and triumphs because of the commitment and fearlessness of Metallica. More a book about filmmaking than about music, "This Monster Lives" shows that tenacious reporting can still produce great narratives, even about the most mega of megaplatinum rock stars.
DeBarros, Anthony (2004-12-02). "Music stars' lives are page-turners. Metallica: This Monster Lives". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
The review notes:

Filmmaker Berlinger takes us even deeper into the inner sanctum he plumbed in the emotionally charged documentary Metallica: Some Kind of Monster. Here, we find out that Berlinger himself was on the emotional skids after making the horrific flop Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 and how Metallica's management and record label nearly short-circuited Monster.
Dansby, Andrew (2004-11-27). "For hard-core fans - Coffee-table volumes delve into rock's best". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
The review notes:

Feeling that the film didn't capture all the drama that he witnessed, Sinofsky has further delved into the subject in this book, a fascinating look at the logistics of making an album and the dysfunctional family that bands (and filmmaking partnerships) can become.

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

Cunard (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Cunard (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further consideration of the above sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kudos to Cunard for finding those sources. Enjoyer of World — Talk 01:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard - definitely passes WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept and feel free to check out the multiple sources that I added to the article as well now that I have improved it as I have added some that are listed above as well as others that I have found too. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many reviews. But it certainly needs improvements. I didn't learn much about the content of the book. Just circumstances in which it was written. Sources mentioned above should be incorporated in the article. Kudos for Cunard for providing all these sources circumventing a delete. werldwayd (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Werldwayd: I have now added multiple sources to the article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep In it's current form, the article is an unsourced stub. I see there are sources which at least mention it, suggesting notability. If kept, it is in need of a rewrite. Dimadick (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Dimadick: I have now added multiple sources to the article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One should not assume a subject is non-notable just because the article is unsourced or a stub. Many times when someone puts in some actual effort to find them sources tend to present themselves.★Trekker (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @*Treker: I have now added multiple sources to the article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above arguments for keeping. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:17, 22 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. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Chowdhury

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

Not notable either as an author or a business person. Creator has a single purpose account which suggests UPE and/or COI. RationalPuff (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. Wow, is this page a complete mess. I pride myself on rescuing messes (see my recent work at Viennese cuisine), but this is just a resume, and would take a huge amount of work. It's basically a resume, and in 2021, everybody knows we don't do that, so WP:AGF does not apply. He just hasn't done anything especially notable, and the awards he's won are equivalent to the little pieces of paper in my two portfolios. There's little coverage in reliable sources. I have to say it, but he's sort of run of the mill for a businessperson. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a writer nor as a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Nothing to show notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:45, 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 keep. There is no reason to expect that relisting would yield a different outcome. BD2412 T 20:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Yonge

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs, and a paucity of biographical details in secondary sources. The 54 sources cited contain the usual links to self-sourced promo sites and links that mention this person's name only, although in the entire list there were four sources which were longer than one word or sentence:

[1] - A primary source interview on what appears to be a for-pay promotional website, and is the source for most of the biographical details in the article.
[2] - A two-paragraph biography on what appears to be a user-submitted website called "Earmilk".
[3] - A three-paragraph introduction in "The Fader" to a video by Chris Yonge, which contains no biographical information.
[4] - An introduction to a Chris Yonge video in "Exclaim", which contains no biographical information. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Magnolia677: Here are why the references you mentioned above meet WP: BASIC, ANYBIO and MUSICBIO

* 1 - is not "a primary source interview on what appears to be a for-pay promotional website, and is the source for most of the biographical details in the article." - It is, in fact, a secondary source publications website of creative individuals who work in the field of advertising / creative industries.

* 2 "Earmilk" actually has a wiki page here at Earmilk and is not a "user-submitted website" but in fact is an award-winning music journal which is written by a hired team and not just any random user.

* 3 - The Fader is a reputable source which has information on "Toronto-based artist Chris Yonge"'s new single "CASH" contributing to his music career.

* 4 Exclaim! is also a reputable secondar source which contains information on a single released by him which also contributes to his "music career" . TwinTurbo (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I support the deletion and this article is failing its bio. You forgot to mention WP:GNG to be failed this article as well. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:E0E3:1A4A:13E8:E800 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP address has only been active since today, making contributions to only the page in the discussion. Could be a case of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. TwinTurbo (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you explain why it doesn't meet GNG? Thee article has significant reliable secondary sources which are independent from the artist himself . TwinTurbo (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article undoubtedly meets WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG

In addition to references 3 4 above, he has been a topic on sources by Local10.com, Billboard, HipHopCanada, Nowtoronto.com and Newswire.ca, give the article in the subject to meet criteria 1, 4, 10, WP:MUSICBIO as he has been the subject of multiple published works appearing in sources that are reliable, and ndependent of the musician, has been a supporting act in multiple tours and has been a part of a music team for Tim Horton's campaign amongst others. TwinTurbo (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. . TwinTurbo (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: more information has been added including a reference from BroadwayWorld on his recent works.[5] . TwinTurbo (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Earmilk and exclaim.ca are considered reliable sources, and they give coverage to his music, that makes him a notable musician. Dream Focus 22:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I thought that too, but in fact if you read what has been written about this person in Earmilk and exclaim it is not "significant coverage", but a discussion about one of his videos. The reason I nominated this article for deletion is because there is simply nothing biographical written about this person in a reliable secondary source. Creating YouTube videos that are reviewed by notable magazines does not bestow Wikipedia notability. Have a look yourself at the sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't talk about his music at all, unless he was notable. Dream Focus 22:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Please take a moment to read WP:ENN. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay, just someone's unpopular opinion, not enough people supported it to promote it to a guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (music) is the relevant guideline here. All guideline pages have a disclaimer at the top that reads This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Dream Focus 23:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refer to my comments in ARoseWolf's entry on more references which shows the article has significant coverage online. . TwinTurbo (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Some of the sources are less than reliable, but altogether it's been improved greatly in the past three days. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:GNG the subject must receive significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Outside of the multiple sources, if you define that as numerical, the subject does not pass the only notability guideline that matters. WP:Notability (music) can be used to presume notability for article creation but presumed notability can be rebutted. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Here are a few which show the subject meets WP:N and WP:GNG but above all meets WP:UCS. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] . TwinTurbo (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention this one above too in: [16] . TwinTurbo (talk)
TwinTurbo I admire your fight for this article, I really do, but "bludgeoning us to death" with your repeated information is disruptive. You said your points and I am willing to accept we disagree. It is my view, as I stated and as indicated below, that the sources you call reliable are not, in fact, reliable and the sources you say give the subject "significant" coverage do not live up to the definition of that term. That does not take away from the regional, national or global significance of the subject to those who like him. Only that the criteria here determines that the subject of this article is not notable for inclusion here. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to summarize the 10 sources mentioned above:

[17] - A three-paragraph introduction in "The Fader" to a video by Chris Yonge. This source contains no biographical information.
[18] - A two-paragraph article in "Earmilk", which contains the following biographical information (spelling error included):
CHRIS YONGE, who has been slowly grinding within the chilly city's booming music industry since the age of 19, when he decided to fully dive into his passion by running a recording studio where he fully honed his engineering & rapping skills... He now 25-year old upstart is now set to deliver the follow up to his excellent debut NEGATIVES LP, a three track EP entitled SS17 that has Chris exploring a much more reflective and Toronto-inpspired sound. Today EARMILK has been given the opportunity to debut the second single off of the project, a nostalgic slow-burner entitled 19 that has the rising artist reminiscing on his humble beginnings, assisted by fellow Toronto MC Kaelen.
[19] - A user-submitted blog post on "Banger of the Day".
[20] - An article in "The Hype Magazine" which says the following about Chris Yonge: "Featuring rising star Chris Yonge". That's it!
[21] - A user-submitted blog post on "Banger of the Day".
[22] - A review of a Chris Yonge album on a site called "Daily Chiefers", a music-submission site where a reviewer decides which submissions to feature. This particular review was written by "Carrier" who has made "7724 POSTS" on the site.
[23] - An introduction to a Chris Yonge video in "Exclaim", which contains no biographical information. It features a quote about the video by Chris Yonge himself, which leans this source towards being a primary source.
[24] - A user-submitted blog post on "Banger of the Day".
[25] - A press release which mentions his name once.
[26] - A user-submitted blog post on "Banger of the Day". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, thank you for your admiration ARoseWolf, but not once have I stated to "bludgeon anyone to death" nor is it my intention. I am merely engaging in discussion. And Magnolia677, Earmilk is a reputable secondary source on the artist (a spelling mistake does not make it any less reliable). To say the Exclaim! reference has no biographical info is false. It contains points like:

"Yonge delivered his intro project in 2018 and is expected to release his debut full-length album this year." which is contributing substantially to his musical biography.

Also, a quote form the artist in a passage does not equate the source to being a primary source. Exclaim is a secondary source and a reputable one too. As with Fader, Hype, BroadwayWorld, newswire. Although it may be a sentence or two, they are still also reputable secondary sources which show mention to the musical career section of his biography. There are others mentioned in the article which is contributing to his biography. He definitely meets WP:NM 1, as the sources mentioned here are published works that are written by somebody else about the musician. . TwinTurbo (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the "Broadway World" source, which states: "working with producer Chris Yonge", and absolutely nothing more about this person. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying its the strongest source, but his work as a producer is still a valid reference to be included in the article to support his notability. . TwinTurbo (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A source like that could only serve to bolster notability once it is established. It can not be used to confirm or affirm notability. --ARose Wolf 18:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The key word or words in all of this is "mention", "mentions" and "mentioned". Significant coverage is not mentions. Also, if multiple (numerical) sources repeat the same information almost verbatim as other sources they are not considered multiple (intellectual) sources used for notability criteria, even if each source is reliable and secondary. They would all be considered ONE source. That is straight from the notes on the criteria itself. --ARose Wolf 16:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion. Onursides (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the discussion hasn't leviated to delete so can you still use this as a valid reason? WP:WDPM . TwinTurbo (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user was created today and has only been participating in deletion discussions. May require an investigation. . TwinTurbo (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as in the round there is enough coverage for WP:GNG. The coverage is mainly career focussed but there is some biographical information so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As it's written it's not the strongest article in terms of sources, but sources are there and are in the article I just wish it had some stronger sources with more coverage. On the NowToronto article about the cancelling of the Fringe festival I see reference to a Yonge-Dundas Square, but no reference to Chris Yonge, is he mentioned in that article? Otherwise I don't see anything verifying that he was supposed to play there. If it does mention him and I've overlooked it I'd say that would be yet another good reference to show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has at least 3 sources of significant coverage for WP:GNG. It does contain weak or irrelevant sources (editors should consider improving/removing these) but does include some which contribute to his music career for WP:MUSICBIO too. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TwinTurbo: Do you think this one too "May require an investigation"? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Yes . TwinTurbo (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A nicely presented article on a notable musician. Some of the sources are a little low tier and would need to be improved before this could receive a B or GA rating, but that's no reason to delete. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:25, 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 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) 00:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pragati Pravat higher secondary school

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

Unreferenced since 2009 and appears to fail WP:NSCHOOL. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 8 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 23:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSCHOOL and my own standards. Private schools are not automatically notable and must show significant coverage. This one fails my own rather easy standards. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 18 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 withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Enjoyer of World — Talk 02:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avay Shukla

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

Subject is a journalist. The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth (see below).

Sources in article

Article written by the subject
Blog article, does not mention subject, but name is included in list
List of articles titles, does not mention subject
Article written by the subject
List of articles titles, does not mention subject
List of articles titles, does not mention subject
List of articles titles, does not mention subject
List of articles titles, does not mention subject
List of articles titles, does not mention subject
Book by the article subject
A Goodreads page about a book the subject wrote
A Goodreads page about a book the subject wrote

BLP articles should strictly follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 04:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current sourcing in the article is not good but I found independent reviews of his books here and here as well as this piece about him. I didn’t do an exhaustive search and other book reviews are likely. Mccapra (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra, I agree that with some poking around the sources are there. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Mccapra and Astrophobe:: The above reviews are about the books, and do not contain SIGCOV about the author. If the reviews had SIGCOV addressing the author directly and indepth they would count towards the author's notability, but they do not. The proper standard for an author is WP:AUTHOR. Authors do not inherit notability from their works, except in rare circumstances covered in #3 in WP:AUTHOR, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." // Timothy :: talk 05:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His books have been reviewed many times (it's trivial to find more reviews), his current affairs blogging is cited widely in major Indian media outlets where it is described as being widely followed (New Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Week, etc), and passing GNG is always sufficient. I continue to believe that with some poking around the sources are there. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is also a BLP. BLPs should strictly follow sourcing and notability guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 05:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. And the solution is to bring pages up to that standard, not to delete pages about notable subjects. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hi your ping prompted me to look again and I easily found two more good reviews of his books here and [27] so the subject looks like a pass under WP:AUTHOR to me. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tentative delete: There's some editors who suggest that this article should be kept on the basis of book reviews. I would counter however, that wp:anybio generally requires significant coverage about the subject themselves, as opposed to book reviews or reviews of their work, unless their work has been recognized as foundational in a field, or "part of the enduring historical record in a field". WP:Creative would probably be the closest guidelines for this subject, but it also requires that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", which I cannot find evidence for beyond the book reviews (that are generally not considered substantial coverage). BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very guideline that you cite says that independent reviews count towards it, but you then go on to discount them. Why? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable either as an author or in professional capacity. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 15:06, 8 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 23:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an author the subject is notable because of what he writes, so reviews are very much the sources that we should accept, in the same way that we expect citations for sportspeople or politicians to be about their work, not their favourite colour or their inside leg measurement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: Two IS RS reviews with SIGCOV about the author, not just about works here [28] and [29].

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit

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

notability not established, see arguments of previous successful AfD Ysangkok (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2009-10 ✓ keep, 2006-01 ✗ delete

Related discussions: 2009-11 Cppcheck ✗ delete

Logs: 2006-01 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article that led DGG to !vote keep in the last AfD, Baxter, I. D., Pidgeon, C., & Mehlich, M. (2004, May). DMS/spl reg: Program transformations for practical scalable software evolution. In Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 625-634). IEEE. has over 400 Google Scholar hits. This is a high-impact paper. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:13, 16 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 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous successful AfD was 15 years ago, and not the most recent. It had no valid arguments in it whatsoever, so I don't know what the nominator was referring to above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compelling reasons to delete, my google search finds several references. Seems like a tool with significant usage, and multiple secondary sources. Jeepday (talk) 15:17, 22 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Basinger

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

This would usually be a draftify due to being a very undersourced BLP but, since an identical copy already exists in draft, that's not an option. It looks like this got copied and pasted over after the draft declined.

Whilst his number of subscribers would indicate that he should be notable, I'm not finding that much coming up when searching his name. Firstly, I found this, which, assuming it is RS, is quite good. The second best I found was this but it just looks like a transcript of one of his videos. Lastly, I found this brief article in a reliable source.

I would say that he does not pass WP:BIO but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Spiderone 09:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Whilst his number of subscribers would indicate that he should be notable" strikes me as risking WP:BIGNUMBER, though I'm not the type to comb through Youtuber articles looking for arguments for deletion. Still, this does seem like a decidedly early draft. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to it being retained at Draft:Clint Basinger; it was declined by User:Eagleash and I'd be surprised if it would pass even with the 3 sources mentioned above in my nom Spiderone 12:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm leaning towards a deletion that's a de facto draftification right now, but I'd like to see if anyone knows some better sources before I put in a vote (I've seen some brilliant WP:HEY work done lately). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A BEFORE search was difficult because of the massive number of hits that his name gets; I was just reading article after article where he either wasn't even mentioned or was mentioned only in passing. I've also tried finding coverage under "Lazy Game Reviews" and "LGR Tech Tales" Spiderone 12:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks the reliable sourcing that needs to be the basis for any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 8 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 23:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_YouTubers. I hate to pile on, but this person is not anywhere near notable. Just to be sure, I looked for several searches online. I found zero newspaper of record articles about him. He has thirty (30) connections on LinkedIn. His business has 105.8k followers on Twitter, but he has only forty-three (43) followers. I found several articles on Ars Technica mentioning him, but they're about other topics, not him. I also found an article in a local Cincinnati paper that has his picture. That's it. Please ping me if you find anything else. I would not oppose a redirect to his channel on YouTube. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and discussions above the article subject fails the notability guideline found at WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. it is already in draft. Alex-h (talk) 10:40, 20 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. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gemsville Technical University

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

I can't find a thing about this technical school in Guyana. Website is broken, FB is inactive and useless. The citations included are all-what do you call it when they're only tangentially related to the subject just to make the article look well referenced? Like, they link to an RS about an organization, but no mention of the topic therein? I noticed the original author is SPA and had this article rejected at AfC a few times, and I don't see this ever actually passing? Either way, even if this school closed soon after the article was made, 2015 isn't ancient history by internet standards, yet nothing. Estheim (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know what you call it either, but it's the sort of thing where someone might write, "He graduated from the University of Michigan^[1] and then became an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.^[2]" -- in other words, the citations prove only that the University of Michigan and the FBI exist, which was never in doubt. The sourcing here is quite poor. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, Metropolitan90. The closest thing I found was a template for "irrelevant citation", but that's specific to a single citation and not as a chronic issue over the entire page. It seems like a tactic for editors 'desperate' to give their page legitimacy, like fan-cruft or COI, and sort of in the same vein as overlinking. Either way, in this case, even a 'one time' name drop undermines it's GNG. Estheim (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete due to lack of sources. If this is a still-existent university, or a university which formerly existed but is now defunct, I would support re-creating the article if reliable sources discussing the university were available. Given that this university may have been established more recently than when I became a Wikipedia administrator, reliable sources ought to be available. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my google search turned up almost nothing. Fails WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 16:13, 22 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Pour Dara

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; found no useful coverage when searching the Persian version of his name and nothing in English other than listings in exhaustive football database websites like World Football and Transfermarkt which do not confer notability. Spiderone 22:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTY. This page (under various variations of the name and even now as the creators User page!) has been moved to draft twice today already, even the non-reliable transfermarkt doesn't show any first class games played yet and only a handful of under 21 outings for the club. See also Draft:Ali pour dara, Draft:Ali pour Dara (footballer) and Current version of User Page JW 1961 Talk 00:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Draft:Alipour Dara. noq (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.transfermarkt.com/ali-pour-dara/profil/spieler/814921 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammadabas1 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, no inidication of meeting GNG or NFOOTY. noq (talk) 22:23, 17 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. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scraper (band)

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

Another generic band name, but can't find anything to suggest notability. Fails WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly non-notable in the context of a general encyclopaedia, though suitable for a specialist Fandom site undoubtedly. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another generic band name alright, so I searched with their sole studio album and I couldn't find anything besides the usual YouTube videos, databases, streaming links and retail sites. The band has an article on ptwiki as well, but the sourcing isn't any better there either. Only an unreliable looking site cited there. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unless the article can be improved by adding more sources and proof that this band in notable. Otherwise Scraper needs to be scraped from Wikipedia. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:04, 22 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK1 and per the discussion below - OP intends to merge, discussion concurs on way to merge, so closing to allow for merge. Will make the pre-merge move post-close here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milankovich's theory revisited

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

This is a partial WP:POVFORK of Milankovitch cycles; basically a commentary based on two additional papers not used in the main article. The relevant text could usefully be merged into Milankovitch cycles (in shortened form). Rather than just merging and redirecting, I'm putting this up here because that would result in an unsuitable redirect - "Milankovich's theory revisited" is not a sensible search term (apart from the misspelling of "Milankovitch"...). So I propose to do merge & delete redirect in one wash here. (ADD: see below - if loss of attribution is an issue, my suggestion is draftifying then R from draftspace) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy close~~ as the proposed action produces WP:COPYVIO. Merging must retain a redirect from where the merged content came from for attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: alright, sooo - what do you suggest instead? Merge then keep the weird redirect in perpetuity? By that reasoning, I gather no redirect from a merge could ever be deleted, even if it's named My opinion on Miklothingummy's theory... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add: based on the Salomonic solution I was presented with a while back in a similar situation [30] - draftify then keep a {{R with history}} redirect from draft space? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, certainly. Alternatively, just keeping the redirect for attribution at its current location isn't necessarily wrong; redirects are (as it is said) cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note my !vote stands as the proposed action can be done boldly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move to Milankovich's theory, a plausible redirect, then merge to Milankovitch cycles and delete Milankovich's theory revisited while preserving the history at Milankovich's theory? --Pontificalibus 10:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would move w/o leaving a redirect, then merging from the new name? Sounds sensible to me... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would work, absolutely. @Elmidae: if you intend to do this I'll strike my !vote above and procedurally close this so you can do that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: yes, please do. I'd like input from editors at Milankovitch cycles, but I'll turn it into a merge discussion there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 17 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Giuliani

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

Despite numerous sources that question his mysterious, sports-related role in the Trump administration, "Public Liaison Assistant in the Office of Public Liaison to the President" is an exceedingly-minor role that does not warrant a Wikipedia page or pass WP:NPOL (the closest notability guideline for political advisors). This person likely has a page because of his famous father, but notability is not inherited. KidAd talk 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. He seems irrelevant. Biglittlehugesmall65 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. He clearly meets wp:GNG. Because he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It's totally irrelevant why he received such coverage. And nobody can disagree with the fact that his many articles in reliable sources are independent of him. It's totally irrelevant whether or not he meets NPOL, or whether he is related to a notable person - we have zero reason to even consider those approaches, if the subject meets GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:205B:C99C:2B6E:D887 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC) — 2603:7000:2143:8500:205B:C99C:2B6E:D887 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm not an SPA. As perhaps you know. Because I noticed that after I disagreed with you in an unrelated deletion review of another article yesterday, and then edited this article for the first time today (one day later), you within two hours nominated this article for deletion. I'm the same editor (my cable service of its own volition changes my IP address periodically, as is the case w a number of us).

In that deletion review, you likewise asserted that an article that clearly met GNG (as User:SmokeyJoe and user:DGG also believe, if I understand their comments there correctly), should not exist at WP. There, as well, I was of the view expressed here by John Broughton who wrote: "The Wikipedia article cites numerous sources where [the subject] is the subject of an article, not just mentioned in passing .... That's the basis of notability. Notability isn't determined by a Wikipedia editor's opinion that someone occupies a "minor role". I think in this AfD, as in that discussion, you mistakenly believe that even if a subject of an article meets GNG, it should be deleted if it doesn't meet some secondary test, or is not significant in your personal view. But that's not what GNG says.2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that IPs should WP:Register if they want to get involved in projectspace discussions, including deletion discussions. I believe the community should make a rule about it and enforce it. Edit mainspace all you like without registering, sure, but in back room discussions, it matters who you are, and IPs lack long term accountability, and also are very hard to recognise and remember. If you have an account, you are violating WP:SOCK by contributing here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not socking. And my understanding was that the community welcomes IPs here. As elsewhere-though I understand that there is some lack of good faith against community standards by some (not you I'm sure). If that is not the case, and there is a community rule of the sort that you think there should be, point me to the wp rule, and I will of course not contribute here. Same with contributing elsewhere - if the community does not want IPs to contribute, just adopt a community rule, and of course every IP will not contribute. As to my comments - I would hope they would not be considered on the basis of who I am, but as to whether they properly consider wp rules. If a nom misunderstands them, and an IP understands them, I would hope the close would focus not on who is registered, but who has been more true to the words and spirit of GNG. --2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Not the guys you were talking to.) I have no beef with IP participation, but I think if you have a dynamic IP and want to be recognizable to other editors, it's best to make an account. I also wonder what implications the mandatory IP masking move will have for IP participation, and think it's safest for active IP editors to register in case everything goes haywire. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You pinged me. I don't know who you are or where we may have met before, and it took me a while to work out that you were talking to another mac IP known to yourself, and not talking to yourself. When I see unregistered editors in project discussions, I ask them to register. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The Wikipedia articles cites numerous sources where Andrew Giuliani is the subject of an article, not just mentioned in passing - sources like The Atlantic, The New York Times, NY Daily News, The Wall Street Journal, NY Post, CNBC, and ESPN. That's the basis of notability. Notability isn't determined by a Wikipedia editor's opinion that someone occupies a "minor role". Nor is WP:NOTINHERITED a guideline - it is just advice about what is a bad argument, for those participating in deletion discussions. So it's also irrelevant - no one here is arguing that Andrew Giuliani should have a Wikipedia article because of his father's importance. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References 2 and 4 pass the WP:GNG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help? Nom just deleted the subject's actual title in the lede. Without good reason. Subject's title - as reflected by the RS that nom also deleted - is "Special Assistant to the President and Associate Director of the Office of Public Liaison." Nom replaced it with a significantly lesser title, which is not the title the subject now has. I wonder whether it is possible that that is unhelpful. Both for the article, and for this discussion. Can someone help? I'm hesitant to address it myself. Given the history I outlined above. --2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not "deleted". That is just editing. If you want to talk about it, do so at Talk:Andrew Giuliani. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, and so on and so forth. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited and his minor office is no where near enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 19 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 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) 00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick-Tone

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

My WP:BEFORE showed no RSes to support their notability, which unfortunately is the case with many guitars and the passing mentions in the article do not support it either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reference in article are mostly primary, my google did not find anything to meet WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 16:20, 22 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. Daniel (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moody Amplifiers

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

No coverage of these instruments - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My WP:BEFORE checked showed no RSes to support their notability, which unfortunately is the case with many. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need independent coverage which is lacking here.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Merry (actor)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NACTOR, and has no WP:SIGCOV. – DarkGlow (✉) 21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Meets WP:NACTOR with multiple theatre credits and a lead role in Waffle the Wonder Dog. KidAd talk 22:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The TV show with 52 appearance appears to be home made for Youtube. Cant find any significant news in Google. Peter303x (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the TV show Waffle the Wonder Dog is part of CBeebies "It broadcasts every day from 6:00am to 7:00pm, timesharing with BBC Four. " Jeepday (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bar is WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", while a read of the article makes it look like he probably passes, on a deeper look the only thing that seems to meet it is Waffle the Wonder Dog, which is only one not multiple. The others look like minor parts, and my google search did not find anything to support notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:44, 22 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. Daniel (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otona no Onnaryoku Kentei

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, a Google search for this game brings up pretty much nothing (no mentions in reliable secondary sources). pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Konami games (or alternatively delete). I did a search for it in Japanese (大人の女力検定), it just does not meet WP:GNG - the little coverage this game has in RSs does not constitute significant coverage. Inside Games basically just verifies that it exists along with a brief explanation of the premise; same with Dengeki Online ([31],[32]). Famitsu has no coverage whatsoever for it aside from an entry in its games database with publisher/release date/genre/etc. I could not find anything else.--Alexandra^IDV 22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's hard for Japanese educational/quiz games to meet WP:GNG due to the language barrier they have, and this game is no different. I don't see this being a plausible search term, as the only reliable sources that turn up basically say "this game exists", so I disagree with a redirect. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 01:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) My google search does not find anything, and there are no other language articles linked. Notability can be met with refences WP:GNG "in any language" but there is no indication that they exist. Jeepday (talk) 17:51, 22 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 moved to Draft:Finding Jack, with the mainspace title redirected to the putative director. Possible outcomes are all over the map, so this one does the best to WP:PRESERVE. BD2412 T 07:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Jack

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

Appears to be stuck in development hell. No news about the project since November of 2019. Fails WP:NFF. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest and support moving this to draftspace in the case development does come out about it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I have restored the draft. Dominicmgm (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that this project is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daily Variety, Hollywood Reporter, BBC are all significant publications. So it meets WP:GNG.Webmaster862 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is well-sourced, yes, but as I said earlier, it also fails WP:NFF as the project has seen no news since those sources were published and may even be cancelled. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft:Finding Jack, for it "is an upcoming American war film". - Yitbe ^A-21 12:58, 15 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 21:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the director, Anton Ernst. IMDb still lists this film as being in pre-production, with no distributor identified nor any live people as cast members. The filmmakers may have achieved the distinction of getting clearance from the James Dean estate to use a digital version of him in the film, but I don't see any evidence that they have actually filmed the movie yet, so WP:NFF applies. (This article identifies Magic City Films as the distributor, but that company has never distributed a feature film before, so presumably if the film is completed and released it will likely be in collaboration with a more established distribution company.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how this project's status is still up in the air and based on other proposals above, I suggest it is of best interest to first delete the draft article Draft:Finding Jack that redirects to Finding Jack, move the mainspace article to the draft, and then recreate the Finding Jack mainspace article as a redirect to the director Anton Ernst. That way, all of the edits done on the article so far are not lost. This would require a WP:Round robin move. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't the article be turned into a redirect to the director (but with its edit history left intact), then reverted into that article when/if the film comes into being? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not best advised as if something does come up about the film, it can be worked on in the draftspace with the edit history intact. A new redirect should be created for the mainspace separate from this page for the redirecting purpose not conflicting with this article's content. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:33, 17 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. Daniel (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1920s Berlin Project

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

Written by a SPA back in 2009, and the whole thing reads like an advertisement/player's manual. Unless there's documentation of this somehow inspiring or influencing content in other video games, I really don't think a role-playing community is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Loafiewa (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article is interesting and looking at the Second Life page, it doesn’t strike me as a completely unsuitable article for wikipedia. But it does seem to fail WP:GNG in that there are almost no citations, and there is no noted “significant coverage” that I have seen or found. It doesn’t sound like an advertisement to me and I think it would make sense to merge it. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 17:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is entirely unsourced, so there isn't much to merge here. IceWelder [✉] 10:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched {"The 1920s Berlin Project Second Life" -wikipedia} and did not find anything to meet WP:GNG nor do I see any claims in the article that suggest it would meet it. Jeepday (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think a merge is necessary, especially since the article is entirely unsourced. I did a few searches and it yielded nothing valuable. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 03:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:RS and WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:58, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds City bus station

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

Mentions in books and run of the mill local news articles about bus route changes, but no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. SK2242 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major transport hub in a large city. The worst case would be merger to Transport in Leeds per WP:ATD and so there's no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major transport hubs aren’t automatically notable. If it doesn't meet GNG it's going. SK2242 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, By bus station standards, one of the bigger ones, largest in Yorkshire with 30 bays. Bound to be reliable sources offline from when it was rebuilt in the mid-1990s, in Buses, Coach & Bus Week etc. Otherwise merge to Transport in Leeds#Bus/coach/taxi. Lilporchy (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bus station of this age in a major city will obviously pass GNG because newspaper coverage was more comprehensive in this period. For example, “Big Plan For ’Buses. Leeds Scheme For Central Station” on p9 of the Leeds Mercury 2 June 1931. “Need in Leeds of a Central ’Bus Station.” on p5 of the Leeds Mercury 5 November 1932. “A Leeds 'Bus Station” on p8 of the Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer 23 July 1935. Plenty enough sources out there to write a whole article per WP:WHYN----Pontificalibus 09:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:33, 20 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. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ali Shaik

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

time to finally put this to rest. Completely and utterly non-notable actor. Hasn't held any major roles and has exactly 0 coverage in reliable sources. CUPIDICAE💕 19:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails, fails, fails GNG. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 20:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 21:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails WP:NACTOR; I can only assume that the article creator is a close, close relation Spiderone 22:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terribly fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BASIC RationalPuff (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only IMDB as source. IMDB is not reliable. Don't meets WP:NACTOR. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Still doesn't show major roles in major productions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough contribution to films to merit an article. fails WP:NACTOR. No coverage in media. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not at all notable. Has two credits in bit parts in films. Fails WP:NACTOR. ExRat (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Fail to pass WP:GNG,There are no notable contributions in his name -- Padavalam🌂 ► 17:55, 19 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. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Lynn (preacher)

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

Between the edit summary given as to why the article was created and the lack of notability (seems like his major claim to fame is debating people on the street), I see this person as not Wiki worthy and perhaps can be seen as only existing to advertise his ministry. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable "preacher" who's only claim to fame is causing trouble in gay neighbourhoods, fails WP:GNG. --John B123 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete street preachers are rarely notable for such. They lack organized congregations, and lots of other things. They sometimes get short coverage, but not of very high quality. They are one group where a few local news articles really should not lead to creating an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undersourced, does not meet WP:GNG. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:05, 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 merge to List of fictional politicians. Daniel (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Australian politicians

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

I came across this while closing this AFD, but a more probate precedence would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vice presidents of the United States. This list of Australian politicians isn't even limited to one role, but to any type of politician who appeared in any book or tv series, unrelated to one another. So the list is a trivia collection. Geschichte (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons that were put forward the first time this was proposed for deletion. --Bduke (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very Light Merge to List of fictional politicians - There is not a single source currently being used in this list, and the vast majority of the entries here are very minor characters with little-to-no notability whatsoever. I was unable to locate any sources discussing the overall concept of "Fictional Australian Politicians" as a group or set, as well. The very small handful of individuals here that are actual blue-links to their own articles can be moved over to the main List of fictional politicians (which itself is in dire need of major cleanup of non-notable cruft) for navigational purposes, but that is about it. Rorshacma (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Bduke that the reasons for deletion haven't changed from last time. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy this article is supposed to breach. Deus et lex (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List of fictional politicians. Shankargb (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced information to List of fictional politicians. --Enos733 (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge see above. Onursides (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced information to List of fictional politicians. // Timothy :: t | c | a 04:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional politicians. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The first AfD was from 2007 and the reasons cited in the "Keep" votes seemed very superficial without a lot of elaboration. Per Rorshacma, if no one is able to demonstrate that there is enough coverage of the topic to satisfy WP:LISTN, then I don't see how it can remain a standalone article. However, I will concede that the scope of List of fictional politicians seems a bit too broad and abstract, and articles like that tend to become WP:OR sponges. Dark knight 2149 02:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Nice to see a consensus to WP:PRESERVE. Archrogue (talk) 01:58, 24 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 no consensus but if the article isn't suitably improved, would recommend renominating this pretty soon. Daniel (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTR–EMS–AKG Janakeeya Vedi

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

Does not satisfy either notability or verifiability. Recommend delete. Vikram Vincent 19:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the movement was notable at a certain juncture in Kerala politics, represented a significant break within the party with several prominent leaders. Sourcing is difficult, since Malayalam-language media from 2003-2005 isn't readily available online. Here is some media coverage on the 2004 election campaign in English sources; [33], [34], [35], [36] see also [37]. --Soman (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the links presented do make a mention of the org but not sure it means notability deserving a page. Perhaps a single page on factions with the various factions which have minimal coverage could be done. I also don't know if we will get more discussion on this topic considering the current status of only creator and nominee participating. Vikram Vincent 06:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not sure if this is feasible but maybe the article could be translated and moved to the Malayalam wiki since more sources would be available in that language. The ML editors would be able to verify offline sources when included. What do you think Soman? Vikram Vincent 07:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 6 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 19:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because the subject is notable, but at least 1-2 sources must be added as citation to the article. Otherwise it should be deleted or trimmed, we cannot have completely unsourced articles. Bezrat (talk) 01:43, 19 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 and redirect to United States Naval Academy Band. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Brigade

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

Non notable music group. Lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Current article sources are not independent. Google news search turns up one significant article, about the group being discontinued. [38] - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion on the matter, but wouldn't the band's relation with the US Navy make it more notable than say a gargeband? Pladica (talk) 20:50, 8 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 18:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Naval Academy Band. Can find no significant and reliable coverage of this particular band, except brief mentions as an offshoot of the established naval academy band. It can be briefly mentioned at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:23, 18 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. Daniel (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyee City, California

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

Prodded, and then deprodded with "passes WP:GEOLAND". In my opinion it does not, since it's only a couple of farms outside of McKinleyville, California and not properly verified as being a settlement. Geschichte (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GEOLAND requires that a place either be "officially recognized" or meet GNG; this one is neither. There are a few mentions in 20th century newspapers but not sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the guilty party who removed so many small-town-California prods yesterday (10 actually). Anyway...the nominator of this AfD mentioned there appears to be "a couple of farms", and it got me wondering...how many farms make a community? One? Probably not (bye bye Monowi, Nebraska!). Two? Maybe. indeed, I also see on Google Maps those "couple of farms", so maybe this is a populated place? GNIS (an "offical source") calls it a "populated place", and the criteria listed at WP:GEOLAND basically say it needs to be populated place to be notable. It's all good then?

This Government of California publication calls Tyee City a "community".

The Mad River Union in nearby Arcata, California writes often of Tyee City:

Writing about fire services in the area... "The district provides fire service to the communities of McKinleyville, Arcata, Bayside, Jacoby Creek, Tyee City and Manila."
Writing about a park near Tyee City... "adjacent landowners and residents of Tyee City – a micro-community near the park...".
Here describing "scenic Tyee City". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Lol "micro-community". Don't misrepresent GEOLAND, which says it needs to be a legally recognized populated place to be notable (yes, incorporation as a legal municipality like Monowi counts!). Of course the breadth of this poorly drafted line has been debated, but you well know the GNIS's classifications are well-established to be crap and merely acknowledge it has appeared on a map at some point. But being a "community" or neighborhood–be it a subdivision or nearby farms–is not automatic notability. In this case there does appear to be enough coverage to satisfy GEOLAND#2. Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication it now or has ever met WP:GEOLAND as "legally recognized places" the references supplied by Magnolia677 do not meet WP:GNG "significant coverage", my google search did not find anything to add. Jeepday (talk) 18:13, 22 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bekhan Tungaev

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

The only source connected with the article is an interview with Tungaev. Interviews are not the type of sources that meet GNG, and GNG can never be passed with just one source anyway John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the fact that the only additional source I can find is this and a couple of passing mentions. According to the article he was an outstanding sportsman in the USSR in the sixties and seventies, and that is borne out by what I can find. Since I speak neither Russian nor Chechen and can’t access the offline resources that would be needed to do a proper WP:BEFORE I can’t be sure it should be deleted. If Russian speakers with access to offline resources want to weigh in and confirm that the subject isn’t notable I’d be happy to see it go. Mccapra (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss points raised in the last vote, mainly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Russian article shows he got metals in two notable competitions. Looks to meet WP:NSPORT Jeepday (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~EdGl talk 23:25, 22 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 Jay McGraw. Anyone who wishes to rescue any of the content from behind the redirect to merge to Jay's article, is welcome to do so at their own discretion. Daniel (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stage 29 Productions

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

Cannot see enough here, either in terms of article content, quality of refs, or stuff made by the company, to suggest notability. Ignoring the founders, WP:NOTINHERITED. TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jay McGraw It's de facto a ViacomCBS vanity label for him and his dad's overall productions and has clearly not spun out anything beyond a couple TV shows and Bull, which is basically his dad's pre-talk show existence but fictionalized. Nate • (chatter) 23:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 8 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 18:41, 16 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. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indianola (Fields Landing), California

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

Prodded by @User:Reywas92 with the rationale "Notability not established for locale, fails WP:GEOLAND; recreation welcome with significant sources to pass WP:V and WP:N". Deprodded thanks to "multiple sources", but unless these are shown, please note that there's another Indianola in the same county. Geschichte (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this meets WP:GEOLAND. The "multiple sources" (two, to be exact) are routine listings in a gazetteer and USGS database which don't contribute to notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Page 315 states this area is "rural with very small communities (Beatrice, Hookton, Indianola, and Southport Landing)". If GNIS calls it a populated places, and a report by a private research firm calls it a "very small community", then is passes WP:GEOLAND. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To pass GEOLAND, it must be legally recognized, which GNIS does not do. It is a database of names that have appeared on maps. Being a "very small community" like a neighborhood does not automatically pass GEOLAND, though there may be significant coverage for part 2. This source isn't quite there. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: GEOFEAT points to GNG for places without legal recognition and this does not have multiple IS RS with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 05:00, 22 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Kamm

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

Fails NPOV, cites YouTube. Creator has created a few Tanzanian BLP articles that were later nominated for deletion. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 13:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 13:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 13:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 13:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 13:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have sourcing to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Youtube sources aren't good enough, the rest aren't much either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current souces doesn't passes WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources, and edited the text so that it is more neutral. She has been recognized in her country as a significant leader in women's education. She has been written about in the Tanzanian press but it is difficult to access the original sources because they are not digitized. PMCH2 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Suggest moving to draft rather than delete to allow more time to establish notability using more reliable sources. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard to determine notability for people outside of the anglo-sphere, so notability of figures should be considered through that lens. She was named Woman of the Year by the prime minister of tanzania, and was a member of the Tanzanian Parliament, inherently meeting NPOL. Also given a lifetime achievement award by Tanzanian Women of Achievement. This search indicates a fair bit of coverage in the Tanzania Daily News (via AllAfrica.com and ProQuest), including an article describing her as a Prominent retired teacher and former Member of Parliament Maria Kamm. She also comes up in books ([39], [40]) and is even mentioned in American media ([41], [42]). I think the summation of the coverage is enough to meet GNG. There is likely more coverage in Swahili. AFD is not cleanup. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above; in addition, there is this book in German: [43] Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and once again, WP:GNG does not have an "in English-language/Western sources" asterisk. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability now clearly demonstrated (including as a member of a national parliament, although that does not appear to be her main claim to fame). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject is presumed notable per the first point of WP:NPOL, because she is a former Member of Parliament in Tanzania (National Assembly (Tanzania)), winning a Special Seat for Tanzanian Mainland (news link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per keep arguments above; qualifies for multiple reasons Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 11:56, 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 merge to Universal Esperanto Association. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grabowski Prize

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

A non-notable award with nothing to suggest notability. Fails WP:GNG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the universe of the language in question it's a known thing, much mentioned in media, many famous Esperanto authors were awarded or took part in the commission that decides whom to award. The Esperanto version of the article gives the impression of its history. Yes, it's small (as is the language compared to English), but usually the notability criteria in wikipedias take the size in consideration (allowing writers from minority groups to still have biographies in Wikipedia). Amikeco (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Universal Esperanto Association or Antoni Grabowski per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I was unable to find substantial coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources.
The Wikipedia article notes, "The Grabowski Prize is a prize awarded to young authors writing in Esperanto by the Antoni Grabowski Foundation, part of the Universal Esperanto Association (UEA). It is named after Antoni Grabowski, who has been called "the father of Esperanto poetry"."
Cunard (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cunard Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. I concur with the assessment and reasoning. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 21 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. Daniel (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Official Association of Professional Table Tennis Athletes of North America

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

Nothing to indicate notability or even that this organization exists with dubious claims that it exists in every state. Clearly fails WP:ORG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2009-11 no consensus

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided to verify this organization's existence, much less its notability. The only sources I could find on my own were humor, not news: this April Fool's Day joke and this joke blog post. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:05, 17 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. Daniel (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Melrose (guitarist)

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

Non-notable Irish guitarist. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure how Irish he is (!), but agree about non-notability: the only source cited is the person's own bio, and a Google search finds not a single secondary source, let alone sigcov. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: delete per nom. The only Irish connection seems to be working with Clannad. ww2censor (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Improvements have been made. And he's not Irish: he lives in Germany and works across Europe and North America. He's not particularly Scottish either, if you listen to him. And for some reason, my search on Google turned up a bunch of references. Go figure. Djdaedalus (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Feel free to add those refs you found; if they demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, they could be material in saving this article. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as he does have a staff written bio at AllMusic here as well as an album review there as well as the German piece referenced in the article. Haven't done a full search, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:24, 8 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 18:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - per nom. No sigcov. Spleodrach (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With respect to my longtime colleague Atlantic306, the AllMusic bio is a good start but describes Melrose as a sideman in the works of others. His biographical info could be relevant in articles about his groups Twilight and Be Mine or Run, but WP does not have articles on those groups. (There are at least two other bands called Twilight). As an individual, Melrose does not have the independent coverage necessary for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:28, 18 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. The only policy-based arguments fell firmly on the 'delete' side of the debate. Daniel (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Yau Bank Limited

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, I can't find any coverage other than some brief mentions in the context of a 2020 fraud scheme where the bank was impersonated. I tried searching in Chinese as well and couldn't find any significant coverage, although my ability to do so is somewhat limited and a fluent editor may have more luck. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant? 219.77.116.215 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you tried Hong Kong Public Libraries newspaper archive ? https://mmis.hkpl.gov.hk. May need an afternoon for me to read the news article from the search result. Matthew hk (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that resource. I tried searching just now but unfortunately didn't find anything usable in the first several pages of search results in English. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the few locally incorporated licensed banks. 219.77.116.215 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion, as finding sources appears to be complicated. That said, the lone "keep" argument as of this relisting is not going to carry weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The {{expand language}} tag has been added. 219.77.116.215 (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had reviewed the sources at the zhWiki article before creating this nomination, so that tag being added doesn't really change anything about my original assessment. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google Scholar had some promising-looking hits, but paywalled. I'm leaning keep because the name drops are usually including Tai Yau for making conclusions about HK's overall banking system. HK is a huge int'l banking hub, but when it's a mom-and-pop deal, I think Cantonese is necessary to get beyond a stub. I thought this SCMP Article was of some interest. Estheim (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable history. 14.0.180.53 (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The two keep !voters rationales are rather lacking, but some commenters imply there are promising sources. Perhaps a third relist will result in some more concrete thoughts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per remarks above of various fellow editors. 218.102.122.155 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the article, per above. 219.76.18.74 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment above votes are come from IPs, who has made few or no other edits outside this topic. So likely WP:SOCK. VocalIndia (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VocalIndia: Actually may be meat sock . See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170. And sorry i am too busy to try to read the old news article in Chinese that republished digitally in MMIS. Matthew hk (talk) 12:21, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhyaragam (1979 film)

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

This was previously up for deletion via PROD for failing WP:NFILM but was removed with reason Notable article --- Released malayalam movie

A film being released does not make it inherently notable. There is nothing within the article to suggest a passing of WP:NFILM or WP:GNG at any level. A WP:BEFORE search came up with a lot but, as far as I could see, it was all about other films with similar names. I couldn't find any reviews or significant coverage for this exact film but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Spiderone 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines, WP:NFILM. None of the sources are significant coverage and their reliability is questionable. No significant sources found from a search. Eyebeller 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFILM and GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that simple searches as should have been undertaken by the nominator and anyone else commenting above show that this film is usually known in English as Sandhya Ragam. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Is every single film with a mention in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema automatically notable? Which point under NFILM would this be most relevant to? #4? Spiderone 15:13, 8 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 18:18, 16 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 no consensus. What an absolute mess, to be honest. There is a handful of policy-based arguments in amongst a heck of a lot of very average arguments below. I can't find a consensus at all, plus the article has changed somewhat during the debate, making it even harder. Would recommend that, if this is relisted in the near future, the nominator requests that the debate be semi-protected and then widely advertised internally (Wikiprojects etc.) to encourage good-quality contributions to the debate. Daniel (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple Music

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

The only references listed in this article are links to the company's personal webpage/blogs/store and a link to a music festival's webpage. Cannot find references that sufficiently establish notability, therefore the article should be deleted per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Law15outof48 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Law15outof48 (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons you've stated - looks like promo created by the people involved. Many of the edits were from accounts or IPs that only edited this article. - Special-T (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Special-T. This has been sitting here since 2010, might I add. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there were quality issues with the original article, Ripple Music is a notable record label in the doom metal subculture. The article has been revised to include reliable, independent references and some promotional language has been removed. View the current version: Ripple Music Jessiemay1984 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGCRIT: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This company has not been the subject of significant coverage in any of those sources. This article should still be deleted. Law15outof48 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGCRIT: Updated references include well-known music publications such as Rolling Stone, Decibel Magazine, and Blabbermouth, as well as local mainstream news sources and popular underground publication The Obelisk. All of these are independent of the organization.Jessiemay1984 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The label is still active and is important for the history of stoner rock/doom metal music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bufftbone (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 23:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subculturally notable music label. In addition to WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:DINC, keep in mind that small subcultures (such as specific metal subgenres) may have little coverage that looks relevant to an outsider looking in, but this doesn't necessarily mean they lack that coverage entirely -- it simply may require more familiarity to spot. The improvements to sourcing this article has seen since listing appear quite clearly reliable coverage. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Decibel source might constitute significant coverage in a relible source, but all of the other sources listed are either not reliable or only contain trivial mentions of the company. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: Lack of notability supercedes WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:DINC. The article should still be deleted. Law15outof48 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there have been significant updates to the page in recent days. It seems worth keeping as a few valuable new links have been added. And I can agree that yes, this is an important label in the underground rock community. Grimbold292 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~strike double !vote Updates to the information and references are ongoing. Re sources that are "not reliable" -- some references are from The Obelisk has its own (uncontested) Wikipedia page. Other references include Rolling Stone, Blabbermouth, Ghost Cult Magazine, and long-running underground metal sites such as The Sludgelord and Encyclopaedia Metallum. It appears that the call for deletion stems from a lack of familiarity with this particular metal subculture, especially given the updated references. Furthermore, keep in mind that a record label's purpose is to release and distribute music -- so while the organization itself may get less press coverage than the bands/artists it represents, it has a significant role in content creation and audience engagement within its particular subgenre. Ripple has released hundreds of musical works over the past decade in the doom/stoner genres, working with bands around the globe. A flag to improve citations would have been more appropriate for this article than a call for deletion. See, for instance, the Wikipedia pages for Nuclear Blast and Metal Blade Records. 24.45.143.92 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was me (Jessie) not signed in. Added strikethrough bc I'm not trying to stuff the ballot box lol. Jessiemay1984 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions in reliable sources are not sufficient to establish notability. A flag to improve citations doesn't apply to this article, since it hasn't been established that the company is notable in the first place. It appears that your argument boils down to the WP:LOCALFAME and WP:ITSOLD fallacies. Law15outof48 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. So for a record company, I want to see articles *about* the record company, not about the artists or new releases, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing 21:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Upon closer examination, I agree. None of these sources constitute "significant coverage" whatsoever. Law15outof48 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point about notability for an organization/company -- but in the case of a record label, the WP:MUS should be factored in as well. Furthermore, as some users noted, Ripple's role in an underground subculture may be harder to see from outside that subculture; Also, references from Decibel and others focus on the label itself. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels, this article should remain as an important label in the doom/stoner metal subculture.Jessiemay1984 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCALFAME: having a "role in an underground subculture may be harder to see from outside that subculture" does not make the company notable, nor does being a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels. WP:MUS does not apply to record labels, and none of this supersedes the company's lack of notability. Law15outof48 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~strike double !vote In looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels, I found some interesting discussion about notability and sourcing. It appears that other users have run into similar debates. Here is an excerpt from that section, posted in 2019: "Record labels are not specifically covered with their own section in WP:MUSIC, and there is no consensus about how to do so (I attempted, once, and failed). WP:MUSIC does have language in the section on artists that gives the only real guidance about judging notability - length of operation and significance of roster, taken holistically. [...] There are very few people actively working on record label articles - I'm one of the most active, and most of what I do is watch over a bunch of them to ward off vandalism and overly-hasty deletion, rather than write new articles or work on sourcing." That was from Chubbles. The debate on this Ripple article is a perfect example of how unclear guidelines for record labels results in confusion and clearer guidelines are needed. If we look at "length of operation and significance of roster, taken holistically," Ripple has a significant role in a music subculture. In the spirit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels, to improve Wikipedia's record label coverage -- rather than deleting one article about a record label that has existed for over ten years and has put out many releases that meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria, perhaps efforts would be better spent on developing notability criteria that is specific to record labels. (Especially as this issue has come up before.)Jessiemay1984 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You voted twice, Jessiemay1984. Please strike through one of your votes so that it doesn't get counted twice.
The guidelines are not unclear. WP:MUS does not apply to record labels, WP:ORGCRIT does. Saying that the page shouldn't be deleted because it and/or the company have been around for a while is the WP:ITSOLD fallacy: "Notability is not established by how long a thing has existed, or how far back in time a tradition may go, or how venerable the people are who are involved in it, or how yellowed the pages that once mentioned it." 'Significance of roster' is the WP:INHERITORG fallacy: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." 'Ripple has a clear role in music subculture' is the WP:LOCALFAME fallacy. These fallacies do not sufficiently establish the company's notability. Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels are only for companies that have been demonstrated to be notable in the first place, which this company has not. Law15outof48 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Five pillars -- "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."Jessiemay1984 (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. This is the most relevant underground record label on the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:15 (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article describes actively engaged recorded music label, publisher, distributor, and cultural entity in music genre and subgenre operating for over 10 years representing broad roster of active musicians and significant catalog of recordings. Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on AllMusic. Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on Discogs.com. WP:MUSIC indicates that many artists in repertoire would meet notable criteria, whether or not they themselves are represented with Wikipedia articles or entries. There is limited discussion indicating how to assess Notability for smaller and independent record labels and music publishers as culturally significant. Wikipedia Notability guidelines should not unintentionally bias toward "major" international corporate entities or certain "major" institutions. Discussion appears to contain Moving Goalposts when presented with notable references by invoking WP:INHERITORG, WP:ITSOLD, & WP:LOCALFAME to refute notability. These can continue to be leveraged to argumentum ad infinitum as invoked here, they would also apply to most genre or regional music organizations that exist to promote culture and artists. The page needs fixing not deletion. Krakan.silfursolin (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amen! We need to improve Wikipedia record label coverage according to Wikipedia:Five Pillars rather than get hung up on circular arguments. Deleting the Ripple page does nothing to improve Wiki's music content, especially as the label's notability is being established through recent reference additions. Jessiemay1984 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Krakan.silfursolin's account was created recently and their only edits relate to this deletion discussion. jp×g 14:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That's also the case for the user who flagged this page for deletion. Law15of48's account was created in late December 2020 and most of the activity has been related to this page. 24.45.143.92 (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Jessiemay1984 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Krakan.silfursolin for your points and sharing the Discog and All Music links. Reliable secondary sources continue to be added which focus on the record label itself, including this 2020 label spotlight from Bandcamp. https://daily.bandcamp.com/label-profile/ripple-music-label-profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessiemay1984 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Jessiemay1984 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re notes about age of accounts that JPxG and I made -- whether you are on Team Keep or Team Delete, "newbie" status is not supposed to be a consideration in these discussions per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Just pointing out that there are new accounts on both sides of the discussion. Jessiemay1984 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP and not WP:MUSIC. A lot of the accounts posting to Keep don't appear to understand the criteria for establishing notability for companies or are quoting from other guidelines which have different standards and are not applicable for companies. Here's a summary to help. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Also nothing where there is "inherited" notability so the inference that they have signed notable acts only points to the notability of the act, not of the company that signed them. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. If some of the Keep !voters can produce a couple of good references that they are sure meets WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH, post them here. HighKing 12:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD was briefly closed as "keep" and made subject to a now moot DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 January 12. Sandstein 09:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not link to this AFD only to the deletion review. If the AFD is to continue someone should fix that. Dream Focus 13:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it. No telling how long it had been that way, just noticed the incongruity myself. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jessiemay1984 voted 'keep' a total of 3 times - twice as themself, and once as logged out IP address 24.45.143.92. 192.145.116.125 (talk) 14:59, 24 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 merge to Baron Cahir. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James "Gallda" Butler

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

I'm unconvinced that WP:GNG is met here. I can find some coverage about his son Piers Butler of Cahir, but not much about this guy. We know his parents, his children, the name of the castle he lived in, and when he died, but there doesn't seem to be much else that can be said about this guy. He seems to purely be notable only from a genealogical standpoint. Has been in CAT:NN since 2010. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the James Butler article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Baron Cahir (which is a redirect to Earl of Glengall, a subsequent title). I have occasionally on peerage articles added a section for ancestors. In this case, the ancestors in question would be Lords of Cahir before this was elevated to a barony in the Irish House of Lords. I would not know whehter we have little on this man because nothing is known or merely because the article is still a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specifically, the merge target requires more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist-- If to merge, where? There is still not agreement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Baron Cahir. Spleodrach (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baron Cahir per Peterkingiron. // Timothy :: t | c | a 11:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per discussion. Not enough info for a standalone article. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, and there seems to be a couple of articles that could house this content. ~EdGl talk 23:08, 22 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 keep. The sources added by Alienautic have not been challenged, and therefore consensus is that the article should be improved, not deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Pellegatti

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable potato. OK, I just wanted to make my odd joke about Youtubers at some point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Save Pellegatti's page. As he is a celebrity in Italy and a valuable professional, the proposal for deletion is not understandable. The page could be improved or reviewed, for sure, but deletion would entail a huge lack of precious information. He eventually became a YouTouber, but he is and will always be a widely famous commentator and journalist, that's what he is. He's just a key component of Italian football world. Those collecting information about AC Milan, Italian commentators/journalists, Serie A, etcetera cannot avoid knowing Pellegatti. He must stay on Wikipedia, he's entitled to it. After saying that, please consider his page to be improved or rewied according to Wikipedia's policies and standards. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITProSpecialOne (talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Save Pellegatti's page. Dear John, speaking about Carletto Pellegatti as merely a Youtuber shows that you are expressing a judgment on his presence on Wikipedia without at least knowing what is Carlo's main job, and so the reason why he is so appreciated. Carlo is first of all a great journalist who earned the right to have his own Wikipedia page like some others prominent personality in the history of this profession like Gianni Brera and Beppe Viola. The fact that he uses another medium in order to express himself, his opinions and connect more with his audience (and like for example other journalists like Mauro Suma, Gian Luca Rossi and Stefano Borghi) does not lower his value as a great professional in his field (and I should say it corroborates it). Carletto's page needs to stay on Wikipedia.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried. I searched online. I emailed friends and family in Italy to help me find significant sources. I have no doubt Carlo is an amazing person and a great journalist but that doesn't get you included in Wikipedia and especially in Wiki:EN. You have to receive significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Being a well-known sports commentator/journalist from Milan or a youtuber doesn't get you there automatically. My absolute favorite club is Torino FC, of course, but AC Milan has been and is one of my favorites outside of Torino. Please seek additional sources and, if they are found let me know and I will support inclusion. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - clearly notable. There is in-depth coverage by major newspapers such as Corriere della Sera or La Gazzetta dello Sport.--Alienautic (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per the sources found by Alienautic Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 13 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 18:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST - Epinoia (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - he actually meets WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Did you read the references which have been added to the article?--Alienautic (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per Alienautic's sources --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep profiles in Corriere della Sera and Gazzetta dello Sport are enough to meet the threshold for GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:52, 28 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 This article was WP:DRAFTIFY'd before the deletion discussion got underway. --Paul ❬talk❭ 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

African composers

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

pure list cruft, i tried cleaning it up leaving only a handful of blue links but the other issue is that "african composers" is overly broad. For example, we have List of South African composers, which is more appropriate. CUPIDICAE💕 17:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a short List of Lists , we already have lists Egyptian, Nigerian, South African composers and, for a different angle, a List of composers of African descent so the makings of a LoL is already there. --Paul ❬talk❭ 18:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really even opposed to that idea as long as we can really clarify what it means. African-American? Egyptian? etc...CUPIDICAE💕 19:04, 16 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. Daniel (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aidin Ardjomandi

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

I failed to find any significant reliable coverage online. Fails GNG and other relevant subjective notability criteria Mardetanha (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At first I don't agree with your word "any significant reliable". Reputable news agencies such as Khabaronline, Fararu, Tabnak and Hamshahri Online have covered the news of receiving his A'Design Award. If you have information about prestigious industrial design competitions in the world, for example A'Design Award - that is most prestigious world design award 1-, Design that Educates, IDA Design Award and so many, you will find that Aidin Ardjomandi is a member of the jury in many of them. An advantage that few industrial designers in Iran have.

For example, in Design that Educates 2021 competition, he is a member of the jury along with Hadi Teherani and Farshid Moussavi - two of the most prestigious Iranian architects and industrial designers in the world.

The invention of an instrument called the Cellorido, which won a world award, is another of his notability criteria.

~~I think it is better to review the sources again and keep this article. MrInfo2012 Talk 11:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 15:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MrInfo2012. Seems sufficient coverage to me. Ford MF (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, creator blocked as a confirmed spammer based on off-wiki evidence. MER-C 15:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a place for other editors to review this evidence themselves? Ford MF (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NCREATIVE. // Timothy :: t | c | a 04:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 16 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. Daniel (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Jacobi

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

Fails notability guidelines. Short and I couldn't find much information with a search online. Eyebeller (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was one of eight Jews listed as living in Los Angeles in the first U.S. census of 1850. He was a pioneer and also a City Council member. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a member of a city council is not a default sign of notability. The US census is a primary source, we do not use primary sources. Plus, the US census does not record religion so the claim that "Jacobi was one of eight Jews listed as living in Los Angeles in the 1850 census" is just plain false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of 1850, LA only had ~8000 people. Most councilmembers today are probably notable, but I don't think you can say the same thing about councilmembers for a smallish town. I did a search in Google Books and newspapers.com and came up with basically nothing. Don't know if there are better places to look, but I'm leaning delete. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would support a merge to an article about early Jewish immigration to the region. Other than that, he ran a business, played violin... Meh. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 6 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 16:49, 16 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. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Natured Products

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

Does not seem to be "notable." Note: Formerly named Solegear Bioplastics. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been PRODDED before, so not eligible for soft delete - relisting. Davidwr, if you were willing to expand on your reasons for thinking the subject isn't notable, that may help other reviewers. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 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 16:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references on the article are primary (Solegear = Primary) there are no indications it meets WP:ORGCRITE my google search did not return anything notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:32, 22 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 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) 01:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imelda Trilogy

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

Article about a short film series, not reliably sourced as having a solid claim to passing WP:NFILM. The notability claim being made here is that two of the films won short film awards at second-tier film festivals like Images en vue, FICFA and Cinémental (and by the way, don't be fooled by the ambiguous way its Cinémental award appears to be tied to its premiere at the much more significant Quebec City Film Festival, because it did not win an award at FCVQ, and Cinémental is an entirely different and much less notability-clinching festival) -- but these claims are not referenced to reliable source media coverage about the film, but to primary sources like the filmmaker's own self-published PR kit and its online rental page on Vimeo. The only footnote that actually comes from a real media outlet is a community weekly that isn't widely distributed enough to get a film over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only real media source on offer.
As always, every film award that exists is not an automatic free pass over NFILM -- NFILM concerns itself with major awards, such as Oscars, CSAs, BAFTAs or the top tier of internationally prominent film festivals (TIFF, Berlin, Cannes) that get broad media coverage, and not with just every single film festival that exists on Earth. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the films from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The other language article is much more complete and has a lot more references and detail, but most is minor or promotional. I don't see anything there or in my searching that meets WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 18:42, 22 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 no consensus. This change had quite a significant impact on the article and the debate. No idea if it would have encouraged the three "delete" !votes to change their mind or not, but it only forced me more strongly towards assessing this as NCS. Daniel (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hart

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. The only source is primary. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SOLDIER is an essay so I don't concern myself with it. GNG and all SNG's are subjects of the current Wikipedia chief notability guideline WP:N. As such that is my ruling judgement in this case. It doesn't meet this requirement so it does not belong. Perhaps when we start seeing thousands of articles deleted for this reason and Wikipedia sees a significant reduction in traffic due to searchers looking for other sources then they will make alterations. All we can do is go with what we have. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to meeting notability guidelines for soldiers, and the sourcing is not even remotely close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hart passes WP:GNG, although relevant sources are not in the article. He commanded the 5th Louisiana Infantry at the Battle of Gettysburg and received significant coverage for being a rare Jewish Confederate in Robert Rosen's The Jewish Confederates (University of South Carolina Press). Scott Mingus' history of the Louisiana Tigers at Gettysburg (LSU Press) also has detailed coverage of Hart in terms of his actions during the battle. Kges1901 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG ie. significant coverage in the multiple sources added by Kges1901 (and before anybody says these are niche books, The Louisiana Tigers held by 600 libraries, and The Jewish Confederates 450 libraries:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This article is about both Alexander Hart and the practice of faith by Jewish Confederate soldiers during the Civil War. This is not a straightforward biography, it veers off into synagogues, Passover and and how soldiers observed Passover. The material is not suited for merge with The Jewish Confederates. A bit of a challenge, this article. I'd lean towards a weak keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:05, 24 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swingers (2007 film)

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

Completely unsourced article about a film, which literally just states that it exists, the end, and doesn't even attempt a notability claim that would pass WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it has an IMDb page: films have to be able to demonstrate some actual historical or cultural significance, such as notable awards and/or enough reliable source attention from real film critics to pass WP:GNG. But even on a search for better sources, literally the only thing I can find anywhere is this, which namechecks the film's existence a single time in the process of calling the filmmaker's overall body of work little-seen, poorly funded and poorly distributed. That's just not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow... if it's too much for people to add any real content in here after 10 years... it's too much for a full BEFORE beyond a few minutes... I did a few clicks around the search tools, but nothing relevant. Fails GNG and NFILM. -- 2pou (talk) 14:57, 19 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 Speedy deleted. Per WP:CSD#A7 by Jinian. Also Salted. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2lane

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

Although there is a WP:A7 tag on the article, I do not believe that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion as there is a claim of significance; charting in three different countries, although this is not supported by reliable sources. Not even one of the sources in the article could be considered reliable and I found nothing better in my WP:BEFORE search. Most likely a vanity article. Spiderone 12:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt – the claims of charting are false. The track in question has 13 plays on YouTube, subject has not been mentioned in a single reliable source. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support WP:SALT. This strongly smells of a hoax. The article makes out that he has some massive online presence yet almost all of his YouTube videos have fewer than 10 views, he has 14 followers on Twitter, 760 followers on Facebook, 15 monthly listeners on Spotify, 83 followers on Soundcloud. Even I have more of an online following than this guy... Something does not add up. Yes, I know, lack of followers doesn't mean he isn't notable but, in the internet and social media era, it is rather unusual Spiderone 13:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and Salt. Vanity article that has previously been A7 deleted twice. Claims not verified by the references given. --John B123 (talk) 15:53, 16 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duga Rijeka

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

Fails WP:NPLACE, WP:GNG and only cites one single source. Cupper52 (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NPLACE; populated villages are generally kept Spiderone 17:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this is not a correct reading of WP:NPLACE, this is a typical gazeteer entry per WP:5P1. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. Reporting a population as a settlement in an official government census should meet GEOLAND #1. Hog Farm _Talk 23:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGEO, reminds me of "Article content does not determine notability", btw there is a smidgeon more at the wikiCroatian article. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NPLACE/WP:GEOLAND. Bingobro (Chat) 05:22, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OliviaT

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

Non-notable musician. The only independent media coverage seems to be this one article. Possibly promotional: the article was created by Tmusicman (talk · contribs). Un assiolo (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We may have to expand this, but it definitely fails WP:NMUSICIAN.–Cupper52^Discuss! 12:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. The only reliable source provides very little coverage. A search revealed only a very similar article from a site named Scroll.in. Clearly not enough to meet the requirement of having received in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to address the criteria under WP:MUSICBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhirami (film)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: Two mentioning in an Indian newspaper. No in-depth coverage otherwise. Kolma8 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - redundant nomination - reliable sources are cited, including one which provides a positive review of the film in a leading Indian newspaper. You will find no in-depth coverage for most Indian films released before the 2000s, particulary the regional non-Hindi films, and it does not mean they are not notable. Sadly no archives exist for Indian newspapers as they do in publications from the west. I'm sure coverage existed even if it is not entirely available now, but I'm graeful to those who must have spent some time digging in the archives to find the ones that are cited on the page now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at Shahid: I am happily will withdraw this nomination if you can support the notability based on Wikipedia:Notability_(films). I searched and failed. Your point that a film is notable because "coverage existed even if it is not available now" is a bit strange in my opinion and needs to be supported. Thanks Kolma8 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolma8: I didn't mean to offend you, I'm sorry if my remark was inappropriate. My perception of Wikipedia is inclusive, I believe it should be a center of knowledge, even about lesser known subjects. In my view, every film the release of which is proven and receives even minimal coverage in at least one reliable source, deserves a Wikipedia article. I'm highly against this habit of filtering out all articles on films, and I think there's a great bias here against Indian films (not specifically you). Sorry, a review in The Indian Express is no mean thing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: In no way I felt that you were trying to offend me and I do agree that non-US/West films have a lesser chance to qualify for itsown article on WP for different reasons, but nonetheless the criteria should be followed. And this film as many other Indian films were just mass-uploaded into WP seemingly without any order or consideration to WP guidance. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in-depth coverage is needed to keep articles, so actually reading even the keep vote is to see an admission that this article needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Hi there, you misinterpret my comment. My vote clearly relied on the sources that are already there, which reference one of India's leading newspapers. I did say that most Indian films before the 2000s do not have existing coverage in the media because no archives exist, and the existing sources are proof to that. Not every film receives a review from The Indian Express. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- good, rare sources are listed in the article. Notable cast, completes their portfolio of work. Neutral Fan (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the sources. I think the first one is the film's poster on the p.4, was that something else? The #2 is a good source going through the plot. Still does not demonstrate meeting WP:NFILM and WP:GNG criteria in my opinion. Kolma8 (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:26, 16 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. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oraal

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or expand Has some empty sections which need improving and expanding. We have to try expanding it before a consensus is reached. If we can’t then strong delete. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM. Expanding can be done, but without support from citations that would help it pass the WP:NFILM guidelines it would be a wasted effort. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:26, 16 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdwatch

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

Lack of independent reliable references. Advertisement of a company. Notability is in question. DMySon 10:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DMySon 10:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DMySon 10:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 10:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created on the 11th edit by a briefly active new account, setting out a company's wares. Aside from the start-up funding announcement in 2017 and being one recipient of a non-notable industry award in 2018, searches find announcement-based coverage on their purchase by Razorpay in August 2019. There is insufficient coverage for WP:NCORP and no article on the acquiring company which could serve as a redirect target. AllyD (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP RationalPuff (talk) 23:26, 16 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Jain

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

No indication of Notability. Advertisement. Article looks like a resume. DMySon 10:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon 10:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DMySon 10:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 10:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable media. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terribly fails WP:BASIC. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. RationalPuff (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 19 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 and redirect to List of Danganronpa characters. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Izuru Kamukura

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

I have looked for sources for this character (both of his names, including in Japanese), and do not believe the subject meets the general notability guideline: the only mentions in reliable sources are in articles about the media he's from, such as reviews briefly mentioning the protagonist's name, and cast announcements.

Worse, some sources cited do not even mention the character, despite being used to support facts about the character, such as this Kotaku review or this Anime News Network piece. The article purports that the character is one of the most popular characters in the series, with a citation to this GamerRevolution list of the "best Danganronpa characters"... except the list does not have an entry for Hajime/Izuru, and only mentions him incidentally in an entry for another character.

I don't want to accuse the person who wrote this article of intentionally using sources that don't support what the article claims they do to make the subject look more notable... but this is not looking great. Normally I would suggest merging, but considering this use of sources I don't think that's feasible, and would prefer to delete and redirect to List of Danganronpa characters.--Alexandra^IDV 07:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Alexandra^IDV 08:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Alexandra^IDV 08:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I have added better references mentioning the character to support the article and will add more over the next few days. Verablanc01 (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Danganronpa characters. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Danganronpa characters. Article was created by a sockpuppet that has a long history of creating pages for non-notable characters. They've claimed that they'd find better sources soon, but they've since been blocked and their additions don't constitute any significant or in-depth coverage, they're all just passing mentions in articles for other games. Nearly all sources here don't talk about the character itself, so it fails WP:GNG for sure. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Danganronpa characters, per above. Link20XX (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Danganronpa characters#Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair, per nom. IanTEB (talk) 20:29, 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 delete. The "keep" opinions do not properly address the WP:GNG argument for deletion; they do not provide reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of this vehicle (and no, a model is not such coverage because it is not information). Sandstein 09:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FBW Dreiachskipper Type 80-N

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

Fail WP:GNG. Only one vehicle ever built. The Banner talk 22:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 22:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Only one built, fails GNG" is not how notability works. Nüedi (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere existence of a vehicle is not the same as being notable. The Banner talk 14:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's still not a valid reason to delete, which including it in the deletion rationale implies you believe. If it's not notable, just say it's not notable. The number built is rrelevant.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As much as I detest scant notability, Only one vehicle ever built is not a valid reason for deletion, per se. Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Keep voters are picking apart at the nominators rationale but ignore the lack of significant coverage and thus failure of GNG. SK2242 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still "Keep", after using google ..."FBW 80N", there is an additional coverage about a second FBW 80N Truck.[44]. Nüedi (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: you can buy a diecast-model of the civilian FBW 80N [45]. So GNG is out of question.Nüedi (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- So you claim that a model of a civilian type makes an military type notable? The Banner talk 11:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, because the article itself is about the FBW 80N truck in general. Civil or military, only the color makes the difference.Nüedi (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - So that’s only one source providing significant coverage as shopping site listings don’t establish notability. You’re right in that passing GNG is out of the question, because it doesn’t. SK2242 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources in the article, in above discussion, and found in BEFORE do not have SIGCOV. Mentions do not show notability, just because something existed, does not make it notabile.

Source evaluation table:

Source	Evaluation
Nüssli AG FBW 80N E6A…	Single paragraph on the site of the civilan manufacturer. Not SIGCOV
W 80-N 6x4 on Militär Motorfahrer Verein…	A photo on a blog with unsourced statistics. Not SIGCOV.
tps://www.spielland.ch/952_200507/fahrze…	Page for a toy model, no information, not SIGCOV

Just because something existed does not make it notable. // Timothy :: t | c | a 03:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - No, it is not only one sources. FBW 80-N 6x4 on Militär Motorfahrer Verein St.Galleroberland Graubünden (MMV SGO/GR),Nüssli AG FBW 80N E6A,Militärfahrzeuge.ch FBW 80-N 6x4, Nüssli who show this civilian FBW 80N on some evenents, Militärmuseum Full Switzerland, where the military FBW 80N is on public display,[46] , [47] and that everyone on the world can buy online two differend diecast-model of the FBW 80N shows it's GNG. There are no models of unimportant vehicles that can simply be bought.Nüedi (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply: None of the above is SIGCOV, everyone can see that. None of the sources has direct and indepth coverage of the subject. // Timothy :: t | c | a 04:19, 18 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 no consensus. I'm not going to relist this a third time as I honestly doubt there'll be an outcome. Feel free to re-nominate (to reset this discussion) if desired; if renominated, I'd be combining this and #1 into one discussion. Daniel (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nahkampfkanone 2

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

Fail WP:GNG. Prototype, never in service The Banner talk 22:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 22:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Prototype, never in service" is not how notability works.is enough for a "Keep".Nüedi (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere existence of a vehicle is not the same as being notable. The Banner talk 14:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact only one was built doesn't make it unnotable, and it certainly isn't a valid reason to delete. I have concerns about this mass nomination given you included that comment on almost all of them. I'd assume you'd be familiar with how notability and deletion rationailes work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barely enough here to keep; also the nominator's rationaile of "never in service" is not a valid deletion argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just add one ref more (NZZ Newspaper). Spending just a few seconds using google with different names spellings confirms GNG.Nüedi (talk) 18:50, 17 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 no consensus. I'm not going to relist this a third time as I honestly doubt there'll be an outcome. Feel free to re-nominate (to reset this discussion) if desired. Daniel (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nahkampfkanone 1

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only one vehicle built. The Banner talk 22:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 22:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Only one built, fails GNG" is not how notability works. Nüedi (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere existence of a vehicle is not the same as being notable. The Banner talk 14:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barely enough here to keep; also the nominator's rationaile of "never in service" is not a valid deletion argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "It exists" is also an argument to avoid. The Banner talk 09:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know it's funny that, seeing as I didn't make that argument. Try again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just add one ref more (NZZ Newspaper). Spending just a few seconds using google with different names spellings confirms GNG.Nüedi (talk) 18:49, 17 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOWAG-AEG

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

Insufficient independent sources available to establish WP:GNG. The Banner talk 21:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 21:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's barely enough sourcing, but there is enough.Nüedi (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere existence of a vehicle is not the same as being notable. The Banner talk 14:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The mere existence of a vehicle..." No. built:37, In service:1967 - 2003 (36years!) = being notable.Nüedi (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's barely enough here but the nominator is reminded that sources need only exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is barely enough there but its an interesting ! article, and a piece of aviation history, particularly with reference to Dassault Mirage aircraft. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been relisted twice despite a clear consensus? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are more conservative on when to relist versus when to close than others. To help them out, I'll throw in a keep per consensus. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:57, 17 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praja

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is one reliable review: https://www.sify.com/movies/praja-review-malayalam-pclunFceecebe.html Kailash29792 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NFILM requires 2 reliable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-reliable sources there although it cites only a few. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard to find more online references 20 years after release. Obviously had multiple reviews in leading newspapers of the time considering the star cast and crew. Jupitus Smart 14:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though difficult to find sources, the film had reviews in major newspapers of that time. It was a major theatical relase back then. The problem is that most of the films including this kne doesnt have any proper sources as they were released very early back then. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:53, 18 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 Azhar Ali. Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. (Note that there is no clear consensus either way in this discussion - which does not have brilliant participation numbers, to be honest - that the content should or shouldn't be merged, but that conversation can take place at AA's talk page or more broadly at a relevant Wikiproject/Noticeboard etc. as required.) Daniel (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Azhar Ali

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

Fails WP:NLIST as it says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Störm (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Have you never heard of WP:MULTIAFD or are you deliberately being disruptive? My keep reasons are on one of the other related AfDs that this should have been bundled with. Spike 'em (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand the quote from the referenced WP:NLIST :One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. There is clearly no consensus that the only notability criteria for a standalone list is that is has been discussed as a group. There is also the guidance in WP:NOTSTATS that : Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Following earlier AFDs here and here, there is nothing to warrant a separate article, per WP:SPLIT. Per nom, these articles do not stand on their own. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But these earlier AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan resulted in being deleted. There is nothing to warrant a separate article, NOR is there any justifiable reason why such indiscriminate information needs to appear on the players' BLP articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of !votes in those AFDs were based exclusively on a flawed and in fact non-existent minimum threshold, whereas the two more recent ones I linked above had input from a wider audience and so show a stronger consensus. International centuries are a significant and noted achievement and therefore listing them is not indiscriminate and does not violate NOTSTATS. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other outcomes of 'List of international cricket centuries..' articles. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge into main article, per similar discussions. Nigej (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The last three AfD's resulted in redirect, not merge. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:51, 16 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. I found FPAS's argument the most persuasive, and it was supported by the majority of contributors to this discussion. Daniel (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SS-Oberabschnitt Weichsel

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

Administrative subdivision of the Nazi SS. Fails WP:RS. The one source cited for this stub is a book by one Mark C. Yerger, who according to his German Wikipedia article is known for writing hagiographical and revisionist books about the SS, making him an unreliable source. A Google Books search finds only brief mentions. The article was created by OberRanks, who has been site-banned for apparently fabricating sources. Sandstein 22:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search failed to convince me of the subject's notability. ~ HAL333 23:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable administrative structure, unreliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- Between the wars, Danzig was a free city, intended to be neutral between Poland and Germany, at the end of the Polish corridor, connecting Poland with the sea. Restoring the corridor and Danzig to Germany was a key Nazi demand. This organisation was (apparently) the Nazi/SS vehicle for this campaign. This is thus potentially significant, but I do not know enough to say more or firmly vote to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. no reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- MILUNIT is an essay and therefore irrelevant. It is also unclear how this administrative subdivision would even meet the requirements of that essay. Most importantly, notability arguments are irrelevant if a topic is not even verifiable in reliable sources, as this one is. Sandstein 11:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here we go again, the usual WP:JUSTANESSAY drivel to dismiss a standard that is widely accepted by those who actually know about such things. No, it is not "irrelevant". If it was irrelevant then it would not have been written and not accepted by so many editors. If you really don't know why an SS formation "would even meet the requirements of that essay", then, frankly, words fail me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - "those who actually know about such things" presumably meaning anyone who disagrees with you doesn't?! You are reminded of WP:NPA. Mztourist (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Laughable, given Sandstein was trying to tell me that a widely accepted and cited essay was irrelevant, presumably because he disagrees with it! No personal attacks here. I merely said that people who know about such things for the most part accept WP:MILUNIT as a good standard to work by. You must have misinterpreted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        No misinterpretation at all. User:Sandstein has a very clear understanding of the relevant deletion criteria. Mztourist (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:MILUNIT or WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of proper sourcing establishing notability. The single source cited in the article is not reliable (as pointed out above), and since it was added by OberRanks, we have every reason to expect that even that bad source won't actually support the contents claimed in the article. Has anybody checked? Personally, I'm not touching Yerger with a ten-foot pole. As for WP:MILUNIT, that essay makes the very wise point that "presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources" and that the specific types of units listed further down are merely "likely, but not certain, to have such coverage". Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually, I did get hold of an online copy of Yerger after all. He does mention this unit (on less than half a page), but as expected, the contents don't match those in the article. According to him, the unit was only formed in 1939, and it didn't cover East Prussia. Thus, the first two sentences of OberRanks' article contradict his source flat out, and the rest of the article isn't based on anything in the source at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreliable source and that has been misused. Zawed (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've now translated Mark C. Yerger's article into English, so at least we do get another article out of this. Sandstein 07:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, any thoughts on some sort of "redirect" to Allgemeine SS? Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conducting a WP:BEFORE search yields nothing closely resembling significant coverage in multiple, not numerically just not similar, reliable and independent secondary sources. I am not concerned with what was prior practice on Wikipedia. I am only concerned with the criteria given to me to make my determination in this regard. No essay or SNG was considered and never will be considered by myself until such time as the basic criteria WP:N is revisited and altered. Presumed notability can be confirmed or rebutted with evidence or lack thereof, respectively. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:24, 19 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. The opposition to deletion would have been more persuasive had the sources actually been furnished for review in the discussion, but in 7 days this did not occur. Daniel (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coldwood Interactive

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

I'm not sure the subject meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG; it's mentioned in various news articles about Unravel, but I'm not sure the non-trivial coverage can't or shouldn't go in the articles about the games or is significant enough to justify a discrete article. Adam9007 (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far as I can see the company does appear in "multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The WP:GNG precepts do not say that those articles need to be about something other than the primary product of the company, which in this case is (understandably) their first two games. Eoghan (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eoghan, That's true, but the sources do need to [address] the topic directly and in detail (from WP:GNG). Could you post links to your best three sources here so that other editors can assess whether they are sufficient to pass WP:NORG / WP:GNG? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet WP:NORG, perhaps redirecting to Unravel (video game) would be a good option here ~RAM (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though still a stub, the article could be extended with other relevant information about this company, their position in the Swedish games industry, their work with folk musicians, etc.Eoghan (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eoghan, are there sufficient reliable sources that cover this? IceWelder [✉] 15:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An (albeit limited) search for sources turned up press releases, interviews with the CEO, a profile on the website of the incubator that they're based in, and quite a bit of content about Unravel, but nothing with sufficient coverage of the company to count towards WP:GNG. I don't think that a redirect makes sense: we have articles about more than one of their games, so there is not an obvious target. Wham2001 (talk) 07:37, 21 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. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedcom

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

Short lived company, fails WP:NCORP. Tagged not notable since June 2018. References don't show notability: 2 are just directories, 1 is own website. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A page on a consultancy company which was taken over by another, which itself appears to have been taken over by a firm named Certara, none of which have articles, so no redirect target. The .org website now promotes betting; there is a US-based .com which appears to belong to a different company. I am seeing no evidence that the firm attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:30, 22 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bgyo (group)

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

Non notable band that falls short of WP:BAND. There isn’t even a single member of the band who seems to satisfy our general notability criteria Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contest to article deletion

@Celestina007: Musicians or ensembles may be deemed notable if it meets at least one notability criteria: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." They have been promoted extensively in the Philippine TV network, ABS-CBN. And are set to officially release their debut single this January. Please reconsider. Thank you! --SenyorOtter (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC) — SenyorOtter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy delete: This is one of another WP:COI articles created by a User:Philippinesfan sockpuppet. -WayKurat (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contest to Speedy deletion

@Celestina007: Claim by user WayKurat is unsubstantiated. This article was created by me and is no way associated with the sock-puppet account. User WayKurat has made a similar unsubstantiated claim on BINI. --SenyorOtter (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Contest to article deletion~~

@Celestina007: Musicians or ensembles may be deemed notable if it meets at least one notability criteria: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." In addition to that, BGYO has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the group itself. They have been featured in articles by big publishing companies such as ABS-CBN News, Rappler, and Manila Bulletin. Thank you. --SenyorOtter (talk) 5:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — SenyorOtter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@SenyorOtter: You have an okay to add to a previous vote, but you may not vote a second time. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Most of the sources come from ABN-CBS, which formed the group. That means they do not satisfy WP:RS. Aside from that, the group has yet to release a single. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 15:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caknuck. The only coverage is from ABS-CBN and the band hasn't officially debuted yet. Ashley yoursmile! 10:48, 20 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marilú López

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

Resumé article of no value on a subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search shows links to user generated sources and other sources not independent of her. The ref-bombing is a mirage to make the article appear as though it were notable. The article in itself doesn’t even indicate how or why she is notable. Celestina007 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason established by Celestina007 for deletion was:

"Resumé article of no value on a subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search shows links to user generated sources and other sources not independent of her. The ref-bombing is a mirage to make the article appear as though it were notable. The article in itself doesn’t even indicate how or why she is notable."

The main reason why I consider her notable is due to her work for the Data Management Association through the foundation of the Mexican Chapter, then her role as Regional Coordinator for Latin America, and currently as President's Council Chair.

While DAMA might not be the considered a mainstream organization, there are several people related to DAMA with articles on Wikipedia:

John Zachman - current Advisor Emeritus
Clive Finkelstein - member of International Advisory Board
Bernhard Thalheim - founder of German Chapter
Antonino Letteriello - current Regional Coordinator for Europe, Middle-East and Africa
Peter Chen - 2000 Professional Achievement Award
Bill Inmon - 2002 Professional Achievement Award

Any suggestions on how to improve this article are welcomed. lpgomar (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beautiful individual who has an important and influential role but does not meet the notability criteria as laid out in WP:N and found conducting a WP:BEFORE search. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, thus the existence of other articles does not actually demonstrate there subject is notable, so we do not keep articles just because people with similar jobs also have articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with user generated sources and other sources not independent of her ... none of this meets notability required for notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:53, 24 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 keep. WP:SNOW TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Sorceress

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT and does not cite any reliable, independent sources. Deoxy99 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Reviews: [48], [49], ProQuest 196801442, ProQuest 323900818, ProQuest 373864411, ProQuest 279786057. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per AleatoryPonderings, but I am concerned that such poorly cited articles as this one and (much more importantly) the related page Robert Newcomb have such harshly negative tones based on essentially no sources. There might possibly be a speedy deletion argument for Robert Newcomb as a page with "biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced". - Astrophobe (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Astrophobe too. --Gazal world (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AleatoryPonderings's comment. --Gazal world (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional reviews from independent sources have been added to the page one positive: [50] and one mixed [51].JCTullos (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, but recognizing Astrophobe's concern regarding tone. Article might need some POV cleanup (though "a book sold jack and got bad reviews" isn't POV by itself). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as multiple reviews available as brought out by AleatoryPonderings above, oh, and WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to receive significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The sources do not simply repeat the same information but give independent analysis. Meets our basic notability criteria found in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:00, 19 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. Consensus of the discussion here is that in this case, the marginal pass of WP:NCRIC is not enough to overrule the lack of WP:GNG-passing coverage. Hog Farm _Talk 03:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Hussain

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of a suitable list or redirect to. Trivial pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG and no suggestion that there is much of a chance of finding more in depth sources given his short career. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:56, 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 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) 00:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2002 La Mesa, California mayoral election

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

Non-notable mayoral election in a small suburb of San Diego. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT. There is routine mill coverage all local elections have in a major media market, but nothing that demonstrates notability. The election was purely about local issues that do not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: t | c | a 01:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, municipal-level elections has to be a lot bigger than this to get an article. Maybe 200 times bigger. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 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 delete. Sandstein 09:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSN 1977 and 1978 Reunion Tours

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NTOURS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The box office scores from Billboard Magazines show quite clearly this tour was a financial success which shows its answers both WP:GNG and WP:NTOURS. Please provide how much media coverage you are looking for to allow this article to stay, please be as specific as possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidd (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added reviews of the concerts. I am still waiting on your response for what else is needed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidd (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There may also be info in the recent Crowe doc, as well as in Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young: The Wild, Definitive Saga of Rock's Greatest Supergroup, CSNY: Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, and Hotel California: The True-Life Adventures of Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young, Mitchell, Taylor, Browne, Ronstadt, Geffen, the Eagles, and Their Many Friends. Caro7200 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: given the artist involved, there is likely to be enough coverage from the time to make this tour notable. But one of the biggest issues I have with all the Stephen Stills-related tour articles that this editor has created is that the titles of them are original research – they are names given to them by the editor, and not the official names of the tours. @Cassidd: the personnel and set list sections are unsourced, and you haven't shown how you are going to source them... Setlist.fm is not a valid source for the set list, as it is user-supplied information. Richard3120 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard3120, and that could be why I didn't find any info on it when I searched. But Cassidd is not going to reply to you, having now been indeffed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I realize that this AfD is on track to wind up as a "no consensus" and that User:Cassidd is no longer available to participate, but I would note that the "box office scores from Billboard Magazines" do not prove that this tour was "a financial success". Fewer than half of the shows on this tour had their box office results reported in Billboard (or at least, if the results were reported, they are not included in this article). Only the box office revenue, not the tour expenses, were reported anyway. And even if CSN were able to sell out their shows, it's possible that other artists could have sold out the same venues with higher ticket prices. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. Problems with original research and spotty sourcing, for an article created by blocked account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:08, 17 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. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Hameed (cricketer, born 1969)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted. We need to stop propping up junk articles like this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meeting a SNG like WP:NCRIC is ok for article creation but even it says notability is presumed which means it can be rebutted. This is the fact here. The subject does not meet notability criteria found in WP:N which means it should not be included. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the growing, indeed fully grown, consensus that sportspersons who only played 1 game of their sport do not satisfy Wikipedia guidelines, if not that game was especially noteworthy. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of a suitable list or redirect to. Trivial pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG and no suggestion that there is much of a chance of finding more in depth sources given his short career. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:57, 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 delete , I found wjemather's contribution the most persuasive in amongst a general consensus for deletion. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Atta

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played 8 games at the highest domestic level. StickyWicket (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not cricketpedia. The article totally 100% fails GNG. It is time we stopped keeping such rubbish articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails basic notability criteria WP:N. Wikipedia is not...WP:NOT. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too short and not notable.Illuminator123 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete in the absence of a suitable list or redirect to. Trivial pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG. Played a few matches across a short period, but the chances of finding suitable sources seems very limited. If there were then I might expect to see them on an article on the Urdu language version of Wikipedia, but he has no article there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:01, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Aziz

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AfD should be flooded with articles that fail GNG when they fail GNG. It is high time we stopped keeping on to rubbish articles on Wikipedia. This is clearly an example of such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guideline when conducting a WP:BEFORE search as with other cricket players in AfD today. What is not indiscriminate is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on anything from sports to "pick a topic". Either it passes WP:N criteria or not. This one does not. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of a suitable list or redirect to. Trivial pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG and no suggestion that there is much of a chance of finding more in depth sources given his short career. Lack of a linked article on Urdu language Wikipedia further suggests that sources will be difficult to find. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:04, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Baig

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria WP:N. The nom should have done a WP:BEFORE prior to nomination, however, I am not reliant upon the nominator or their assessment. Having conducted a BEFORE search I find the subject receives no significant coverage in a way that would make the subject notable as per the requirements. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of a suitable list or redirect to. Trivial pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG and no suggestion that there is much of a chance of finding more in depth sources given his short career. Lack of a linked article on Urdu language Wikipedia further suggests that sources will be difficult to find. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:04, 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 delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nina K. Mirembe

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

Entirely based on P and mere notices, which is understandable, because nothing that might possibly be notable has been demonstrated DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and WP:BEFORE, non-notable according to the basic notability guideline WP:N --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 19 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. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Butt (cricketer, born 1976)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia's basic notability guideline (WP:N) as it currently is. SNG's can be used to presume notability for article creation not article retention as presumptions can be rebutted. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the growing, indeed fully grown, consensus that sportspersons who only played 2 games of their sport do not satisfy Wikipedia guidelines, if not that game was especially noteworthy. Geschichte (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of a suitable list or redirect to. Trivial pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG and no suggestion that there is much of a chance of finding more in depth sources given his short career. Lack of a linked article on Urdu language Wikipedia further suggests that sources will be difficult to find. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:05, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Bhatti (cricketer, born 1972)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:NCRIC and with no coverage in secondary sources fails WP:GNG as well. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 08:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted. We need a flood of nominations like this when Wikipedia is drowning in junk like this article is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After conducting a WP:BEFORE the subject fails the basic criteria for inclusion found in WP:N. Multiple SNG criteria may be met but that only presumes notability and is used for article creation. Such presumptions may be rebutted and brought before AfD which we are then instructed to use our notability guideline for retention or deletion. Deletion is the only ruling that can be given based on the sources. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the growing, indeed fully grown, consensus that sportspersons who only played 1 game of their sport do not satisfy Wikipedia guidelines, if not that game was especially noteworthy. Geschichte (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of a suitable list or redirect to. Trivial pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG and no suggestion that there is much of a chance of finding more in depth sources given his short career. Lack of a linked article on Urdu language Wikipedia further suggests that sources will be difficult to find. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:05, 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 delete. Proposed redirect target doesn't exist. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisar Altaf

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Derbyshire Cricket Board cricketers, which would need to be created. Instead of this whole mass nominating of these types of articles, it would be bold, proactive and more productive to create these outstanding lists and redirect obvious one appearance (with no coverage) cricketers to these? StickyWicket (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails all notability guidelines. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect- Fails WP:GNG, to which NCRIC defers. This article, and so many like it, is just a match scorecard unconvincingly disguised as a biography. Reyk _YO! 13:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SNG's can be used to presume notability during the article creation process, I will not dispute this, but that notability can be rebutted if it does not pass the basic notability criteria found in WP:N and WP:GNG. After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, the subject does not receive the required coverage as prescribed. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would have a place on a specialist Fandom site, but not here. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:10, 21 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer Nti

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

BLP that does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is mostly WP:PASSING mentions and interviews. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I concur with MrsSnoozyTurtle, furthermore, there are traces of UPE in that article(buts that’s a story for another day). Celestina007 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman in the music industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 19 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 keep. This should not preclude a merge discussion, but there's a general consensus against outright deletion of the content, and the creator has said they are working on sorting it out. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Powers of Darkness (Iceland)

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

Article is a duplicate of Powers of Darkness. Material is virtually identical, but the other one has a better title. (Iceland) is unnecessary to disambiguate. No reason to have two of these. EDIT: It turns out there are three? Powers of Darkness (Sweden)? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per my discussion with A.S. Brown, I'd like to withdraw this nomination to give them time to meaningfully differentiate the articles. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll get to work on it this weekend. Thank you for your patience and kindness. Cheers! --A.S. Brown (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is mostly a copy of the other one. Most of the extra citations are the result of citation overkill. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's anything that needs to be merged, then merge but otherwise delete. No need for a duplicate. If this was recently created then we could speedy this, but it was made back in 2019 and evaded detection until now, apparently. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, even as the nominator. I should have first tried uncontroversially merged, like I did for Powers of Darkness (Sweden) Was silly not to... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revert to the last non-duplicated version of the page. Merge selectively as necessary or delete, good catch. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote per the information in the discussion below between the nominator and the original page author. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article Powers of Darkness. (It's incredible that both articles created by same user, A.S. Brown). - Yitbe ^A-21 07:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason this page is now a duplicate is becuse someone decided to add a bunch of stuff from this page to the main page instead of letting it be. Both the Icelandic and Swedish versions have enough written about them that two pages is helpful.★Trekker (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With all due respect, Yitbe, the articles as created by me in 2019 were quite different-the duplication is due to the work of other hands. Treker is quite right. This subject about the mysterious history of these novels are the academic equivalent of a current event article as new information is coming out constantly. Treker and I had a discussion about this, and it was decided to keep the main article from getting too big by breaking it up into sub-articles. I would favor reverting back to the set-up of 2019, but if that is unacceptable, then merge the two articles together. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose a merge whatsoever. I should have just done so. In fact, since they're being maintained, Delete might be harmful to properly integrate the content to where it belongs. I'm in favour of a merge now and wish I hadn't initiated the AfD without just bringing it up on the Talk! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers, I'm willing to be flexible about this, and I'm open to a merger or redirect. But I still think that there is enough material to warrant separate sub-articles on the Icelandic and Swedish versions of this novel, especially as new information keeps coming out. I think that undoing the work of other hands, which caused this duplication, is the best solution. I'm afraid that having everything merged into one big article could cause an article that is too big, but I'm willing to consider a merger if you think it can be done in a way that works. --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:52, 17 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. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Bala Getso

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

Non notable ex youth chairman of a non notable political party who doesn’t doesn’t satisfy WP:NPOL and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search did show this which is a sponsored post & this which reads like a press release. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before 2019 Nigerian general election there are 91 political parties in Nigeria and his name is in list of the party chairmen but after the election in February 2020 Independent National Electoral Commission deregistered 74 political parties which NPM is included now there are only 18 political parties in Nigeria as at now and he later Joint Peoples Democratic Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudlag (talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -@Hudlag, do tell me how what you just 'said' above indicates notability or that he satisfies WP:NPOL, that is even if you bothered to read NPOL at all. Celestina007 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when a country has over 50 or so political parties, being the national head of one of them is not going to be a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 19 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastic (company)

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links To LinkedIn like websites and other user generated sources which we do not consider reliable Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to clearly fail WP:ORGCRIT. The sources are either tweets, unreliable, or published by Dynastic itself. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 08:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above; BigBoss also has similar notability concerns, in my opinion Spiderone 11:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be right about this page, but BigBoss is quite separate due to the history behind it and shouldn’t be conflated. WRB (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the subject fails WP:N basic notability requirements. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:56, 19 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.

[1] ttps://umich.edu/

[2] ttps://www.fbi.gov/

[1]

[2]