Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 18	March 20 >

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nats Getty

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

Doesn't appear to be independently notable. Significant coverage is primarily about their spouse and numerous other sources are primarily about members of their family. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject coming out as trans and nonbinary was covered by People, Out, OK Magazine, Pink News, and ET, all of which are notable publications in their own right. The subject's engagement was covered by Life & Style. The subject's marriage was covered by New York Times. Separate coverage includes an in-depth piece solely on the subject by the Los Angeles Blade; a review of the subject and Gigi Gorgeous' relationship from Variety; and Gigi and the Getty's work at Davos in Reuters. There's tons of coverage out there, as the subject is a high profile model, socialite, and activist. --Kbabej (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought I'd add sources on their streetwear line, which got coverage from Forbes, WWD, and UncoverLA. --Kbabej (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of the sources you mention are presently in Getty's article here (the Life & Style and NYT ones). I'm not sure if all of the sources you added above prove independent notability: the Out and ET Online sources felt it necessary to specify who Getty was in relation to Lazzarato in the title, (I can't see the OK Magazine one as their website is not available in my country,) the Variety article is about both Getty and Lazzarato, and the Reuters article is about Lazzarato and "the Gettys". Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." To answer your point of "independent notability", nowhere in WP:RS does it state sources must solely be about a subject; the coverage can include talking about multiple subjects. --Kbabej (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply the sources you added should be disregarded because they weren't already in the article. I just meant to point out that they are not already there, and thus it would be beneficial to add them. Re. independent notability, WP:INVALIDBIO says "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)", and WP:NRV says "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the coverage shows the subject is notable on their own without relying on inherited notability. —Kbabej (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found what I was looking for! Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." --Kbabej (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like that is contradicted by WP:NRV which specifies significant independent coverage. I was hoping for more input from others regarding this but, unfortunately, no one else has joined this discussion. I've left notices on talk pages of several users who have edited Getty's article recently. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left notices at the talk pages for the WikiProjects listed on the talk page for Getty's article. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of "independent" is that it is independent of the subject, not independent as in having only to do with the subject. --Kbabej (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG from significant coverage in the sources provided by Kbabej. Even though much of the coverage is focused on their spouse and family, there is still enough significant coverage that is just about the subject of this WP article.
As Kbabej noted above, the "independent" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject means that the source of information is not affiliated with the subject(s), not that the subject is the sole focus of the coverage. The GNG "independent" in independent, reliable sources is not the same as the WP:NOTINHERITED "independent" in independently notable. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG, but it could use some more clean up as the article currently doesn't highlight many achievements in detail. Jooojay (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kbabej. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is clearly notable per stated above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shailesh Rao

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO. No notable coverage of this person. Ew3234 (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's ironic, but when I used Google search, which he was the former director of, I found that there is virtually no in-depth coverage.--- Possibly (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable corporate professional. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage is weak and reliable sources not found.TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devoke water 11:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Azari

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

Lawyer and media personality of questionable notability. The article is promotional in tone, and was created by somebody who by their edits is likely an undeclared paid editor. The cited sources do not establish notability per WP:GNG - mostly appearances by Azari in media, or promotional interviews or profiles, or the likes of Youtube and IMDB. Sandstein 22:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability indeed looks very questionable. The reliable sources currently present appear all to be instances in which she was interviewed as a legal expert about something else, but they have no biographical element, so they don't count as sigcov. I haven't done a full WP:BEFORE so I won't !vote yet, but the article as currently written has not yet demonstrated notability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non notable lawyer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search for sources found nothing significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough notable per WP:GNG. Gold ★ ⁷⁸⁶ 13:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kusha (Ramayana). Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Atithi

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

Appears to be a minor figure mentioned in the Ramayana, I can't find any coverage that goes beyond mere mentions searching online and on Google Scholar. Restore redirect to the subject's more notable relative, Kusha (Ramayana), as this page now been the subject of an edit war. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But in kusha (ramayana) article it is mentioned briefly .Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find sources that add up to WP:GNG to justify the creation of an article. I looked before starting this AfD and couldn't find anything in a few minutes, but if you try hard you might turn something up. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok please tell me the example of sources or tell me way where I can find that type of sources.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We need reliable secondary sources that devote significant analysis (i.e. full paragraphs) to Atithi's historical or literary role. I already looked using internet searches and Google Scholar and didn't find anything useful. You could try again in those same places and hope that you get luckier, try searching in languages other than English that may have relevant scholarship, or try going to an academic library to find texts that have not been digitized. You can ask for more help with identifying sources at the teahouse. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have found one sources in English on google scholar which discribs the lineage of suryavansha after lord Rama through king Kusha. After the kusha the name Atithi was thir but not I do not found about him . But the information I have given in this article is from wikipedia article Kusha (Ramayana). In which the information about Atithi is given in section of Kusha (Ramayana)#Leter history.So you cheake it this article and the title of article Maharaja Atithi I kept because ,their are another article on wikipedia having title of Atithi for ex:-Atithi.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV as a stand alone article.4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that sources provided here met WP:NALBUM (permalink). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Honour of Icon E - A Tribute to Emperor

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

This tribute album, while featuring a handful of notable artists, appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. I have not been able to find any significant coverage or anything else to indicate notability. Lennart97 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per ASTIG. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM per ASTIG's references. Nominator should consider withdrawing nomination.4meter4 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mozart's Berlin journey#Leipzig. Consensus is to redirect somewhere. Editors can still change the redirect target as desired. Sandstein 22:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Friedrich Görner

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

PROD was declined. A search provides no evidence of notability and he does not inherit such from a notable student or parent. StarM 14:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been been discussing this with Gerda Arendt but she's busy and so I don't want to disturb her again today. The subject is associated with more than one other article such as Mozart's Berlin journey#Leipzig, List of organists, Johann Gottlieb Görner and St. Thomas Church, Leipzig. We might merge to one of these but what's the point? Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is no pressure on the the number of pages and we should not delete pages purely for the sake of it. See also WP:ATD and WP:ZEAL. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have considered a redirect (there's nothing to merge), but once a PROD is declined that's usually not successful either. Not paper doesn't mean we need to be a directory of everyone who ever lived. Merging, IMO, generally helps to find all the information in one place, not spun out all over. I know there's no requirement to provide information when dePRODing, but the above info would be helpful on the talk page IMO or DePRODding with a note saying explanation TK StarM 16:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some refs and amended page. He was the organist at St. Thomas Church, Leipzig. He is in many books about Mozart, however those that you can sample are just mentions. Probably notable at the time, due to his position at a very famous church, but as Andrew said probably in historic books.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of his life dates, literally everything we know about him (and everything I've been able to find) is also said in Mozart's Berlin journey#Leipzig. I'd suggest to redirect there until we find something more to say. —Kusma (t·c) 21:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mozart's Berlin journey#Leipzig. That says all we can say of him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:NOTPAPER then says "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies," so enough of the nonsense. We delete, merge, or redirect pages when they fail to meet notability requirement. You ideological opposition to the concept of deletion does not void this, and you should take that up at WT:AFD rather than selectively quoting things. A Google Books search finds this which shows that (a) the article is wrong, Doles was a pupil of Bach, not Görner, and (b) that on one single day he helped Mozart play the organ at St. Thomas Church. This is not substantive coverage warranting an article. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of organists. Does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Even if you gather up all the mentions it doesn't meet BASIC, and even if it barely did, this does not mean there has to be a stand alone article. The keep voting above is all centered around sources must exist without any evidence they do, or trying to make this notable by inheritance, neither of which is valid reasoning for keeping an article. Unless someone shows sources with SIGCOV, this should be redirected. No objection if a different redirect target develops consensus. // Timothy :: talk 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a better consensus on a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2018–19 UEFA Champions League#Semi-finals. Fenix down (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool 4–0 Barcelona

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

Not notable. Page could also be deleted per G5 Dr_Salvus (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr_Salvus (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - previous discussion can be found here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My reasons from the last discussion still stand. I don't think anything has changed in that time. The match still fails notability guidelines. As spectacular comeback it was but there have been many of them in the past. Is this more notable than the 3–1 victory against Olympiakos? The comeback against Dortmund? St Etienne? The semi-final against Chelsea in 2005? The list goes on. This information can be included in the relevant section on 2018–19 UEFA Champions League#Semi-finals rather than a separate article. NapHit (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for me, this match is notable and the article definetely meets WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per consensus at last AFD. Giant Snowman 22:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018–19 UEFA Champions League#Semi-finals. Coming from three goals down to win is impressive, but it's certainly doesn't impart notability - I've twice seen my club alone do that in 90 minutes, let alone 180. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable as the biggest Champions League comeback at such a late stage coupled with the fact that a under-strength Liverpool beat what was the strongest team Barcelona could have put out. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the 2018–19 UEFA Champions League knockout phase page. Only "routine" coverage I can find for this so doesn't necessitate its own article, but clearly a historic comeback that warrants at least some prose in that article. Similarly for the other semi-final that year, just feels dry only detailing the match as you would for a match between Stoke City and Ipswich Town. And surely the reason for having a separate article for the knockout phase is to be able to have such detail? ItsKesha (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – We already redirected Liverpool F.C. 4–0 FC Barcelona to 2018–19 UEFA Champions League knockout phase, so why not this one too? – Pee Jay 18:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per consensus at last AFD. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to somewhere suitable: 2018–19 UEFA Champions League knockout phase or 2018–19 UEFA Champions League#Semi-finals as suggested above. There's already some prose about it at 2019 UEFA Champions League Final#Liverpool (their subsection of the Road to the final section). Nothing's changed since the last AfD. It was an impressive comeback, and there was a lot of big-club hype in the media, but that's not enough to justify a standalone article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool F.C. 4–0 FC Barcelona. Also, it's probably eligible for deletion under G5 (created by sockpuppet) and G4 (previously deleted at AfD). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Rahman

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

The claim of 4 caps for Pakistan, which is the sole claim to notability, is not supported by any reliable sources. Attending a training camp is not enough.

No evidence of caps on Soccerway, GSA and National Football Teams. For NFT, you can clearly see that no Adel Rahman has represented Pakistan since 2018. Every game is documented and so is every cap.

A WP:BEFORE search didn't yield WP:GNG coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL --Kemalcan (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage is weak and reliable sources not found.TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL --Devoke water 19:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Theory

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

At WP:BIO, Angel Theory fails the criteria for notability at WP:NACTOR. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Easily passes GNG with more than sufficient mainstream media sources, cited and uncited. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NACTOR and The Washington Post and Insider sources, she appears to be making an "innovative contribution" to television shows, i.e. "it's not a disability, it's your damn superpower." I also added sources from People and Buzzfeed that make it more clear that her acting and executive producer roles in Kinderfanger are significant. The sources are often covering more than her acting in The Walking Dead and her latest show, and also include biographical information, which seems to support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC) I've also revised the article and added biographical and career information from the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saidpur, Bangladesh#Administration. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rafika Akhter Jahan Baby

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

PROD contested with no comment by an IP, but this doesn't fulfill anything in WP:NPOL as far as I can see, and I also see no precedent for articles on mayors of mid-sized Bangladeshi towns like this. Also doubt there's enough WP:SIGCOV that I can't access due to the language barrier, but if there is, do add it to the article. AngryHarpy‍^talk 20:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 20:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 20:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 20:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 20:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom. She is the head of the smallest administrative body in Bangladesh, unlikely to be notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accessible Bangladeshi media is tough to come by, but the content is verifiable (see [9]). Mayors of cities that size in western countries routinely have articles, and applying a stricter standard for Asian countries would contribute to systemic bias. Saidpur has a population of 172 000 and would qualify as a significantly large city by most standards. (It is significantly larger than, e.g. Green Bay, Wisconsin where I note that every single mayor gets an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "The content is verifiable" wasn't entirely true when you wrote that, the BLP stub made several assertions not supported by sources. Those have been removed now, and the remaining sentence: name, nationality, office, election date, and party, is verifiable. The population number you gave cited no source (Wikipedia strikes again, sigh). The most recent verifiable population is 127,000 (2011). If Green Bay, Wisconsin's population is really 104,000 (the cited shallow link fails verification) then your point that Saidpur is significantly more populous still holds. However, it isn't quite true that every single Green Bay mayor has an article. Harris Burgoyne was recently redirected when a deletion discussion concluded that he is not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saidpur, Bangladesh#Administration. The standard that should be applied is not how big the city is, which is not an element of any notability guideline, but whether the subject has received significant coverage in independent sources (WP:GNG) or has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists (WP:NPOL). The former guideline tells us, "It is common for multiple newspapers ... to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works." That's what we have here, multiple outlets all reporting the bare bones election results at the same time. There is effectively a single source, from which a single sentence of content can be squeezed. The reason we have notability guidelines is, "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." To keep this article would be to apply a much looser standard to her biography than to others. The Wikipedia community could choose to do that for Asian countries, perhaps in an attempt to redress systemic bias, but this isn't the venue in which to decide to do that. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Samant racism row

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

Article fails WP:EVENTCRIT: The event is unlikely to have lasting historical significance (WP:LASTING) and is not being widely covered, as most articles are rehashing each other (WP:DIVERSE). There is also no in-depth coverage, which should not be a surprise as very little actually happened. This story is not different from the Andrew Sabisky incident or Oxford bans clapping news story that got a lot of attention, but only very briefly and which had no lasting impact on anyone. Instead, parts of the article could be added to the Oxford University Student Union article. Caius G. (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Caius G. (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good God, that's a walking NPOV issue, not to mention a failure of WP:EVENTCRIT, with additional WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:DELAY issues going on. Whatever useful information should be put on the OUSU article, as the nominator said, but the article title is an unlikely search term and therefore not a useful redirect. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 20:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Kncny11. Aivin G. (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even Disha Ravi arrest event did not have lasting historical significance. If you delete that article, then please delete this. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- AppuduPappudu, this is not a discussion about the Disha Ravi arrest, see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Even if a comparison was a valid way to determine notability, the subject of the article you mention has received wider attention and lasting (media) impact. Best, Caius G. (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the very title of the article has POV-pushing issues. I do not think we have enough information on Rashmi Samant to justify an article, but if we do we should put it under a neatral title, not this POV-pushing one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oxford University Student Union. The neutrality issues are not a reason for deletion, but failing WP:EVENTCRIT very much is. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:EVENTCRIT and Oppose Redirect. The title is not a likely search term and has OR and POV issues, making a redirect problematic.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Henry Fee

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

Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found one mention of his son, nothing notable about the guy himself. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 20:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayor of a place that is not large enough to make the mayor's default notable, and coverage is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our old inclusion standards for mayors, which required only that the town or city had surpassed the 50K bar in population and applied no further tests beyond that, have been deprecated for most of the past decade — making a mayor notable enough for inclusion now requires much, much more than just being able to verify that he existed. It requires being able to source some genuine substance about his political impact, and is not passed just because you're able to locate biographical data like the names of his parents, wife and kids — and it requires a lot more reliable sourcing than just a handful of sources verifying that he existed. But four of the five footnotes here are not notability-supporting sources at all, and the one that's okay is still just a local history book self-published by the local historical society, which means it's not enough to singlehandedly get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only acceptable source in play. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Melbourne, Florida. --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devoke water 19:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Takaful

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No notability. Sources are mostly references to sponsored events and non-notable corporate awards. Not to speak of the serious COI issues that only prove it was written to promote itself (WP:NOTADVERT). P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2010-05 ↻ restored, 2010-05 ✗ G6

Delete per nom. A search for significant coverage yielded nothing. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Launching Fridge

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

WP:1EVENT; a Letterman appearance does not make this notable. Ich (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing shows up in Google news/newspapers, I suspect because it was over a decade ago now. Not sure how substantial the coverage on the talk shows was, enough to support notability? My guess is not. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Albeit a very cool subject, not notable and only cited to Ripley. Fails GNG.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 13:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in California. Sandstein 19:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 California's 4th congressional district election

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Anything notable about this race can be merged into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in California. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in California. Single district elections are not generally notable. Number 5 7 13:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the general article on California elections in this year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo George

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

Contested PROD fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league per WP:FPL, no sign of GNG JW 1961 Talk 18:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 18:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 18:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 18:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==should be maintained as he played professional soccer in the National Independent Soccer Association club Atlanta SC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elop76 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elop76, Unfortunately, that is a third tier league in the USA and is not listed at WikiProject Football WP:FPL where the list of accepted leagues is maintained - anyone is welcome to propose additions to that list if they can provide reliable sources JW 1961 Talk 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only source I could find is this video which is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG on its own Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mentioned in official website of the professional league www.nisaofficial.com/roster/mickey-george , NISA should be added as a league to fulfill criteria, how can that be proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elop76 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At WT:FPL, you can request it and provide sources to support your case. You can see that a discussion already exists for NISA. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and has not played in a fully-professional league. Consensus is that the NISA is not fully professional, and thus has no presumption of notability. Jay eyem (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samanea Phnom Penh

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

Poorly-sourced stub about a non-notable real estate development, fails WP:GNG / WP:NBUILDING. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by DoubleGrazing. I also do not GNG being met. Celestina007 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samanea Bangkok

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

Poorly-sourced stub about a non-notable real estate development, fails WP:GNG / WP:NBUILDING. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero coverage, not even in PR news. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Paul and per nom. As Paul is fluent in Thai, I trust that he would find sourcing if it were available. Also worth noting that this appears to be one of many in a series of articles on Samanea all created by the same editor. All will need close examination. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2005 in literature. Sandstein 19:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2005 in books

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

The only article of its kind "XXXX in books", either merge/redirect to 2005 in literature Noah ^💬 18:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 18:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 18:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2005 in literature can list the more notable books, and Category:2005 books and its subcategories will be more comprehensive Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas. Shankargb (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2005 in literature. NavjotSR (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirja Dorny

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

Definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL and I'm not seeing enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.

While searching "Mirja Dorny", I found an article about co-operatives with a brief comment from her but nothing more; the article is not in any way focused on her and there is little in there that is actually about her. Searches of "Mirja Kothe" bring up a lot of Fansoccer match reports, none of which contain significant coverage, and this routine announcement about staying at a third tier club and another article about her playing for Harpen, with two brief quotes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Noah ^💬 18:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article completely fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't really tell, but I think there is some good merits, here, I can hardly understand the German article, it's unsourced. But the content has come from somewhere, there maybe more juice out there. Govvy (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -Cupper52^Discuss! 19:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Qveen Herby. Sandstein 19:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juice (Qveen Herby song)

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

Non-notable song. It hasn't charted because it hasn't even been released yet. Redirect to artist's discography was reverted. Whpq (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Qveen Herby as the album from which this single is taken does. If the song charts then sure, there's scope for recreation of the page, but until then keeping it up is pointless. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qveen Herby per WP:TOOSOON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonno Zilber

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

BLP tagged for WP:N since November 2010 and has unreliable sources as well. -Cupper52^Discuss! 17:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -Cupper52^Discuss! 17:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get two hits, one from the Warambool (or what-have-you) Standard the a press release from the Jewish-Australian News Service. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Echoing the Del rationale by Oaktree b. Celestina007 (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto. Additionally I could find very little via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (deeper and broader than Google) but 2 articles were almost IRS so I've added them and significantly edited the page to reflect what would be appropriate content, but can't see this page passing GNG nor WP:NMUSIC. Cabrils (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. --Devoke water 14:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cansel Gözüaçık

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

Gözüaçık meets neither our agreed notability guidelines for footballers (WP:NFOOTBALL) nor general biographical notability guidelines. A WP:BEFORE search focused on Turkish sources yielded nothing better than database profile pages, no significant coverage; no evidence of meeting WP:GNG, which is the bare minimum requirement.

Source assessment to follow below. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only youth match squad listings found, no WP:SIGCOV at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=30&kisiId=1614789	Database profile page	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20180816194356/http://www.yerelfutbol.com/dudullu-turkiyede-ilk-dorde-kaldi	Squad listing	✘ No
https://www.amatorlig.net/fatih-vatanspor-yeni-transferlerini-tanitti.html	Just a passing mention	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20180816194445/https://www.martigazetesi.com/kirecburnuna-golcu-kaleci	Trivial coverage	✘ No
https://www.uefa.com/womenschampionsleague/match/2024749--slavia-praha-vs-atasehir/?referrer=/womenschampionsleague/season=2019/matches/round=2001001/match=2024749/index	No coverage to speak of	✘ No
https://www.uefa.com/womenschampionsleague/match/2024768--atasehir-vs-mtk-hungaria/?referrer=/womenschampionsleague/season=2019/matches/round=2001001/match=2024768/index	None	✘ No
https://www.uefa.com/womenschampionsleague/match/2024786--mitrovica-vs-atasehir/?referrer=/womenschampionsleague/season=2019/matches/round=2001001/match=2024786/index	None	✘ No
http://web-old.archive.org/web/20180816194444/http://www.duzcedamla.com/2016/5/milli-takima-bakan-kizlari-h1882.html	Squad listing	✘ No
https://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=283&ftxtID=25338	U19 squad listing	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the table above. -Cupper52^Discuss! 17:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG JW 1961 Talk 20:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Hastings

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

Minor coverage from local press. Only international mention is of subject’s death on the Slipped Disc blog, which typically is something of an obituary feed for all kinds of classical artists, regardless of notability. Does not meet threshold of WP:MUSICBIO. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not nearly enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability per WP:NMUSIC #8 is not just automatically bestowed on every winner of every single music competition that exists — the extent to which any award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it depends precisely on the extent to which that award does or doesn't get covered by the media. In other words, you need to source his winning of an award to journalist-written content reporting the award win as news, not just to the award's own self-published content about itself. But there's no other notability claim being made here at all, and no reliable sourcing shown to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to have a stronger notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longfleet Primary School

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

No evidence this passes WP:GNG, and as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, primary schools aren't generally notable. Probably a redirect to somewhere relevant is fine Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. Each of the cited sources is either not independent, not secondary, or not substantial. Searching the Web, I find only routine/trivial references in the local press. All of this falls far short of the GNG. A redirect to the list of local schools seems appropriate, if only because it is cheap. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EW's arguments and WP:ATD. School names are almost always a useful addition to the encyclopedia as a search term (exceptions being extremely common names e.g. "Washington Elementary"). Straight deletion is seldom advisable and in the case of an entirely self sourced article on a lower school like this, the community's position is clear enough to do that redirecting BOLDly. It's quite appropriate and nominations like this are unnecessary. 174.254.193.199 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable primary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zubair (cricketer, born 1987)

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage found. Störm (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played in multiple matches across all three formats, so passes WP:NCRIC. So much for your own comment at ANI of "I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was clearly a knee-jerk reaction. No sanctions were imposed at ANI, and Störm is free to participate as they wish. They were also reassured by many participants at ANI that they were generally doing a good job in identifying articles to be listed at AFD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was support to limiting to one AfD again, and while no sanction was placed (mainly because Storm announced he wasn't going to AfD/would limit the number of AfDs) here we have 4 AfDs in a matter of minutes. While it doesn't seem like many at the moment, if there's another 4 this evening, another 4 tomorrow afternoon then another 4 tomorrow evening, then it starts becoming a burden on those at WP:CRICKET. I though have no objections to these articles going through AfD and believe that they're only at AfD following a discussion over naming conventions on the project. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that was a knee-jerk reaction; I see it more likely a commitment from someone who has been caught acting inappropriately. I'd be very supportive of the one per day restriction previously proposed at ANI to stop this type of behaviour. In my view the ANI should clearly be reopenedDevaCat1 (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but no such restrictions were imposed and four new nominations (now 14 in total at delsort\cricket) is far from excessive. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my last comment at WP:ANI, I said I will try to restrict myself to 5 AfDs which is a reasonable number, and for clarification, I do WP:BEFORE for the bundle at once so don't say that I am not doing before unless you find any coverage. Störm (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So your comment of "I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD" was an out-right lie to WP:GAME the system. Pretty hard to AGF with you from now on based on that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but my concern is if 4 becomes 40 like it did last time. Storm has already said he wouldn't do anymore cricket related AfDs and here we are, so there's nothing stopping him piling them on again. Hopefully it's not the case though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per my earlier comment, I saw that very much as a kneejerk reaction. So let's AGF and assume Störm understands the issue (the fact there are not 20 noms certainly indicates that way). In any case, such concerns would be better raised with Störm at their talk page (or elsewhere), not at all four afds. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 36 open AfDs from User:Störm, well above the 20 threshold you mention in your comment, which would appear to indicate that he does not understand the issue at all. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was 20 per day that was the problem. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 1 FC, 2 List-A and 4 T20 matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. I second Lugnuts' comments on the ANI, especially as there seem to be a number of AFD's here again, which was one of the concerns brought up at the ANI. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Bank Limited cricket team is a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage. There aren't sufficient source to write a biography, nor will there ever be. WP:WHYN explains we require significant coverage"so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page". ----Pontificalibus 16:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage, only wide-ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This trumps the trivial pass of NCRIC (playing for the weakest team in the competition) which by consensus is a very poor indicator of worthiness for a standalone article in cases such as these. Lack of any performances of note suggests no coverage will be found. Redirect would be an accepted ATD, but a suitable target does not exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage and notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak keep I thoroughly understand that there is not adequate coverage about the subject. However, as per the guidelines of WP:Cricket, a cricketer who has played in minimum of one match either in List A, T20 or FC definitely passes the guidelines to be notable enough. Abishe (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As previously discussed, this is an easy pass of WP:NCRIC, having played all three formats at a sufficient level. If some other editors have problems with the cricket notability standard, they would be better placed to open a proper discussion on that (and on the much more permissive WP:NFOOTY) than just submitting bunches of AfDs in breach of the guidelines. As with most of the other cricket AfDs, this needs improving, not deleting. DevaCat1 (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above, no significant coverage and from what I see, he hasn't done anything for a bit so there's a reasonable doubt that he'll be playing at a high enough level to pass WP:NCRIC. Kline | vroom vroom 23:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, which all sports bios must adhere to per consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher McCombs

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

BLP about an actor whose series The Benza is notable, but I’m doubtful that he is is notable enough aside from this to warrant an article about him. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or draftify: He appeared in the Fairy Tail stage play as Hot Eye (sorry if I misspelled the character's name since I am unfamiliar with the series) (link) and his Japanese Wikipedia page shows that he has appeared in multiple music videos and variety shows. However, since these credits are dubiously sourced I would probably consider draftifying this article if not keeping it. His Japanese Wikipedia page has also shown he has won individual awards outside of The Benza with sources. lullabying (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you for checking the article for Christopher McCombs. As the creator of the article I am voting for keep.

Mccombs is not just an actor. He is also the creator of The Benza, the additional 8 episode spin off series Benza English, and is also the creator and writer of the video game The Benza RPG. I believe being the creator of an entertainment franchise that’s available in over 130 countries is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. I believe he meets clause number three in the notability guide under the “Entertainers” section . This is all sourced and verifiable within the article via secondary sources including links from The Japan Times, SoraNews, the Tokyo Weekender, and more.

As lullabying noted, McCombs has won multiple awards as an actor for and outside of The Benza. These awards were not included per advice from editor Barkeep49 about sourcing awards from events that are not included as a wikipedia article as they come off as too promotional. He has been sourced via various secondary sources for quite a few different television shows, movies, and music videos across several different languages of Wikipedia,but I thought it would be best to focus on him as a creator of The Benza franchise as to not flood the article with reference links.

Additionally, and though this may be an irrelevant point, two other cast members with less notability and reference links from The Benza were approved. How is it that they are notable but the creator of the show they are in is not?

Onel5969, as you approved one of the other cast pages and one of the series pages I made, could you please chime in? Barkeep49 if you could chime in as well it would be helpful.

Thank you for your time. Michaelwvideo (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm I said that my rule of thumb is that awards which have Wikipedia articles can be worth including in a biography. I have no opinion on notability and will not research given the potential for canvassing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Benza, which is virtually what this article is about. A whopping 6 episode season. An Amazon Prime. Clearly does not pass WP:NCREATIVE. Oh, yeah. Highly promotional article as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the creator and star of a TV show, he is not the show. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the feedback.

I took the week to research McCombs so that I could add additional information that will prove notability at the same level as the other two cast members from The Benza that had their pages approved. This is information that I compiled via searching in Japanese and using McCombs’ Japanese Wikipedia as a base. I tried to not increase the amount of reference links much to prevent flooding the page with too many references to check. I have added this information to the career section before the information relevant to “The Benza”.

It is my hope that this additional information will suffice to prevent deletion or returning to the draft stage. I would be more than happy to make further changes to remove any promotional language that is in this article if someone could give me some feedback or advice. I have read the information available on Wikipedia and have done my best to follow the guidelines as I understand them.

There are currently 15 episodes over two different series available in 130 countries. A second series of the original show is currently being shot. This is more distribution and availability than many fully funded Japanese television shows see. To add to this, a non-native Japanese speaker wrote and produced this series. It is made clear in several of the articles used as reference that HIS notability in Japanese entertainment is what enabled the series to be made. To put that down the show and McCombs for being “only six episodes on Amazon Prime Video” seems a bit callous, dismissive, and factually incorrect.

Once again, I thank you for your time and I await word from an administrator. I appreciate this opportunity to defend my research.Michaelwvideo (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the re-listing. I have now further edited the article, to improve upon the notability of McCombs. I have removed the section on The Benza and added a section about his production company Tokyo Cowboys. I believe the article now fulfills the needs of WP:ENT and WP:GNG. I feel that due to the new content a redirect would no longer be correct, as it talks about much more than just The Benza.Michaelwvideo (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:ENT. I agree with the statement above, the actor and creator is not the same as the show itself.Marion85 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC) — Marion85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. There is now enough unique and original content to justify not redirecting.Craft777 (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Craft777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap College

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

There are no reliable sources giving enough sigcov to the subject other than the website of the college itself. Fails WP:GNG. Moreover, the creator of this article has been blocked for sockpuppetry. See [10] Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NCORP either. Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 16:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 21:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Gordon

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

While there is some coverage, there is not enough to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wasn't she already the subject of an AfD? If I remember, that Afd was closed really quickly. Tagged for notability since February 2021, btw. Article seems to have attracted some sockpuppets, which resulted in the page being protected. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GhostDestroyer100, if you look at the article's history, there does appear to have been an aborted AfD, but it was deleted for some reason. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I meant that one. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The original AfD was created by one of the sockpuppets. He (claimed to be a he) used it to launch a personal attack, not to create a genuine deletion discussion. Juliescholar
Delete - She has a growing resume of credits in various entertainment venues, but per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTRESUME there is not yet enough independent media coverage of her work to justify an encyclopedic article. She is only visible in promotional press releases and industry directories. Also note that there is an unrelated author of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I see articles other than press releases. I am really not an expert at figuring out how to work the media coverage into something. Would you or someone else be able to help me? Juliescholar
Comment I created this page. I used to attend Jr. Philharmonic concerts and thought it was lovely that she was building her career as an adult. I decided to create her page after noticing several other pages on here of people who seem even less notable (I can provide examples, if you would like, although I would prefer not to speak negatively of others). As noted, she is clearly rising in her career. I see interviews on Youtube and other websites, and she had a cover story in a magazine that I found. As I said above, I don't really know how to incorporate everything and would love some assistance before the page is just deleted. Juliescholar
- Juliescholar - Explore the blue-linked Wikipedia policies used by me and the previous voters, which are requirements for how someone qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Interviews on Youtube are not useful here unless the interviewer and the supporting program are reliable media practitioners. If you found a magazine story, paste a link here or at least provide the author, article title, date, publication name, etc. and we can advise on whether it is significant coverage.. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be just a bit above my abilities. I can copy and paste a code. I don't know how to figure this out. It's truly a shame to see so many examples of similar pages that remain untouched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliescholar (talk • contribs) 06:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If other articles have similar problems, that is because no volunteer came along to improve them or initiate a discussion like this one. You could do such things yourself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand that, but I also think it would be not very nice to ask to have someone else's page removed. I assume that having a Wikipedia page makes a difference in a young performer's career, and I would not want to be responsible for hurting someone's work. Juliescholar — Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:NCRIC but fails WP:GNG. All keep !votes have proposed redirect as an alternative. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Raza (cricketer, born 1958)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played in two first-class matches. Or per WP:ATD, redirect to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article completely and totally fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has played 2 FC matches, but I haven't been able to find any coverage. Sources may exist offline or in Pakistani sources but I can't find any. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted. His 2 matches were for two separate teams so there is no suitable WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to an appropriate list. Has played two first-class matches, creating a pass of NCRIC so should be reflected somewhere on Wikipedia. Note the point from Rugbyfan22 above regarding Pakistani sources- it's for this type of reason that WP:ATHLETE advises giving more time for older sportspeople and for those based outside Anglophone jurisdictions, both of which apply here. DevaCat1 (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. (Very) trivially passes WP:NCRIC, but the lack substantial contributions in his two matches (scored a duck batting at 10, and didn't bowl in one of them) suggests no significant coverage exists. Five years is long enough for an article to exist without the required sourcing. Redirect is an accepted ATD, and List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers may be appropriate given he did nothing at all in his match for Lahore City. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TJRC (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Azeem

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

Not a professional cricketer, has played some university cricket but by profession he is a barrister. Nothing notable exists about him as a cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article I created that seems to have dropped off my radar and I've never completed it! His cricket is a very small part of what makes him notable. He is one of the leading legal figures in Pakistan. He is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a professor at Harvard University. In his capacity as a legal academic he has contributed to journals on Pakistani politics. Since 1978, he has been president of the Pakistan Human Rights Society, and a dean at the Pakistan Academy of Strategic and Policy Studies since 1988. He is also a legal journalist. Clearly passes GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AssociateAffiliate. If you can provide some sources regarding what you mentioned then I will withdraw this nom. Störm (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no record on the website that he has been president of Human Rights Society. Störm (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm just off out for the evenong, so haven't much time to collate sources at the moment, but although self-published, his legal bio here has some pointers where to look. I can pick this up again tomorrow. StickyWicket (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This further mentions him "as an advisor to four Prime Ministers and governments in Pakistan. Mr. Hassan has also represented Pakistan many times at the United Nations in New York and before the Human Rights Commission in Geneva." Really most shoot!!! StickyWicket (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be clearly notable as a lawyer/professor with enough significant coverage to pass GNG. The article needs rewriting/refocusing with that in mind. Also needs moving, as he appears to be commonly known as Farooq Hassan (or Syed Farooq Hassan). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather Any source which confirms the lawyer/professor was also a cricketer? Störm (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, cricket is secondary here. However, this confirms the date of birth, and he appears on scorecards as "FA Hassan" for Oxford; clearly the same person. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His 11 FC games are over the recently discussed 10 game limit discussed on WP:Cricket and as AA and Wjemather both point out, he passes GNG for his non-cricketing career. Farooq Azeem seems to be the name used in cricket archives so may need to be changed if his GNG coverage is more under a differing name. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCRIC, having played in 11 FC matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if he weren't notable in other fields, he is a clear pass in cricket with 11 first-class appearances. This again shows the lack of adequate checking of sources by a handful of users before creating an AfD nomination. DevaCat1 (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I agree that sources might exist, please anyone uninvolved here may close this. Störm (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cheshire County Cricket Club. Consensus was that the subject may pass WP:NCRIC but fails WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jhangir Abbas

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing notable about them in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cheshire County Cricket Club Has played 1 List-A game, but I couldn't find any coverage. Sources may exist locally in the Cheshire area due to the one appearance and few minor county games he played, but I haven't been able to locate any. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few players, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Decent club cricketer, but that's all. No significant coverage, only the usual wide ranging databases built on scorecard data and the odd passing mention in local club cricket reports, so fails WP:GNG. The most significant coverage seems to relate to a post-match altercation with Steve O'Shaughnessy that resulted in a night in the cells [11]. The lack of SIGCOV trumps the extremely trivial pass (arguable fail) of NCRIC, which has proven to be a very poor guide to passing GNG for cricketer such as this, who have only played for minor counties (which of course is not the highest level of domestic cricket). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Isane Asylum

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

Duplicate of Hamilton Insane Asylum but with a typo in the name. I would've speedy deletion tagged it with A10 but it has to be for recently created articles, and this was created in 2017. Poydoo can talk and edit 14:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 14:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 14:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 14:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it’s clearly a mistake and not even a plausible search term. Mccapra (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and someone please "Speedy close" this. AFD was/is not necessary, just be a tad bold and do obvious cleanup. --Doncram (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a typo in the title, the right article already exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Leva

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

An earlier version, which was much more well-sourced, was deleted a few years ago. The same issues that there were then are still present. There is not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable references to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He seems to be making an honest living as a behind-the-scenes writer and producer, but per WP:NMUSICIAN he has received no dedicated coverage and is only visible in industry directories and his own social media. WP:NOTINHERITED also applies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarlton Knight

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

Local politician. Can't see enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet either WP:NPOL or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing stated in this article demonstrates that he passes our notability standards for businesspeople, musicians or politicians. None of those are careers in which people are automatically notable just because a smattering of local interest coverage in their hometown local media offers technical verification that they exist — musicians aren't automatically notable just because they've played a local festival in their hometown, businesspeople aren't automatically notable just because they bought and renamed a local theater venue, unsuccessful city council candidates aren't automatically notable as politicians, and on and so forth. All of those occupations require a person to surpass certain specific criteria of achievement before a Wikipedia article becomes appropriate, and we are not a free public relations venue for people to promote themselves just because they have jobs. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DaGrosa

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

UPE. No effective references. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 13:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable investor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete Would love to see if this page could be improved.Lesscynical (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA 3 edits. scope_creep^Talk 22:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Safina

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. No effective references, profiles and press-releases. scope_creep^Talk 13:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing about him adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above. No sources apart from minor mentions in paid Forbes articles. PK650 (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing notable coverage beyond mentions. lots of racecar coverage but it doesn't suggest notability in the racing world. Lesscynical (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Daga

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

Borchure article manifesting as BLP. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND scope_creep^Talk 13:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess the web site itself might have a small claim at NCORP. But the coatrack nature of the article, and the fact that there's really not much to say (she founded a web site that sells used wedding dresses) means I do not see great encyclopedic value here.--- Possibly (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a niche retailer without enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete Another in a long line of pages that needs some care and feeding in order to survive.Miaminsurance (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Hilliard

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

Seems like a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Besides her surviving being nearly frozen to death over 40 years ago, I cannot find any significant coverage on her. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear failure of one event notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Tafa

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

Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 13:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable MMA person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet's WP:NMMA with 3 fights in the UFC and also coverage by media, example ESPN https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/30536388/inspired-mark-hunt-justin-tafa-itching-third-ufc-fight, Stuff (website) https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/combat-sports/119342584/kiwi-justin-tafas-journey-from-nrl-prospect-to-ufc-heavyweight , etc.HeinzMaster (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets WP:MMABIO with 3 fights under tier one promotion (UFC) and also meets GNG guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:MMABIO with 3 professional bouts. Also meets WP:GNG, the national news paper of his home country, the The New Zealand Herald, ran a news story about him here, and there is an indepth piece about him here, in addition to the coverage mentioned by HeinzMaster. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:NMMA with three top tier fights. He also has some decent coverage that is not routine sports reporting. UFC reporting is not independent, but there's multiple NZ articles. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NMMA Nexus000 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This BLP meets both WP:MMABIO and WP:GNG. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mind closing this as a solid keep, if nobody minds? Nomination withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 15:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Hugh's Boat Club

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

Extremely far from meeting WP:ORG. Anything worth saying should be included in St Hugh's College, Oxford (and yes this probably applies to the majority of articles listed in Template:Oxford_University_Rowing_Clubs and Template:Cambridge_University_Rowing_Clubs too) SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'mising the point' is the best way to describe this nomination for deletion. What are the two most famous rowing clubs in the world, Oxford and Cambridge is the answer and what forms Oxford and Cambridge crews, the constituent Oxford and Cambridge college rowing clubs. A mention on the relevant college page really does not do the subject justice. Does that also mean we should nominate every rowing club for deletion. Here is the United Kingdom template to use for the deletion process Template:United Kingdom rowing clubs. We can work on other countries afterwards. Lets get deleting instead of enriching Wikipedia. Racingmanager (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Racingmanager: your argument is WP:INHERITED - not a valid one. As I said in the nomination, probably yes, most of those clubs do not meet our notability requirements. SmartSE (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This year the 2021 Oxford women's crew will have a St Hugh's rower (Beth Bridgman) and it will be televised around the world. I would neither describe that as 'Extremely far from meeting WP:ORG' OR 'WP:INHERITED - not a valid one'. If this is the case then multiple articles on sport's team should be questioned i.e Isthmian League, over 80 teams listed with articles on each. Many of these teams can't even command an attendance of 100 people, what makes these notable when compared against a major rowing club? I suggest that the WP:ORG is way off the mark and needs to be looked at. I can find numerous other examples of cases like this. I would suggest that instead of editors blindly nominating articles for deletion that they research the subject and then ask adminstrators to re-assess the notability rules. I ask any editor to explain why Phoenix Sports F.C. (just one of the 80 teams from the Isthmian League) is notable and St Hugh's Boat Club is not. Racingmanager (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Racingmanager: That argument is other stuff exists - if you think other articles are not notable, then please nominate them for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 11:09, 22 March 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, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

Delete. Fails to meet any WP notability standards. The issues are in large part the same as those addressed in the delete, recently, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Templeton Boat Club. I would point especially to the comment there of User:Bilorv, which are especially helpful in this determination. And, as there is no better case here in this instance based on this article's similar failure to meet GNG, etc., the result should also be delete. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9C8C:CDC1:69E8:916D (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I did find one good reference: Penny Griffin, ed. (1986). St Hugh’s: One Hundred Years of Women’s Education in Oxford. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 217-235. This book covers the founding of the organization in 1973 and notes a successive winning streak during the 1980s in The Boat Race. However, this is just one good reference and doesn't meet the multiple sources criteria for WP:GNG on its own.4meter4 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrelessly

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

No indication of notability. Lack of Independently reliable references. WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG Tictictoc (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tictictoc (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tictictoc (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many independent reliable sources have been provided in the article. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide a link to sources you believe meet WP:NCORP criteria? HighKing 16:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 12:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, most are about the founder and are based on interviews. Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 16:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Cambridge United F.C. season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NSEASONS is the stupidest goddamn policy, and in any case isn't exclusionary. The season clearly passes WP:GNG with coverage from the BBC and Cambridge newspapers, even though the sourcing could be improved. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 13:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG as far as I can see. Lots of sources does not mean "significant coverage" - it all appears be ROUTINE/NOTNEWS. Giant Snowman 20:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced article seems to pass WP:GNG. JonnyDKeen (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the sources in the article even come close to showing enough depth for GNG. I found a couple of match reports in The Times which show some depth "Inspiration fails Cambridge in their hour of need" and "Devon is hell for Cambridge". There is a bit of coverage here as well but it's not much. I'd be interested to see if anyone can find any form of analysis or recap about this season as a whole. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The test for seasons isn't whether there's analysis of the season as a whole, it's whether the season was consistently significantly covered, which is the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - how many club seasons are truly the subject of analysis of the season as a whole, even at Premier League level? Requiring that sort of sourcing is daft, IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suppose it would boil down to whether the weekly coverage, such as this match report would be sufficient to substantiate the article with. I imagine many will say "yes" and many would say "no". Last year, many articles with similar coverage were deleted but, admittedly, it depends on who turns up for the AfD and AfD is not an exact science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a wider discussion is needed concerning NSEASONS which (if we disregard all the stuff about US college sport) effectively consists of the single sentence "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." This strongly suggests that any season can have an article if it meets the notability requirements. So we need to determine exactly what level/type of coverage meets that requirement. I would suggest as I mentioned above that if the requirement is "there must have been articles written reviewing the season as a whole", then many non-League articles would pass but many EFL articles would fail, yet the latter currently get a "per NSEASONS" free pass....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely agree that NSEASONS is horrendously inadequate and unclear on this. I would also agree that each editor has their own interpretation of how to apply GNG to a football season. That was shown in recent AfDs for Newport, Leyton Orient and Doncaster Belles seasons to name the most memorable examples. From Category:National League (English football) seasons by team, it looks like we haven't had a 5th tier season article for a while now. Is that because of NSEASONS or because none of them would pass GNG? I would also agree that many League Two and probably many League One seasons don't receive anything more than bare minimum match reporting and transfer reporting and many of them, in their current state, are just stats articles and don't actually follow NSEASONS' guidance of Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of WP:NSEASONS. The National League gets national coverage, and there's no reason why we can't have a season article for these clubs based on sourcing alone. This particular article is more poorly sourced, but the season as a whole should still pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG (lack of depth per Spiderone), and in accordance with WP:NSEASONS – not a top professional league, the club was playing non-league football that season (per nom) — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG in my opinion. I really don't understand what sort of greater depth of coverage other editors are looking for..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article could be improved, but there is enough to show the season can pass GNG, NSEASONS can't supersede GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not quite consensus on the GNG point yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 21:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a small amount of non-club sources, nothing suggesting this is a notable topic. Eldumpo (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, per all the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, although not a particularly notable season in historical terms, I think it may scrape past general notability but would be helped by some improvements to sourcing. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 12:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG per the reasons stated above. NapHit (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bassam Izzudin

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per NPROF C1. It seems maybe his name is misspelled here (should be Izzuddin). I looked at the collaborators on all 203 of his papers on Scopus, and compared to the 60 coauthors with more than 10 papers he's well above average in citation parameters. Total citations: average: 1257, median: 585, Izzuddin: 3426. Total papers: avg: 87, med: 52, I: 203. h-index: avg: 15, med: 12, I: 31. Highest citation: avg: 145, med: 90, I: 472. However, with only 60 unique coauthors and my arbitrary cutoff of 10 papers, I can't say this is representative of the field as a whole so would defer to experts on whether his citation record is actually impressive. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree re the misspelling, but beyond his well-cited doctoral dissertation, the remaining citations were not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. He is also a Fellow of the Institute of Structural Engeineers but I didn't see evidence that they are selective enough for #C3, and I didn't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein -- His most-cited work is actually a first-author from 2008 (472 citations on Scopus, 619 on GS), followed by one with 184 citations (268 on GS); his doctoral thesis is from 1990 and apparently isn't indexed by Scopus. Among him and the 60 coauthors, and not including his thesis, the average (and median) for 1st- through 5th-highest-cited papers is: 1st: 145 (90), Izzuddin: 472. 2nd: 88 (60), I: 184. 3rd: 69 (42), I: 105. 4th: 56 (36), I: 71. 5th: 48 (31), I: 71. So it does seem this is a low-cited field and he is well above the standards. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 11:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are only two comments actually addressing the sources, not enough for informed consensus. Sandstein 18:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aasia Ishaque

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

Not notable, fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very Notable. When she and 16 other members of the All Pakistan Muslim League left and joined the Pak Sarzameen Party, she was name checked as the most important defection in headlines [12] [13]. She came to prominence for being spokesperson for Pervez Musharraf, and she is quoted in almost every english-language news coverage of his judicial saga. These two facts are enough to make her pass GNG, and editors need to keep in mind that many other sources that demonstrate her notability might not be available in English. Mottezen (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mottezen: Suchtv is not a RS. --Saqib (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree Mottexen above to ensure that the politics of Pakistan are not judged by English only standardKaybeesquared (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 11:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rubyyy Jones

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

Non-notable performer. WP:BEFORE does not produce any reliable sources that have written about this performer beyond a passing mention in cast lists etc. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom Had a look into the article creator and it appears the account has only been used to promote this performer and their works. From a quick Google, it is very likely this account is run by Rubyyy themselves. When this article was previously PRODed, they removed the PROD followed by little improvement to the article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article doesn't show them, but a search brings up an interview in the Daily Mail and Cosmopolitan. Might just pass the notability bar. Oaktree b (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This person is a working performer, but not a notable person. None of their work is notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 19:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sun Creator^(talk) 19:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and the presence of one promotional Q&A interview on the organizational blog of an organization she's directly affiliated with is not notability-making reliable source coverage that would get her over WP:GNG in lieu of having to actually have a notability claim. Wikipedia is not a free alternative to LinkedIn — we're an encyclopedia, and the bar to getting an article on here is considerably higher than just being able to verify that you exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black women in comedy

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

The information about and achievements of these women are best presented in their own articles. Too broad of a scope to merit its own article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be a notable topic that can be covered in an encyclopedic way, but this is not the way to do it, so for a start we need to apply TNT. I also wonder if this might be better titled Category:African-American women in comedy. As the title stands we need to consider this on a worldwide scale, keeping in mind that more "black" women live in Africa than the US, and that there are huge numbers in Brazil, the Caribbean, and noticeable numbers in various other parts of Latin America, the UK, and other places. Plus this would get into the race/ethnicity divide. If people feel American black women in comedey, black women in American Comedy, American Black women in Comedy or any ofr even American Black women in American comedy is a better title so be it, but in this encyclopedia we cannot have the title as is and not undertake to consider this on a global scope. Also we nee to be clear on weather we are covering black women as poeple appearing in comedy, or the concept of the black woman in comedy, the later would have to cover portrayals of black women done by people who were not black (in the US, in China and probably elsewhere) and people who were not women (Tyler Perry is clearly a figure in comedy, and one of his roles in the woman Medea (he also does at least 2 male roles in many of his productions). I am sure if I tried hard enough I could find the counter example of a black woman by her own self definition who was light skinned enough that she was cast in comedic roles that were clearly meant to not be those of a black woman (I believe there was a woman of mixed black/white parentage who was once cast in a role that was explicitly Armenian-American but it was not a comedy role, but I am sure we could find something along those lines somewhere at some point).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have Category:African-American female comedians, if this is intended to match the same scope then it should be retitled and edited to conform. Otherwise I agree with JPL that an implied global scope makes it too broad or vague. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nahata college

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

Could not find any independent reliable sources giving enough sigcov to this institution. This [14] is the only one giving atleast any incidential coverage to the subject. But thats not suffucient.The college website is used as the remaining sources which cannot be considered to establish notability. We need independent sources. The subject fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Not Notable and there is a lack of more reliable sources, it may be difficult to verify this article. Mandsaur College seems remarkable but this college is not remarkable. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not so poor article according to WP policies. It have source from this college's website , Lokmat newspaper. Research Voltas (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Research Voltas is the creator of the page and has been blocked for sockpuppetry. See [15] Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is only "not so poor" because the bar for educational instutions is so low, that we have a huge number of articles on ones with 0 sources and I am unconvinced a majority of them even have a source outside the subjects own website.

John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is no where near passing GNG. The fact that that is true of a huge number of other articles is reason to delete them not keep this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was reviewed by Umakant Bhalerao. They claim to have a professional knowledge of Hindi and a passable knowledge of Marathi, so it might therefore be prudent to have them weigh in on this. There are two other Lokmat articles covering this source, which can be found here and here. There are stories about it on YouTube published by EBM News, and while this seems to be a legitimate news source, 1) I can't say for sure, and 2) it's ostensibly incidental coverage like this. The college's Marathi name is 'नाहाटा महाविद्यालय'. I don't reasonably see any coverage being found that would turn this discussion around, but stranger things have happened. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- TheTechnician27, i marked this article as patrolled after it was tagged for deletion by Kichu. As per NPPAFD, Unlike CSDs and PRODs, you can mark AfDed pages as 'reviewed' after tagging them. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Marathi reference talks about an inauguration and a conference and is not a reflection of notability of the institution. Neither is WP:GNG satisfied nor is WP:SCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having not enough data doesn't mean you should delete it. It is still important (somewhat) and if they have internet then they could see it and might want it to be kept. Unlikely but plausible. DXLB Muzikant (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DXLB Muzikant Please do have a look at WP:ORG and WP:NSCHOOL. That would form the basis for this AFD nomination. Vikram Vincent 15:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, it fails WP:SCHOOLS/WP:SUL and lacks WP:N, while keeping in mind most content written about it is in Marathi Language and may suffer from WP:BIAS, but I am not seeing enough info right now. I could imagine merging it into North Maharashtra University, which is definitely a notable topic, but also could benefit from some more eyes. Shushugah (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. was created by a sock so should be deleted per WP:BMB anyway. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 23:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the ping TheTechnician27, While i agree with the nom that sources do not offer significant coverage, i'd say add a template for better sourcing rather than deleting because there is some sort of notability to this. NAAC has accredited the collage with 'A' Grade with a CGPA of 3.28[16]. It was also granted 'Autonomy Status' by the UGC[17] which is given only to prestigious colleges.[18] All these add up to notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, that is just my opinion, and anyone can feel free to disagree. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Autonomy status is being given as the govt. is reducing/cutting-off funding and they want the institutions to be self-funding. The claim of "prestigious" would have been valid for the first batch of institutions which got their autonomy in 2007-2008 but not now. This is just another tertiary education institution without WP:SIGCOV. Vikram Vincent 05:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and Vikram Vincent, lacks non trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nazmul Hoque Nadwi

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

Being a professor or writing journal articles does not make one notable. The person does not have significant coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable. Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every academic is notable and these is no indication that this academic is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ~~Fails WP:GNG~~ No significant coverage of his work in secondary sources. Held minor positions at minor academic and non academic institutions. Not notable. Does not pass WP:PROF & WP:AUTHOR. Fails WP:GNG as well. Mosesheron (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mosesheron: GNG is the wrong notability criterion. To make a more useful contribution to this discussion, you should evaluate against the criteria of WP:PROF instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein:, Oh I did. Actually, It should read "Fails GNG as well". But I see how that gave you the wrong impression. Mosesheron (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dean is too low an administrative position to pass WP:PROF#C6 and I didn't find heavy citations to his works that would allow a pass of #C1. The article mentions book publications, but we need reviews or other in-depth publications by others about those books to make a case for WP:AUTHOR, and the article presents none. I think there may be a language barrier for me to find sources, though, so I'd be open to changing my mind if someone else finds multiple reliably-published reviews of multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Nothing substantial comes up in a cross-language search in Bangla or Arabic. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Mosesheron (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alakhdham Nagar

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

This place is not an incorporated city, and as far as I can determine, has no legal recognition. This neighborhood covers a mere 8 city blocks. Per WP:GEOLAND, places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis based on whether there are reliable sources, and for this place, I simply can't find any, aside from directory listings. I don't think this place meets our notability guidelines. (note that this place is also known as Alakhdham Colony) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a line with no sources. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:as per nom. Cannot find anything making this place notable. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shari O'Donnell

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

The subject has not received any independent coverage, I can only find press releases (the older ones are under her full name "Sharon O'Donnell"). These press releases claim that she starred in a handful of documentaries, but this Wikipedia article claims she is a producer, a claim which cannot be verified and which a user on the talk page claims is a fabrication. Anyhow, fails WP:V, WP:GNG, appearing in films that win minor film festival awards does not make up for it. Should maybe be noted that the film did not win a Golden Palm award, it won the "Golden Palm of the 2009 Mexico International Film Festival" (curiously not the same festival as the topic of our article Mexico International Film Festival). – Thjarkur (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication that WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG or related guidelines are met. In terms of SIGCOV, I had a look in the main newspapers of record in Ireland (Irish Times and Irish Independent) and can not even find passing mentions of the subject. Nothing. On the off-chance that the subject had coverage in "celebrity news" outlets, I had a look in a few examples (RSVP, Extra.ie and Evoke) and also found nothing. At all. As the subject is involved in the film industry in Ireland, I had a look in the main outlet for that medium in Ireland (the Irish Film and Television Network), and could only find this single passing mention. And in a reprinted press release at that. Even within the article itself, many of the claimed references do not mention the subject at all. And/or are UGC sources like IMdB. COI and PROMO concerns also abound. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Not only is the coverage in independent sources nonexistent, it seems quite possible that this article is a hoax. - MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. (Redacted) The subject herself is also the only significant contributor to the article and did not disclose a conflict of interest across multiple accounts (see comments on sockpuppet investigation). I initially requested the article for speedy deletion, however I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies so if this is the correct way to get the article removed then I fully support it. Thank you. Corpwalt (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I have found FilmFestivals.com blog posts 2 and an ISSUU magazine bio indicating O'Donnell is a producer, actor, private equity broker, and founder of Nantosuelta Entertainment, per WP:BASIC, I have not found significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Delkar

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

Subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL. Except for two press coverage [19] [20], there is nothing about him prior to death of his father. All coverage later on are his accusations and media press releases on how his father was abated for suicide. Being president of the Dadra & Nagar Haveli's Indian Youth Congress does not satisfy NPOL. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Yes, a junior politician and trustee of 5 university accredited colleges should not have had a wikipedia page before 22 Feb 2021, which of course he did not. However, last month his father, veteran parliamentarian and tribal rights advocate, hanged himself and that became the biggest news story in a nation of a billion people. Since then, as scandalous details emerge daily the story has repeatedly been one of the biggest stories nationally. The campaign for justice for Mohan Delkar's death has involved multiple speeches from senior politicians in national parliament and state assemblies, a criminal investigation of national and local officials, daily street protests and a strike planned for this Monday. Grieving son Abhinav is at the centre of this ongoing campaign travelling the country, regularly hosting press conferences and is reported in prestigious secondary sources The Times of India, The Hindu, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times etc. The criminal investigation only started after his press conference outside the Maharashtra State Assembly and subsequent police statement which attracted widespread national media attention. There is no reason to believe this story is going away anytime soon.

Yes, he's not a notable politician yet but he absolutely is a notable campaigner. Though the campaign is less than a month old that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Disha Ravi had a page from November - many months before her arrest. It's not just senior politicians, sports stars and creative professionals that are notable. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. One may regard "his accusations and media press releases" as examples of sensationalism but that would be irrelevant to his notability.

This page deletion seems inconsistent considering that are countless Wikipedia bio pages like SteveWillDoIt, Bunny Meyer, Messi (cougar) etc.

A very minor point is that the Delkar story and Abhinav's statements are relevant to many other pages, if perhaps only a short paragraph. The explanation of who Abhinav is on each page reads tediously compared to a link to his page for those that want to know more.

This page may need improvement but it's deletion seems excessive. There are 25 good quality secondary sources referenced on the page itself. With countless more available online, please suggest how many are required to demonstrate notability? Thanks Veej (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge to Mohanbhai Sanjibhai Delkar article. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First of all delete, as per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Secondly, all the sources given in the article are giving him trivial or incidental coverage. For a subject to become notable, we need siginficant coverage. This is also a case of WP:REFBOMB. I also strongly stands with the findings by Dharmadhyaksha. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?}
Delete: fails WP:NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per WP:NPOL. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Curtis

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

Run-of-the-mill political staffer fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Having a job in the White House does not confer notability. KidAd • SPEAK 06:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 13:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every person on the White House political/policy staff is notable. That is what we would have to set notability at to class Curtis as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thrippakudam

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Abhivadhyah^Talk 06:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did a WP:BEFORE in both English and Malayalam (see [21] ) and could not find any single source. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McNeals Corner, Virginia

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

More leftovers from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia. Topographic maps all show road junctions with minimal development, and WP:BEFORE turns up nothing suggesting a WP:GEOLAND pass. All I turned up was references to these sites was passing mentions in place directories, and references to these place as landmarks in road work listings and directions, with two exceptions.

I found an obituary for one Mr. Pernell McNeal, who was "of" McNeal's Corner, which is further described as the site of the McNeal family farm. Given the tendency to name these corners after the family living there, I don't think that obituary presents firm evidence that this was the site of a notable community. I did find a single reference to a "community" of Pierces Corner, but that spot was in Isle of Wight County, Virginia, which is a good distance away from here. I just don't see any evidence any of these three were notable communities.

This nomination also applies to:

Speedy delete all The prior closure was a mistake that retained unverified information about non-notable places. Reywas92^Talk 04:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search don't show it is notable and populated place. For example in here even has been indicated "It has not been included in past Census counts". Shahram 18:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Shahramrashidi. Sun Creator^(talk) 19:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect at editors' discretion. Sandstein 18:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Shahzad

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

Another non-notable cricketer, no coverage exists, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kamran Shahzad and Kamran Shazad seems like same, see this and this (in latter one cricinfo says he is an expat and a bowler, very likely they are same). Also, this where his birthplace is Gujranwala. This clip from Samaa TV confirms he is from Gujranwala. It is possible he played a first-class match in his home city before shifting to UAE? Störm (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're different people, with differing birthdates, and spelling of their surname. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check this profile, image matches with Kamran Shazad's. Störm (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gujranwala cricketers Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any coverage, sources may exist offline or in Pakistani sources but I couldn't find any in a search. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and there's a suitable redirect for WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either he has played one List A match, and had four overs carted round the park with no success; or there is confusion between the subject and a more notable namesake. Given the range of possibilities, and the meaningful likelihood that this will lead to further confusion, I'd say that this one is a delete. DevaCat1 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not sufficient coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White Spot, California

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

This is another one I'm just not being able to find anything about, as searching is buried in hits on insects and birds with white spots on them. Topos show a string of buildings along the north side of the road, with one house on the south side, and that's what is there today, except it's one grander property in the latter case and a bunch of suburban houses in the former. They've been there for a long time, but they don't look like a town, and I can't find anything referring to a town by this name. I'm just not seeing the evidence for this as a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to have been just a smallholding in the 1930s referred to as "the White Spot", nothing came earlier, e.g. when searching in relation to nearby gold rush mines such as Manzanita.----Pontificalibus 09:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy

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

There is not really any sustained coverage of this group, aside from some contemporaneous mentions of the group by its individual members during the mid and late-2000s. The group seems relatively informal and loose in organizational structure, and does not have durability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 11 March 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, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing of encyclopedic importance here. BD2412 T 03:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sig cov. Neutrality^talk 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atmasfera

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

nn music band, tagged for over a year as such. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only primary or unreliable sources are available, and the article is also heavily promotional. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Chengzhou

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sources are all minor mentions or not independent AINH (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AINH (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the WP:THREE best sources, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are WP:THREE links per your request:1,https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11365482/ 2,https://independentshortsawards.com/bronze-awards-october-2019/ 3,https://www.1x.com/blog/permalink/9044 If there is any question, please feel free to contact me, Thanks. --Armidazhou (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you Armidazhou, but based on those sources, this does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. IMDB is WP:UGC, and thus not WP:RS. Independent Short Awards is a minor award. The 1x item is basically a blog post by the subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1X is just called blog, but it's actually a famous media magazine in the industry, not a blog. (You can check it at https://www.google.com/search?q=1x.com&sxsrf=ALeKk02NzI0r8FswF_fqxof90D29LKttg:1616258054017&ei=BiRWYJZN2aegBPXdgegL&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiW6LK5pr_vAhXZE4gKHfVuAL04ChDy0wN6BAgDEDs&biw=1388&bih=589). But I'm really as an new editor.. I don't know which sources are reliable.Or I find three new sources. Thank you so much.https://aestheticamagazine.com/profile/zhou-chengzhou/ https://www.lensculture.com/2018-lensculture-art-photography-award-winners https://www.adkfilmfestival.org/portfolio/sub-subconscious/ Or A masterpiece-Shape and color hatching square-Zhou Chengzhou. CHINA PHOTO PRESS(中国摄影报）: Fifth full page. 2018.(It is the largest official photographic newspaper in China) This item is not easy to come by. Please review it again. Thank you so much!Armidazhou (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he isn't famous enough, so the article will be deleted. @Armidazhou:I keep it here. If you want to make it better you can copy it to your space.--Galaxymayor—☎️— 04:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

As I am a novice with no experience, I would like to ask experienced editors for help. Please see if you can help me find a suitable source from the existing sources of this article to prove that it can continue to be retained. If not, I have no problem in deleting it. However, this article is newly established. It must have been passed for the right reason. Moreover, the editors who have passed the examination are all experienced editors. Then I would also like to ask the user who proposed to delete the template that since you (@AINH) proposed to delete the template, please provide with the reasons why you feel inappropriate here in detail. I think you also need to provide counter evidence, instead of writing a general article to delete the article. @AINH also proposed to delete the article “周承舟” in Chinese wiki. Because everyone has the right to propose this action, I am open to your queries BUT I hope it DOES NOT involve any personal bias, and we should maintain a neutral attitude. If anyone is interested in more details, please contact me. Thank you. Armidazhou (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I established "Zhou Chengzhou" English wiki entry "Zhou Chengzhou" has passed the audit. This is an article about Chinese mainland people. Here I would like to thank the wiki users who have passed the audit and edited together. However, after that, I received a discussion reminder that the page will be deleted.

His user page is here: Chwiki page: https://archive.is/oLPpt (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AINH) ,

Please take a look at the comments on this user（AINH）page, he said: （Page Translation: “Ainh expressed strong dissatisfaction and strong opposition to frequent talks about Hong Kong affairs among Chinese Mainland users, and demanded that such persons stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs immediately What about the fight? Open the whole simple encyclopedia directly! Pink to hide your ears: you don't want to face the problem, I'll be with you. "Yellow and blue are political opinions, black and white are conscience")

His English p.: https://archive.is/yigjl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AINH) , which is the same user name, presumably a person.

This is the relevant page of "Zhou Chengzhou" article,

chinese: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/周承舟

english: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Chengzhou

I have had some discussions, but I really don't know much about the terms of Wiki. Maybe I don't know how to deal with such a situation. I sincerely ask all experienced editors to help me and ask for help. Thank you very much.

I respect the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia very much, and I will try my best to cooperate if the items need to be improved.If the article is really not suitable for Wiki. I also accept the result. Thanks.

Best and have a good day,everyone. Hope the world peace.Armidazhou (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? A personal attack? Well, firstly don't just Google translate my user page, that pulls it out of context. Second yes, I hate China pushing its propaganda on Wikipedia, so what? That doesn't change the fact the article lacks notability. I will still propose to delete the article if this is a Hong Konger or American or whatever, the nationally have nothing to do with it. Comment on the article, not the one who discusses it. -AINH (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 00:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find his pictures being used by various sources, but no independent WP:RS that discusses the person itself in detail. Even if I assume the "CHINA PHOTO PRESS" source is WP:SIGCOV, it is not enough to meet notability. Jumpytoo Talk 00:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have closed the request edit template above as "answered". Request edits are for editors with a COI who want to add information to an article. As this request is for other users to find sources, it is not the appropriate template to use. Also, the template should be used on the talk page of the article that is supposed to be edited, not in an AfD. If there are any questions please go to the WP:TEAHOUSE or my talk page. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zhou Chengzhou is specialized in the field of spiritual consciousness. He has been in contact with some people with mental illness for a long time and has done related research. It aims to improve people's prejudice against them and make more people pay attention to them.

I think this article can be keeped. There are three reasons. 1. His works have been selected and won many international awards. For example: Lensculture Award(https://www.lensculture.com/2018-lensculture-art-photography-award-winners), Aesthetic art prize(https://aestheticamagazine.com/artprize/artists-profiles-2019/), 1x award(https://www.1x.com/blog/permalink/8349), and FAPA award( https://fineartphotoawards.com/winners-gallery/fapa-2018-2019/professional/conceptual/hm/8237/). There are exhibitions in many famous art galleries, such as the exhibition in the aperture foundation(https://aperture.org/editorial/aperture-lensculture-celebrate-opening-beyond-boundaries/), York Art Gallery, Nat Geo, and Today Art Gallery. In addition, he has published works in many world-famous media, such as Fortune magazine, National Geographic magazine (home page), China Daily, books and newspapers, etc. All of the above can be found in his sources. 2. He has independent sources. The first is the special report twice in China Photo press, which is in line meet the WP:SIGCOV (a master piece shape and color hatching square Zhou Chengzhou ". China Photo press: Fifth full page. 2018/" field of view multidimensional nature Zhou Chengzhou ". China Photo press: the eighth full page. 2016.) The second is the independent report in 1X（https://www.1x.com/blog/permalink/9044)First of all, it's not a Blog website. It's a well-known professional photo website. The editors are all senior professionals, and the editors are very professional. This is in line with the terms. Then there are also professional websites in the global photography network（ http://www.g-photography.net/file_auditorium/excellent/zhouchengzhou/index.php )Special topic interview. Finally, there is a separate report page in aesthetica magazine（https://aestheticamagazine.com/profile/zhou-chengzhou/). So, I think the above is meet WP:RS. 3. In terms of films, his works have won many nominations and winners, such as Adirondack Film Festival, which is a well-known film festival (100 best reviews in filmfreeway, Also a professional professional there company – the Adirondack there Festival.), LAUFF is a very professional and well-known film festival in the industry, and LIFT-OFF film festival is also a very well-known film festival In addition. The film festival does not mean that it will be able to win the similar Oscar film festival as a similar standard, because there are many kinds of film categories. So I think this article can be keep. I hope that the majority of editors will consider my opinions. Thank you, have a good day.Armidazhou (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Most of the sources stated, if not all, are unreliable sources, and thus fails notability. Sun8908 _Talk 17:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I think User:Armidazhou is Zhou Chengzhou himself (see more on zh:Talk:周承舟 and [22]) and the article is believed to be a WP:AUTOBIO which is strongly discouraged. Sun8908 _Talk 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I would normally say Draftify on the grounds of plausible notability. However, Sun8908 helpfully provides extremely compelling evidence that the article's creator and primary contributor is the subject themselves, and it does not appear that they have disclosed this on the English Wikipedia. Furthermore, said editor's contribution history indicates that they have engaged in forum shopping and inappropriate canvassing to recruit allies for this deletion discussion, refbombing to artificially stave off notability concerns, and self-promotion across multiple articles, indicating that draftifying would not solve the problem. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Be careful what you wish for, Armidazhou - You just might get it. Sun8908's links, analysis, and diffs are rather convincing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
STATEMENT I need to make the following points about who is the editor. 1, Due to the IP address‘s problems. So I can't use my own account to edit. So I can just only use Zhou Chengzhou's own account to edit. The statement was never edited by him.2. As for the screenshot, I was asked for Zhou get the source information at that time, so he knew about it with Wiki. Moreover, Everyone can check the process of improving the item, and he can also check it. Is it impossible for him to express his own opinion?3. Is it right that user:googol19980904 reprinted his own speech without permission?4. In the end, if you must think that he edited it, please give us some concrete evidence.Thanks. 5. I've written the reasons why this article can be keep. I won't say anything else. Please be kindly to new people. Thank you.Armidazhou (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really a "new people" though? Feels like a fairly typical WP:NOTHERE for me-AINH (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is a person with an IMDb page still not notable? :) -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @BrandNew Jim Zhang: No. IMDB is not a reliable source, which with all due respect is smth that a guy with 3k edit should have known. They have a fairly low limit on who can create a page there (If I remember correctly, as long as you have published a film and have an official website, you can create a page for yourself), and anyone can submit a page. And seeing that Armidazhou already have COI on Wikipedia, I strongly doubt that whether or not he created the IMDB page himself-AINH (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @AINH: Ah okay, I saw that on WP:USERG. Thank you :) -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QCODE

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources are all minor mentions or not independent. Lack of sufficient in-depth coverage. MB 00:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MB 00:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MB 00:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. I'm seeing a fair number of articles about personnel moves and financing activities, which aren't really fodder for notability, but it is reasonable to expect that substantial sources will be forthcoming if the company is successful. BD2412 T 00:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This media company is notable and has been featured in other podcast pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_Right_Game_(podcast) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borrasca_(podcast)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_podcasts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vforvendettadogshark29 (talk • contribs) 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Another page this company is featured on is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_the_Cowdog, where their radio drama adaptation is described. This page does need more work. At the very least, there are nine other notable podcasts from this company, all starring notable individuals like Chloë Grace Moretz, Demi Moore, Rosamund Pike, Markiplier, Lamorne Morris, and Cynthia Erivo, that need to be listed with performers and creators. User:Gardelon T 15:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in other Wikipedia articles does not confer notability. There has to be in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. MB 16:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Unlike what the creator contends, I don't think this is notable – yet. However, concurring with BD2412's point about a lot of buzz around them, and looking at the pretty impressive talent they've been working with, I expect they soon enough will be. So keeping this in the drafts for up to six months would make sense; if things haven't progressed during that time, it can be deleted then. That said, my advice, FWIW, to the creator would be not to be too hasty in moving it back into the main space, or else we may meet here again. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Pai

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

He seems to only be known for one event which is his death. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding article in Chinese is significantly longer and has references that establish notability. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/白文正 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I'm withdrawing this. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.