Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 16	May 18 >

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 redirect to Popotan. Missvain (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petit Ferret

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

Was dePRODded with the rationale that its entries on 'Erogamescape' and the Visual Novel Database show notability and may have useful information, but I don't think database entries like these are a reliable source. I was unable to find any sources that discussed the company itself, rather than only Popotan. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Popotan as a related topic since that seems to be the only notable thing they have done. Link20XX (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not notable, Myconcern (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Link20XX. Powerful Karma (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janeta Osipova

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

Article is an overly promotional autobiography. I can barely find any substantial information on the subject that is not from a source affiliated with her, and the references provided are largely passing mentions and/or from non-reliable sources, so I think it's fair to say that this fails WP:GNG. Aspening (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually I would have speedied this as blatant advertising. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the sources found are in Bulgarian, so I can't tell if they're notable/reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelray Industrial Park 2

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

Fails WP:ORG; a poorly sourced "directory" like Carmelray Industrial Park 1. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory, and in any event I can't find any coverage that would be sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capital League

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

Unsourced for over a decade and I can't find anything to support it, it's interesting but fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced and fails WP:GNG Eopsid (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE on JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, and Google Books fails to find references. Nor are any in the article. Fails WP:V. Chetsford (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete might be more suitable for an online sports almanac, suggest enthusiastic editors try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M/F (journal)

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

Obscure NN periodocal, fails the GNG going away. Every source listed is primary (presuming, mind, that an "official website" created 34 years after the publication folded can be called that), including the ones supposedly bolstering the less-than-grammatical assertion that "many scholars and readers have regarded the contributions of m/f in feminist discourse." No substantive coverage of the subject found.

Article created by an editor with quite a few such articles on periodicals lacking sourcing or notability, several of which already have been forcibly removed to draftspace, deleted or are at AfD/prod. Ravenswing 21:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The MIT Press book shows that it was anything but "obscure", though the article didn't include it until a few minutes ago. PamD 08:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The MIT Press book was edited by two of the editors of M/F; I'd say they had no little stake in praising how influential they believed the journal to be in putting together a collection of its issues for commercial resale. In any event, of course it's not an independent source, and cannot be considered to bolster the subject's notability. Ravenswing 13:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. You're right that the book wasn't independent, but there are independent reviews of the book, e.g. Refractory Girl No. 41 pp. 42–. If a collection of essays from the journal can be shown to be notable, then the journal probably is, too. pburka (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited another independent review of the book. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The review found by Phil Bridger calls m/f a "seminal feminist journal." At the very least, The Woman in Question is notable, but I think it makes more sense to cover the anthology in the journal's article rather than vice versa. pburka (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note the new source I have added (Diana Leonard paper), for a paper discussing this journal. PamD 07:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on article title: If the article survives this AfD it should probably be renamed to M/f (journal) with a {{lowercase title}} to force the title to display correctly. PamD 07:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new sourcing establishes notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Rose LeBrecht

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

After noticing it had been flagged for notability, I did a before search which shows the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The before search also linked me to websites where their music can be purchased, self published sources and user generated sources which we don’t consider reliable. Moreover some of the sources used in the article aren’t even in direct relation to the subject of our discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have her own article. The sourcing in the article does not help her meet WP:GNG nor WP:MUSIC. I did my own due diligence, using her name and her stage name Greenpot Bluepot and found little to nothing. Her real name just brought up the usual suspects of primary sources and websites to download her music. Greenpot Bluepot had small fry local publications and blogs. Missvain (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women's International Resource Exchange (WIRE)

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

Obscure NN "service," fails the GNG and WP:ORG. All sources are either primary or namedrops, with no real information other than that this service once existed. No substantive coverage of the subject found. Article created by an editor with quite a few such articles (mostly on ephemeral periodicals) lacking sourcing or notability, several of which already have been forcibly removed to draftspace, deleted or are at AfD/prod. Ravenswing 21:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP. Insufficient sourcing in article to pass the GNG. My BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, JSTOR) fails to find any references which would redeem it. Chetsford (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did the exact same thing as Chetsford (also paid subscriber of newspapers.com) and had no luck. I know the subject is mentioned in a few finding aids, but, only as items in collections, so to say, not the actual finding aid subject. Usually a subject like this - if notable - has coverage someplace, somewhere, but, not even in feminism blogs or LGBTQI blogs, which can often be a gateway to sources. But, no luck. Missvain (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails to meet GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McCulloch (civil engineer)

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

The article is about an engineer who worked in the early 1900s, there is little reliable information about him outside of a few local newspaper articles. The entire article has zero sources referenced and has remained as such since December of 2015. Dellwood546 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dellwood546 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he was an engineer. He worked on some big projects. There isn't a clear rationale for his notability here, and sourcing is scarce. The biography linked from the article appears to be copied form Wikipedia. --- Possibly (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly its the other way round, the Wikipedia article is based on the article linked, see the first version. --hroest 00:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is based on the csce.ca article, then half the current WP article is copyvio. It's also such a weak effort at recognition that I'm not inclined to give it much weight. I can envision a manager telling a summer intern to "go and copy some WP biographies of Canadian engineers". --- Possibly (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep he is listed in the notable civil engineers section of CSCE which is good enough for me. There is a RS, there is notability, he should pass WP:GNG. --hroest 00:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Engineering societies were established to promote their own. There are some people on that csce.ca list that probably do not meet our notability standards.--- Possibly (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure why the book about him by Sanford already listed in the article wasn't more than enough to stop an AFD starting, it's was in print through several editions for at least 30 years! Also a WP:BEFORE failure, as easy to find numerous newspapers articles about him, even into the 21st century! I've added 7 references to the article (only one of which can be described as local, User:Dellwood54. Note User:Possibly, it's clear from reading Sanford, that much of the information in the Biography is sourced from Sanford, not an article on the Internet. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm convinced the subject passes GNG by the new citations added and I also bet there are plenty of offline sources in historical societies, etc. The article just needs some clean up for the tone and layout. Missvain (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sanford's book, the articles in the Vancouver Sun, this Calgary Herald article, and this book by L.D. Cross provide more than adequate coverage to meet the GNG/WP:NBIO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lowrey (musician)

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

Tagged for notability for a decade. Looks like a local musician who gets occasional local media coverage, mainly for being a member of long-standing local bands. No evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO. EddieHugh (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches find sporadic mentions but not the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability. The subject is mentioned in the Peninsula Banjo Band article (itself a poorly-referenced article), so a redirect there could be a possibility. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our sourcing is just one list of performers at one music festival. Such sources are not generally considered fully indepdent of the subject, they basically are inherently promotional in nature. So we have 0 religble secondary sources that are fully indepdent. We are not even close to the minimum of multiple indepdent relible secondary sources that give indepth coverage. That is just GNG, music bio guidelines demand more and are even less met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a narrow but clear consensus that sources provided for this subject do not amount to encyclopedic notability. One "keep" !vote made by a now-indefblocked sockpuppet has been given no weight (and was itself merely a statement of agreement with an inapplicable argument by another participant). BD2412 T 00:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gunay Aliyeva

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

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

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

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

Not enough independent and reliable sources to prove its notability. In Azerbaijani Wikipedia, they keep the articles if they exist in other languages. Therefore, it's been created in Turkish and English Wikipedia. Currently, it's also nominated for deletion in the Turkish Wikipedia and will be deleted soon (actually it eas deleted but the creator appealed the result and we continue with more "delete" comments). Nanahuatl (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It lacks reliable, independent sources, more importantly in-depth coverage of cited sources. --Kemalcan (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reference 1) qafqazinfo.az, Reference 2)baku.news, Reference 3)azerbaycan24.com, Reference 4) qafqazinfo.az, Reference 5) ISNI meets the GNG, I think. The publication seems OK. Also she hosts the programs "Doctor's Case" on the Khazar TV channel.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can be Kept: She's also renowned on television, hosting a popular show in the country. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity does not equal notability. If we created articles for everyone who went on TV, we would've had millions of more articles. Going on TV is not even a criteria. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it was deleted in TrWiki --Kemalcan (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please conduct the AfD process truthfully.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We've talked in detail about the (lack of) reliable sources on the Turkish Wikipedia. This is an obvious PR piece, created by a problematic user. The community is making arguments based on policies, the AfD process is being conducted as it should be, Elshad Iman (Elşad İman). ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Toghrul Rahimli. Cheers, Notable in the Azerbaijani context. --Blackariteam (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Indefblocked sockpuppet. BD2412 T 00:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promotion. Fails GNG. DJRSD (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources don't appear to add up to a person that would pass WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: enough to pass notability. (About argument) it was deleted in TrWiki - Wikipedia itself does not consider itself a reliable source.

Including sections in other languages. So this is not an argument. Additionally, see WP:AADD. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't simply say "Delete because it was deleted from the TR-wiki", we carry the reasons over: in this case not enough sources to pass notability, which is an argument that can be used on each project, see WP:1XL. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 06:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think she's sufficiently notable. The Best Paper Award is a significant award, and She's also renowned on television, hosting a popular show in the country, I'm convinced of notability.--Mekhdi Fayyazli (Talk) 18:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Azerbaijani Wikipedians came and making this discussion a "votation". That's a discussion folks, not a votation.--Nanahuatl (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Turks and Azerbaijanis should not resolve this issue, the British should resolve it by consensus, I ask my Turkish colleagues not to make efforts on this issue.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 06:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - American chiming in here. I believe she fails English Wikipedia's WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC if you want to go there regarding her medical career. While yes, she appears on a TV show, that doesn't inherently mean you're notable or meet our inclusion guidelines. One source in the article is an interview, the closest thing to an reliable secondary source. The others are passing mentions or photographs from events she's hosted. Perhaps there are more non-English sources, but, I struggled to find any online. Missvain (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - :) Dear Madam, The comment you wrote was your personal opinion. It is wrong to reach a consensus by voting with a personal opinion, if a person is well-known in the country and as you can see, even the administrators of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia commented that the article should remain, this means that she is an important and well-known surgeon in her country.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The previous comment was a reasonable evaluation based on English Wikipedia policy & guidelines—not a personal opinion. Pathawi (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This figure does not meet notability criteria. The news stories cited mention her (usually quoting her at a conference) but mostly (with one very notable exception) give us very little information about her. In fact, many of the statements about the doctor in this Wikipedia article are not supported by the articles they cite & probably need to be removed as miscitations. I'll get on the source verification in a couple hours; my guess is that there won't be much that is verifiable. That in itself may be a good indication of lack of notability. Pathawi (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I went thru the sources cited in the article—which are the same as those that Elşad İman lists above—& most failed verification. There's very little in the article as it stands that is supported by the existing sources. These sources are of varying WP:RS: We have that she finished high school in 2000 from an interview on an Azerbaijani government family health Website, as well as a few years of her training history. (The latter part actually didn't pass verification, as it was linked to another Website, but I found the info at the source mentioned, so I fixed the citation.) We have that she's a member of the Turkish Ophthalmological Association from the OCLC's International Standard Name Identifier. That's it. Nothing else passes verification. None of what passes verification is sufficient for notability. My guess is that all or almost all of the information listed is true, & was written by someone who knew a fair bit about Dr Əliyeva but who wasn't careful with sourcing that information. This reinforces my support of deletion. Pathawi (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

famous: 1) ISNI authoritative check, 2) baku.news, 3) Azerbaycan24.com, 4) qafqazinfo.az: looks very authoritative in terms of WP:VERIFY. Information from independent authoritative sources is sufficient to save the article.

If TV channels go to a doctor, it means that a person is a famous doctor in her field, so there is no doubt that he is a famous person. Her name is also mentioned in the book as a doctor, author of scientific articles and organizer of scientific courses.

She spent her medical internship at the American Academy of Ophthalmologists (AAO) and the University of California, Los Angeles, and also did an internship at the World Health Organization. She is medical sciences doctor.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're WP:bludgeoning this process. It's completely inappropriate to reply to everyone who disagrees with you in a deletion discussion if you don't have anything new to say. The sources you are repeatedly listing don't pass verification for the facts for which they're cited: They mostly do not contain significant coverage of any facts about Dr Əliyeva; they just happen to include her name. It's not clear to me at all that ISNI is an indicator of notability. Pathawi (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per source analysis by Pathawi. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(?) Is it enough to save the article when adding new sources? or do you insist on deleting the article, no need for any source or link? --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: In general, you can edit an article to improve it during the deletion discussion. If you are able to demonstrate notability through legitimate citation of reliable sources, it may be possible to change people's minds. However, it would be worth your while to come to an understanding of others' rejection of the current citations & current claims for notability; otherwise, edits might be wasted effort. Do you have a professional relationship with Dr Əliyeva? Some of the information in the article doesn't appear in the cited sources. Did you add it? Do you know where it comes from? Pathawi (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Yes, she was my doctor, and I know that what is written is the truth and information from the first sources.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Okay. That complicates things a little bit. You might want to consider whether this means that you have a conflict of interest. I would think that it does. You might want to read the first part of WP:COI. Pathawi (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Pathawi:, in the Turkish Wikipedia, we are aware of it. Therefore, some articles that the user has created are deleted and the user has blocked indefinetely. In the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, they don't delete articles if they exist in another language. So they create them in the Turkish or Russian Wİkipedia first, and also sometimes in the English Wikipedia. That complicates things even more I suppose :) The user is clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia, but for "narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business". Nanahuatl (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: In this case, what needs to be done to put everything in order. I would be very grateful if you would help me to take the right step in this direction.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: If from WP:COI you agree that you've got a conflict of interest—& a personal relationship with the subject generally does indicate a conflict of interest—you should probably hold off on editing the page itself directly for the moment. However, it's still appropriate to list any previously unmentioned reliable sources that demonstrate notability here in the deletion discussion. In doing so, you ought to disclose your conflict of interest. There's information on how to do this at WP:COI. You can find out more about how to pursue edits when you've got a COI at WP:COI, and I'd be happy to help you navigate that. I suppose I should also say: Editing with a conflict of interest can be disruptive. You really shouldn't ask other editors to consider additional sources unless they're substantively different from those you've already put forward. So: Read WP:COI. Read WP:GNG. Finally, consider the perspective that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Pathawi (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The book "Azerbaijani women" by French writer Jean-Louis Guro contains an article about Dr. Aliyeva and her successful work as an ophthalmologist-surgeon in the country, as well as the author of many scientific articles.

Since there are articles about this person in other books, I created an article on Wikipedia, I did not create an article because the doctor was my only doctor, I created it because she has a high reputation in the country.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I Googled the French & English titles that appear in the photograph & could not find any mention of this book. I haven't been able to find any publication information, or any mention anywhere other than government press releases. None of these mention Dr Əliyeva. Pathawi (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media Tv 1, Media Tv 2, Media Tv 3, Azerbaijani television channel --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- These are all talk programme segments where Dr Əliyeva talks about opthalmological & eye surgical issues, right? They're not about the doctor herself. Correct? Pathawi (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I imagine this is frustrating for you, but I wish you would stop throwing up links without explanation and read WP:GNG and WP:RS. There should be multiple secondary sources about Dr Əliyeva and independent of Dr Əliyeva. They shouldn't be by publicists like Mr Gouraud. They should be more than trivial mentions, & should say something substantive about Dr Əliyeva herself. Pathawi (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Unfortunately, you do not know Azerbaijani. The footage on state television speaks of him personally and even the TV presenter is surprised that Aliyeva is conducting undeniable activity in the field of medicine.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to state TV is not to a video: I think you made a small copy-paste error. But before you bother fixing it: Is this really going to be a reliable source that says something significant? A passing mention that an ophthalmologist does ophthalmology isn't much. Is this more substantive than that? Pathawi (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I'm going to check out now. I'm travelling starting tomorrow & don't feel like trying to verify any more sources about the good doctor. I feel like I'm bludgeoning Elşad at this point with the same calls to read the same guidelines & policies, & I don't want to continue in that position. It feels like engagement is perhaps just dragging out this process pointlessly. My position in favour of deletion remains unchanged by sources which are either unverifiable or appear to only have trivial coverage of the doctor herself. Pathawi (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I am adding new sources. English news, Doctor info, aqreqator.az, ARB tv Gunay Aliyeva, TV interview of a foreign country --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sepehr Sepi

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

I doubt if this person meets the demands of WP:AUTHOR. Credited with the single appearance in a TV series [1]; all the rest is either unprovable or unsubstantial. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sources, only the first one (OwjNews) seems to even have a chance at being RS, but there doesn't seem to be any info on it online and in the article it links to a Telegram group called "sepehrsepinews" which is suspicious. I'm not familiar with Persian/Farsi but it seems that the rest are:

User-generated/fan-made blogs (3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19, 20). Also note that nearly all of these sources seem to be extremely recent, within the past few weeks.
A forum (2)
A 404 error (11)
Generic pages containing info/lyrics/downloads on many songs and nothing about Sepi (7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18)

And as per nom, fails WP:AUTHOR. Fails WP:SINGER as well -- the only possible matching criterion given what is in the article and online is #10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable", but I wouldn't say that appearing as a pianist in one episode of a TV series counts, especially given that the criterion continues "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article" and WP:1E. eviolite (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Eviolite's thorough analysis above. Seems to be a purely promotional article. Lennart97 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Maté

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

Fail of WP:GNG. Single reference provided is to a film review. WP:BEFORE doesn't show multiple secondary sources to attest for notability. nearlyevil 665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although several additional footnotes have been added to the article since the time of nomination, they still aren't good or notability-making ones. #1 is a news story about something else which happens to glancingly namecheck Aaron Maté's existence in the process of not being about Aaron Maté, which doesn't assist in making him notable. #2 tangentially verifies the existence of Maté's mother, without saying anything at all about Aaron to assist in making him notable. #3 is the film review mentioned in the nomination — which also just briefly mentions his name without being about him to any non-trivial degree, and thus doesn't singlehandedly make him notable all by itself. #4 is just a directory of his own contributions to a news outlet — but you don't make a journalist notable enough for Wikipedia by verifying the extent to which he's been the bylined author of media coverage about other things, you make a journalist notable enough for Wikipedia by verifying the extent to which he's been the subject of media coverage written by other people. #5 and #6 are both directly affiliated with the claim being made — the Izzy Award is not a notability-clinching journalism award that would pass WP:ANYBIO, but a student journalism award presented by a university journalism school, and the sources for it are that self-same university's own student newspaper and the self-published website of the award committee. But that's not how you turn any award into a notability claim — if general market media coverage about the award presentation is lacking, then an award is not a notability maker just because you can technically metareference the award to itself. So no, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more reliable sources to the article, including a direct link to the National Film Board of Canada's full-length documentary Discordia, and contemporaneous reports of his arrest during the Concordia University Netanyahu riot. It's my opinion that his notoriety from the Netanyahu incident (including being the lead subject in a documentary about the event), his significant contribution to Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine (as credited in the book) and his subsequent political reporting in the United States have made him a notable figure. The lorax (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not supported by sources in which Maté is doing the speaking or writing; it requires sources in which he is the subject that other people are speaking about in the third person. So among the sources that don't help: transcripts of radio interviews where he's the speaking guest and not the subject being spoken about; articles that briefly namecheck his existence in the process of being primarily about other things besides him; being mentioned in the acknowledgements/thanks section of a book that isn't about him; university student media; streaming copies of films that he happens to appear in, without any third party analysis about his appearance in the film to establish the notability of the film. Which basically wipes out all of the new sources you've added. Again: notability is not supported by verifying that he's done stuff, it's supported by showing independent third party analysis about the stuff he's done. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bearcat:, I've added additional sources which I think more explicitly establishes Maté's notability. I added a transcript of news segment referring to him and his arrest during the Netanyahu riot in the third person on CBC's The National, a college thesis paper analyzing his struggle over his Jewish identity on Concordia University's campus as seen in the film Discordia, and his most recent rise in influence, cited in Axios and MediaVillage.The lorax (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The National: Not a new source you've added since the last time I commented, but a source that I already addressed the last time I commented. It isn't coverage about Maté, but is simply a transcript of an interview in which Maté is doing the speaking.

Axios: Not coverage or analysis about Maté, but just briefly mentions his name in a very short blurb about something else.

MediaVillage: Not an actual reliable source media outlet, but explicitly describes itself in its own "about us" statement as a B2B marketing platform.

University student theses: do not help to establish notability at all.

We're not looking for just any web content you can find that happens to have his name present in it. We're looking for a certain specific caliber of coverage in which he is the subject of reportage and analysis, in a certain specific caliber of trusted media outlets and published books. And while you have used a few sources that satisfy the latter part of that equation (although most of the footnotes still don't), you've added no sources that satisfy the former part of the equation by being substantively about him. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Testifying to the United Nations would meet any reasonable "notability" requirement I would think. But in the case that it doesn't it seems this would meet your criteria of "him being the subject of reporting/analysis". https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/useful-idiots-taibbi-aaron-mate-russiagate-bombshells-1000646/. Unless you're referring to only biographical material or some sort of material chronicling his life story? Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The extent to which testifying to the United Nations constitutes a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which there has or hasn't been third-party journalism done about his testimony to establish that it was seen as a significant event by people other than his own public relations agent. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally believe Mate is notable for being a leader of the anti-Russiagate movement coming from the left. He is very commonly cited as such. The problem is that he has thus far not been the subject of significant coverage yet apparently. The argument for notability here would have to use the "loopholes" available to journalists at WP:JOURNALIST but I don't have the capacity right now to make that justification. Nweil (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person has been involved in multiple notable events. He was a major figure in the Concordia University Netanyahu riot (a significant event in Montreal history), a key subject in a major documentary (Discordia), has made widely recognized contributions in his reporting about Russiagate, is an Izzy Award winner (which I would argue is a major journalism award) and is widely cited by his peers i.e. Matt Taibbi.The lorax (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to source his win of an Izzy Award to the Izzy Awards' own self-published content about themselves, because independent media coverage of the Izzy Awards is nonexistent, then it isn't "major" enough to make its winners notable because they won it. Being a "major" figure in a riot is not a notability freebie just because it's possible to verify that he was there; it requires analysis of the significance of his role in it. And on and so forth: notability is not "did stuff", it's "received analytical coverage about the stuff he did", and none of the sources being shown here are analytical ones. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent media coverage of the Izzy is not nonexistent; see below. Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 23:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I included additional coverage from The Ithacan and the Ithaca Voice for Maté winning the Izzy Award, that should help satisfy notability requirements at least in that case. The lorax (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ithacan is the student newspaper of the university whose journalism school presents the Izzy Awards, so it isn't fully independent of the Izzy Awards for the purposes of making them a notability-securing award — and the Ithaca Voice is a hyperlocal "online-only nonprofit news site" (description copied directly from its own "about us" page on its own website!) based in the same small city where that university is located, so it's not really doing much more to help either since it's still just a local newspaper covering local news. If you want to make the Izzy Awards a notability claim that clinches Aaron Maté's inclusion in Wikipedia all by itself, you need to show that it gets broadly covered in sources on the New York Times/Los Angeles Times/Chicago Sun-Times/Atlanta Journal-Constitution tier of major daily newspapers, not just a university student newspaper and a community hyperlocal in the same small town. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, esp. #1. Testifying at the U.N. must bring some level of notability too. Wknight94 ^talk 12:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What sources in the article are verifying that he passes JOURNALIST #1? Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, esp. #1. Note (at least) references 17, 24,31, all of which demonstrate he is an important enough figure to have his opinion considered; the presence of even only his name shows the importance of his body of work. Also, respected enough to write an article for The Nation. Strong "keep." Although not "broadly" cited in major publications, the Izzy Award is cited by them on a PRN basis. The award seems to be significant enough to have been reported by NPR and NYT^[1]^[2] Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People get over GNG by being the subject that other people are writing about, not just by having his opinions soundbited in articles about subjects that aren't him. And neither of the citations you've offered here are notability-building coverage about the Izzy Awards — they're just glancing mentions of the Izzy Awards in coverage about David Sirota and Glenn Greenwald. Again, the notability test is not "the topic has had its name has been mentioned in the media" — it is "the topic has been the subject of substantive coverage about it in the media", and nobody has yet offered any sources that get either Aaron Maté or the Izzy Awards over that bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Even the sources cited acknowledge the rather fringe nature of Maté's work. For example, the Vanity Fair piece—quoted in the article for describing him as a "polite but dogged skeptic" who is notable for an interview he did—does so within the context of a full paragraph of commentators and bloggers "who were ignored for much of this stretch". The strongest argument for notability seems to be the documentary from 18 years ago, where he is one of three subjects. If that is significant enough, it might be added to the Concordia University Netanyahu riot itself, but the journalistic career of Maté doesn't seem to justify a standalone article. His two cited appearances—for about 90 and 180 seconds, respectively—on The Hill's morning TV and a smattering of one- or two-line references elsewhere do not seem to show that he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". The UN testimony is not a strong indicator in this case, either; the wording of the article makes it sound like a formal hearing or meeting of a UN body, but it was an Arria formula meeting. Accordingly, the only coverage of it seems to be from Maté himself on Grayzone plus a handful of other far-left sites. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re' "regarded as an important figure:" He is important enough to his peers to have his opinions widely cited. Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And where are the sources writing about him as a subject of coverage? Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why mainstream US media should decide what's on Wikipedia. He's been called in to speak for the UN for chrissakes, that shows that he's more notable than half of the journalists on wikipedia. The corporate media monopoly already has enough power, no need to insist that they should dictate wikipedia too. I'm even surprised about the suggestion, this is not the wikipedia I used to know and love. Iskube (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because firstly, if we exempted people from having to have media coverage, and instead allowed them to keep articles based on unreliable and primary and self-published sources, then we would have to keep an article about every single person who has a social networking profile on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or LinkedIn. And secondly, people have actually lied about themselves in their own marketing materials, in an attempt to get themselves included in Wikipedia on the basis of "passing" inclusion criteria that they didn't really pass — musicians claiming chart hits they didn't really have, writers claiming literary award nominations they never really got, and on and so forth — so the inclusion test for people is not the things he claims about himself in self-published sources, but requires independent verification in sources he didn't control. Notability, accordingly, is not measured by the things an article does or doesn't say, but by the depth and quality and reliability and independence of the sources that can or can't be cited to support the things it says. It requires independent analysis, not self-promotional claims, so it requires independent media coverage to verify that the notability claims are actually true. And no, this isn't different from the Wikipedia of yore, either — supporting notability with reliable sources has always been the rule, people just haven't always obeyed it. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, esp. #1. 198.167.198.158 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1997 ICC Trophy squads#Italy. Missvain (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Brian Da Costa

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

Player fails WP:CRIN - has not played at a suitable level to meet the inclusion criteria and so is a non-notable cricketer who ultimately fails WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1997 ICC Trophy squads#Italy Fails CRIN as he hasn't played in an ICC Trophy final, only the tournament. In terms of GNG again just match reports, and nothing like enough to pass GNG. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD although either the page will have to be moved to Massimo da Costa (which seems to be his common name) or the link changed on the page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved Massimo Brian Da Costa to Massimo da Costa. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chirinuruwowaka. Missvain (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akayoroshi

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

The recording fails WP:NALBUMS- there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, no reviews in published sources (just routine coverage such as this one). The album did not chart on any country's national music charts, or receive any certifications, or major accolades. I cannot see any reason for a standalone article since there is no evidence of notability and there is not enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Ashley yoursmile! 15:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 15:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 15:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found an article on Natalie about it but it's not listed on Oricon, so I'm assuming the album didn't chart. lullabying (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chirinuruwowaka. While there does not appear to be enough coverage for a separate article, this could still be a helpful search term for readers interested in the album and the band in general so I think that would be more helpful than an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoba47. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Looks like the discussion ran out of steam. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Jones (musician)

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

BLP of a musician that is stitched together from liner notes, tour notices and passing mentions. There does not appear to be in depth coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources so notability is not established. Redirecting to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers might be possible as it seems this is what he is best known for. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article lists 14 references - one of which is an interview with just Phil Jones in Rolling Stone Magazine. Hardly a "passing mention". Not only that, but he is clearly a well known and reputable musician having credits with Roy Orbison, Tom Petty and Del Shannon among a few. As anyone can see from the references, he gets more than a passing mention. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaaaastonbury88 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

credits, interviews etc. aren’t sufficient to support a biography article. Are there three reliable independent sources that discuss him in depth? Mccapra (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes there are. The first 3 references on his page provide 3 reliable independent sources that discuss him in depth... ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that’s an interview with him, an extremely brief passing mention, and an offline source. Mccapra (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources indicated above are either interviews or trivial mentions, and do not establish notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Tracy, Marc (2020-01-21). "The Former Journalist Who Is Bernie Sanders's Media Critic". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-05-19.
^ "He Broke The NSA Leaks Story, But Just Who Is Glenn Greenwald?". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-05-19.
^ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/drummer-phil-jones-interview-tom-petty-bob-dylan-1130122/
^ https://ultimateclassicrock.com/tom-petty-full-moon-fever/
^ King, Kelly, The Perfect Gig, Drumhead Magazine, October 2016

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 06:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How long is this going to go on for- it is pretty clear that no one can prove it should be taken down. Cheers Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers will relist it at our discretion to encourage further discussion. Two !votes doesn't equal consensus. Missvain (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boat Trip 3D

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

This seems to fail WP:NFILM as there is very little coverage other than the film festival listing and IMDb. My WP:BEFORE included looking to see if there was something unique in the 3D tech used to make it and I could not find anything. If anyone else does find something feel free to add it to the article MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It looks like a student film that just happened to get a screening at film festival. Nothing found to suggest it won any awards, or gained any coverage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Film has been covered in a couple of speciality media but left no lasting impression. There is no great redirect target. The film festival could have been legit if it had annual articles but not extremely important either. The alltime festival article is clearly of too little relevance for a single film. Delete remains. Kudos to MarnetteD for being open to be convinced differently! So am I. gidonb (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails NFILM. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fobio Stadium

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

Fails WP:GNG in my analysis. Information is not sourced whatsoever, and the football club that plays here has never become professional. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG, and we are not a travel guide for telling people how to get to the stadium (which is basically just what this article is currently). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indepth sources available. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 S.H.E discography. Missvain (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of S.H.E covers and parodies

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

The list failed WP:NOT by 2007 yet survived somehow. Nowadays we have WP:SONGCOVER. The whole list is, either, unsourced or based upon a primary source: HIM International Music (S.H.E.'s record label). The covers fail both:

[being] discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy; cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list.
itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

If the covers are notable, they can be mentioned in the respective song articles, but right now this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list is non-notable. However, the covers can be mentioned in the respective song articles. I only don't vote for redirect as the list might get recreated once it gets deleted. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to S.H.E discography: Perhaps WP:LISTCRUFT. The song covers can be talked about in every album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to S.H.E discography. While these kinds of lists about covers do exist, I do agree with the nominator and the above comments that this is not notable. A redirect may be helpful (although it is unlikely a lot of people will really type this out in the search bar) so I am leaning more to redirect over deletion. I do agree with Superastig that covers can be discussed elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manpreet Hockey

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

Iam not able to find a single in-depth coverage about him. So I nominate this subject as afd. Bengal Boy (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bengal Boy (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for sportspeople. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. You will find it at Draft:State of Consciousness. Missvain (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

State of Consciousness

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

Fails WP:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Doesn't seem to meet notability for the production phase; however, for a project that is still upcoming, the work put into the article thus far can be preserved as a draft until release and reviews come out. -2pou (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, currently fails WP:NFF but may be notable in the future. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. You will find it at Draft:Borrego (film). Missvain (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borrego (film)

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

Fails WP:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Only a single source with actual prose, so it doesn't meet NFF per nom. Note that Variety Insight is a reliable source of information, but does not provide any WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage as a database without any prose reporting. It is still an upcoming film, though, and therefore it is likely that more information will come later, so we should WP:PRESERVE the work put in so far until it's ready. -2pou (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, currently fails WP:NFF but may be notable in the future. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. You can find it at Draft:Archive 81. Missvain (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 81

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

Fails WP:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only a single source with actual prose, so it doesn't meet NFF per nom. Note that Variety Insight is a reliable source of information, but does not provide any WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage as a database without any prose reporting.
I typically would prefer to draftify something like this, i.e. projects with releases still upcoming; however, there appears to be an existing draft at Draft:Archive 81 already. -2pou (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – yes, there is an existing draft version of this article, but this is more in-depth than that draft and should replace the existing draft. At any rate, it definitely doesn't belong in mainspace per WP:NFF. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, currently fails WP:NFF but may be notable in the future. RunningTiger123's rationale about this draft being more in-depth is correct. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Fine

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

There is at least one Sarah Fine who passes WP:NPROF, but it is not this one. Does not pass WP:GNG either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as the article author, I agree. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 16:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Cambridge would not have hired her for nothing, and she's written some moderately well-cited (for philosophy) papers on the philosophy of immigration: "Freedom of association is not the answer" (Ethics 2010, cited by 117 on Google Scholar) and "The ethics of immigration: Self‐determination and the right to exclude" (Philosophy Compass, 2013, cited by 65). But that and an edited volume doesn't strike me as being enough for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. So she may eventually become notable, but so far it is WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a case of TOOSOON, she currently fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 02:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein and per the author wanting the article deleted. Vaticidalprophet 07:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Mammadov

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

Nabi Mammadov has been created in both article space and draft space, which is typically done in order to game the system by preventing draftification. The images are the own work of the submitter, which is typically characteristic of a conflict of interest submission. The subject does not satisfy mixed martial arts notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, does not satisfy mixed martial arts notability or WP:GNG, further undisclosed WP:COI and/or Copyviolation of the Photos used CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Creator claims on my talk page that he is a Sport Photographer in Azerbaijan, so there are no Copyvios for those Images. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*keepThis page satisfy mixed martial arts notability.Nabi Mammadov is professional Mixed martial artist.Fighter have at least 3 pro fight.He is ranked in sherdog.What else you are waiting for? Please leave unnecesarry excuses!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiazeus (talk • contribs) 17 May 2021 21:07:41 (UTC) I don't see any reason for deletion.I think article meets the standards

~~— Wikiazeus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~

- Please state which "top tier MMA organization" he has fought 3 professional fights under - the page does not make it clear. Also, please sign your posts by including {{subst:dtag|nowiki|-bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)}} after your replies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~:What is problem with this article?What make it clear.Everyone only says that, this article doesn't meet mixed martial artist notability ,no one gives concrete reason!(User:Wikiazeus

Wikiazeus, you can comment all you want but you can only vote once. Papaursa (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per opening rationale by Robert McClenon and additional input by CommanderWaterford. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of him meeting any notability criteria. None of the coverage of him appears to be significant. There are some passing mentions of him, but only in routine sports reporting. As for notability as an MMA fighter he has no top tier fights and being ranked 23rd in the Caucasus region by tapology is a long way from being in the world top 10. Finally, I checked to see if he could be considered notable for his sambo, but he lost his only 2 fights at the 2018 European championships (one in sambo and one in combat sambo), which is the highest level he competed at. The fact that he "won" a medal is simply due to the lack of entrants in one of his divisions. Papaursa (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Athlete Competed at two times in European championships (2018,2016) and one time Sambo World cup (2019) and he has 5 pro fights on MMA. I think it gaining enough notability to be the subject of the article.McCarsey (talk) 06:00,18 May 2021 (UTC) Striking vote from confirmed sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep: I researched about this subject.I found profiles of the aforementioned person on the world's leading MMA databases like sherdog,Tapology,mixedmartialarts.com.If we came to the sambo part,athlete is a member of the Azerbaijani national team and The athlete took part in important competitions such as the European Championship and the World Cup.At the same time, speaking with the evidence, the athlete won the bronze medal in the european championship.İ think it meets article subject standards. NilsonCaffarey (talk) 06:38,18 May 2021(UTC) Striking vote from confirmed sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:I should add that the athlete entered the sambo world rankings in his weight category.

Comment: For Closer: Last delete Votes seem to be done by SP, all new accounts, all directly heading to this discussion here CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This article and photo has been uploaded the different day in almost any wikipedia Edition, fr, tr, ru etc. etc. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment Mr/Mrs CommanderWaterford I suggest you pay attention to the written arguments, not the accounts that write arguments.McCarsey

Keep The athlete has participated in national competitions and has awards. The greatest success for a sambo competitor is to achieve success in the competitions organized by FIAS(Fédération Internationale de Sambo)which is most popular sambo organization , and this athlete is the bronze medalist of the European Sambo Championship.i read wikipedia sport notability and i think that this subject is enough notable.I would like to remind you once again that the athlete meets the notability rules of both MMA and sambo. MertEnes 10:30,18 May 2021 (UTC) Striking vote from confirmed sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep:I think my thoughts will be useful for you, as the subject is included in my area of expertise.First of all,this athlete is azerbaijani national athlete and participated in continental sport events like European Championship,World Cup,World Championship and won medal.This is the first factor that makes it worth noting.There is no greater success that a sambo athlete can achieve to be notable or there are no more popular events to take part in.İ think subject is enough notable.I hope I could help. LesportAze 14:19 18 May,2021 (UTC) Striking vote from confirmed sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all of the new editors Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia notability criteria. He has never competed at the highest level, such as the World Championships, in any sport. That is what WP:NSPORT requires for even a presumption of notability. There is no specific criteria for sambo so it impossible for him to meet what doesn't exist. He has never fought for a top tier MMA organization so he doesn't have the requisite 3 top tier fights. Having your name in a database is not considered significant independent coverage, which is what WP:GNG requires. Winning a medal in a competition without defeating any other competitor is more an indication that the event/division wasn't major than that the competitor had a notable accomplishment. Just showing up doesn't make someone notable. Papaursa (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Bailey Street

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

Lacks any claim to notability and is a clearly fails to meet WP:GEOROAD. This road is roughly a tenth of a mile long. The article is WP:SYNTH, we already have an article about the prison that was located on this street. Also, a road does not WP:INHERIT notability from a building located on it. Rusf10 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing special about this local street with no significant coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- After the new revisions of the article, changing !vote to merge to Victoria Prison as that seems to be most appropriate space for this content. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Victoria Prison, which is the topic of most of the current text of the article. Deryck C. 16:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Victoria Prison, not suitable for a standalone article. Riteboke (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content about the Prison to Victoria Prison, but content about the road itself is probably better at Tai Kwun. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has had significant improvements since my previous comment and is now focused on the road, which seems to be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Victoria Prison. I have beefed up the content with referenced material, and more can certainly be added, as the street is one of the oldest in Hong Kong. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to keep after finding/ adding additional referenced material. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least one building on the road described in this article is a listed building, so unless it gets its own article it deserves to be kept per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. GEOLAND (used for geographic regions, populated places, and natural features) is the wrong guidelines for this, its WP:GEOROAD 2. A road does not inherit notability from a building. The notability of the prison is irrelevant. As per GEOROAD, a local road like this has to pass WP:GNG on its own merits.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Necrothesp was obvioulsy referring to No. 20 Hollywood Road, which is a listed building described and pictured in the article, and does not have its own article. They were not referring to Central Police Station (Hong Kong) as your are suggesting, nor to Victoria Prison, which are both Declared monuments and in the street, but have their own articles. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does not matter which building was being referred to. I did not suggest it was any of those buildings. Just because the building is notable does not make the road notable. If the building (which has an address not on this road, but on Hollywood Rd) is notable, create an article about it, but it still doesn't give notability to the road.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It does matter, at least for those of us who actually read the article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, one of the oldest streets in Victoria City. Covered in reliable sources such as Post Magazine. Citobun (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Deck Brewing

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO without significant independent sourcing. The sources provided do not cover the company in detail and being named the best tasting room in the state is not a major honor. User:Namiba 14:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems sufficiently sourced by (ten different) independent outlets, which is the crux of WP:GNG. - Seasider53 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the number of sources that matters. Most of the sources are trivial. Most local institutions get trivial mentions in local news sources. Where are the significant sources as required by GNG?--User:Namiba 15:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're looking at different WP:GNG pages. That aside, the notable aspects of the business are all suitably referenced. - Seasider53 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." Where is the significant coverage?--User:Namiba 16:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to not look at Casco Bay Brewing Co. or Sea Dog Brewing Company, which have zero in-line references (the former even survived a discussion such as this). - Seasider53 (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing up other articles is not a proper defense. Wikipedia does not create notability. --ARose Wolf 16:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources that give the article the most coverage are its own website [2], [3], [4] and [5]. The one media source which gives the subject any in-depth coverage of any kind is the Portland Press Herald, [6] and [7]. The rest are mentions and mentions, no matter how many there are, will never amount to notability. What makes the subject any different than any other brewery? What sets it apart? Is there in-depth coverage in any other sources not contained in the article? The answer to the last question is no. I've completed a WP:BEFORE and find no evidence this company is more or less notable than any other brewery and no SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. --ARose Wolf 16:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a business, so the applicable standard is WP:NCORP. That guideline states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Barring some sort of coverage in the regional or national press, 100 local stories won't save the article. Since all I can find it the latter, the subject is not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Hesketh

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

There are sources for the namesake circuit, not so much for him. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - Searching for sources is impeded by a lot of false positives but there's enough to suggest suitable sources may be available to those who can access them. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMOTORSPORT as a pre-WWII professional driver. The article needs more citations but the subject is clearly notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge He's already covered in the Roy Hesketh Circuit article and there's little more in this article (or in search/books) to justify it as a standalone. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dismukes

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. All RS relate specifically to his 2020 hiring as a supporting cast member on the U.S. television serial "Saturday Night Live" and are BLP 1E. Other references like earnthenecklace.com and capcitycomedy.com are not RS. He was a group nominee for an Emmy; while being nominated for an Emmy might infer notability, being part of a group of 82 people nominated (and not winning) one does not. A WP:BEFORE on newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR returns many results but entirely in non-RS or in RS offering only fleeting mentions such as episode credits during his handful of SNL appearances. May be WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure BLP1E applies to someone on a recurring TV show, which is not a single event. It's not clear to me whether Dismukes meets WP:ENTERTAINER but I do think we're likely to see more coverage of him after tonight's show, e.g. [1]. I did reach out to them to see if we could get a photo donated after they pointed it out on tonight's show so I don't plan on casting a vote. Legoktm (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I know he writes and performs on SNL, an iconic sketch comedy show, but is this nomination a joke??! The very night he complains on his national television show that his article doesn't have a photo, suddenly that article gets nominated for deletion?! Obviously, someone was watching. Or is this just an attempt to get the article mentioned on national television again next week?!! Seriously, even a cursory Google search of his name under the News, lists articles featuring his name (within the last hour at the time of this writing alone), in Paste Magazine, USA Today, Entertainment Weekly and Deadline; and within the last week on MarketWatch, Consequence, New York Post, IndieWire, Vanity Fair, Daily Mail, The Globe and Mail and OK Magazine. Others recently include Yahoo News and US Weekly. That alone passes WP:BASIC and is indeed WP:GNG. Another commenter already correctly noted that WP:BLP1E applies to a single event, not a recurring tv show. Curiously, even the nominator notes that he was nominated for a Primetime Emmy. However, he was actually nominated for 2 Primetime Emmys: in both 2018 and 2019; as well as 2 Writers Guild Award nominations in 2019 and 2020. He also won a Special Jury Award at the Florida Film Festival for the short film "Call Me Brother" in 2018. Those honors certainly qualify under WP:ANYBIO and easily pass WP:ARTIST and WP:NACTOR, as does the fact that his article had to be semi-protected immediately following his televised comments. Subject has been a writer on SNL since 2018 and been a cast member in over two dozen episodes since 2020. He also continues to perform as an actor and stand-up comic in his own right. I could go on, but in the history of AfD's this one is easily the biggest no-brainer yet. Comedy itself is harder than this! Who are we trying to cancel next, Liz Cheney?! X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"certainly qualify under WP:ANYBIO and easily pass WP:ARTIST and WP:NACTOR" I'm sure the Florida Film Festival is a fun event, but I hardly think winning an award at it constitutes a "significant cultural monument" as prescribed by the inherent notability standards you cited. Chetsford (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This article needs cleanup, not deletion. And the fact that he has been nominated for four awards (two Emmys, two Writers Guild) shows that he is clearly notable. Additionally, I don’t think one can consider his casting on SNL as a single event since it is a recurring show watched by millions. It’s not like he was hired for a one-off comedy special nor is it like he only made one appearance on the show. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"And the fact that he has been nominated for four awards (two Emmys, two Writers Guild) shows that he is clearly notable." At the risk of sounding redundant, this - like many of the arguments here - is not an argument based in our policy as it exists today. (Aside from the fact that saying he was "nominated for an Emmy" when he was part of an 82-person group nomination is a little disingenuous.) Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He's a cast member and writer on SNL, and he's been nominated for various awards, including two Emmys. It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. Modern184 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"He's a cast member and writer on SNL" We don't currently have a policy that says cast members of SNL get Wikipedia articles for no other reason than they're a cast member on SNL. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 16.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:GNG. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. While all of those are about him joining the cast, he continues to get coverage for being a cast member, particularly because he wasn't thrilled about the Elon Musk thing. Not the best nom. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles you cited are from the same month and are coverage of his hiring, therefore, are covered by WP:BLP1E in the absence of any other in-depth coverage. I keep hearing that he's continuing to get coverage but, thus far, have seen no examples of said coverage beyond fleeting mentions in cast lists and episode summaries. When I ask for examples of all this in-depth coverage I'm met with an exasperated declaration "but he's a cast member of SNL!" Notability must be demonstrated, not simply decreed. Not the best !vote. Chetsford (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every episode gets media coverage, so he gets discussed whenever he appears. See recaps like [13]. WP:BLP1E also has three elements, of which the second is: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Clearly not the case here. Also, if showing GNG is a bad vote, then I'm happy if all my !votes are bad. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Saturday Night Live is the crown jewel of American comedy. Any cast member becomes notable just for being a member of that elite show. I therefore think that any person chosen to be a cast member on SNL satisfies criteria #3 of WP:ENTERTAINER (a unique contribution to a field of entertainment). Banana Republic (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Saturday Night Live is the crown jewel of American comedy. Any cast member becomes notable just for being a member of that elite show." This is not an argument based in our policy. As said repeatedly, we don't currently have a policy that says cast members of SNL get Wikipedia articles for no other reason than they're a cast member on SNL. Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt at cherrypicking. Read the entire !vote. It is the basis for why I think he satisfies criteria #3 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Banana Republic (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #3 is that the entertainer "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Do you have an RS to support the idea that an actor who has appeared in a handful of minor roles on SNL in the last two months has, therefore, "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment?" Even the inherent notability criteria require demonstration in RS, not merely declaration as a matter of personal approval of the BLP's performing ability. Chetsford (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for all above reasons. Sure, the article looks like a stub at first sight, but deleting it isn't the answer, active upkeep of the article is. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Closer: If the !voting were to end right now I would call this no consensus on the basis that no reasonable policy-based arguments to Keep have been advanced. For now, to avoid WP:DEADHORSEing this AfD, I'm going to unwatchlist it and stop replying as it doesn't seem likely any arguments other than "he's a cast member of SNL" or "he was part of a group that was nominated for an Emmy" are going to be proffered or are even possible. But please imagine I'm still in this AfD and am responding "this is not a policy based reason to Keep" to all subsequent iterations of this argument. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the notion that "no reasonable policy-based arguments to Keep have been advanced". Just because you don't agree with those arguments does not mean that they were not presented. Banana Republic (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There's no way you're to get a delete or redirect result on this...the subject is obviously notable as a cast member and writer on a very popular TV series and a deletion review re-open wasn't needed. No amount of 'but this (WP:)!' is going to change anyone's mind at this point. Nate • (chatter) 19:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Dismukes is notable because he's a cast member on this venerable American show. There is no reasonable argument for Dismukes not being notable. He's a cast member and a writer on this sketch show, the amount of time he does or does not spend on screen has nothing to do with his notability. Jessamyn (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK I'll bite, these are RS that I think support his notability. Stubs have been written about people with less. Jessamyn (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paste Magazine - establishes that he's been a writer on SNL for "a few years" and also goes on about his talent in the most recent show.

Emmy nomination - sure he's one of 30-ish writers but that's the nature of this show.

Texas Monthly - establishes more facts about Dismukes

Austin Statesman - numerous mentions about what he was up to in college

NBC.com - more facts about him

Fort Worth Star Telegram - short Texas-local article about when he was hired

Snow keep. Is this a joke? Ample coverage exists for GNG. This looks like we are punishing him for mentioning that he didn't have a photo on his article on SNL. gobonobo ^c 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to take this ill advised AfD nomination out of its misery, but was severely chastised for it, even though the reviewers did not necessarily approve of the wisdom of this nomination. This disruptive AfD will therefore have to stay open for an entire week.

Ironically, Wikipedia claims to not be a bureaucracy. As my experience shows, this is obviously just a motto, not reality.

Banana Republic (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This seems silly. There is only one SNL cast member in the history of the show who doesn't have their own page, and that is featured player Dan Vitale, who was on the show for only three episodes in 1985. Dismukes has been a writer for several seasons, during which the show was nominated for an Emmy, and is now a featured player who has already been in more than three episodes. Yes, I'm partially making an argument from "What about article x?", which is not entirely professional, but the fact that a deletion page was created for this article the morning after Dismukes mentioned his Wikipedia article on Weekend Update has made the whole discussion unprofessional. JaneOstensible (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep almost every SNL actor has a Wikipedia article, especially ones who also write on the show for 3 seasons. Clearly notable. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I was so astonished that this page is marked for deletion that I went to the trouble to figure out how to add my comments here. Sorry if I did it wrong, but of course he deserves an article. I know the rules say to assume the person who flagged this article for deletion acted in good faith, but I'm finding it difficult to extend the benefit of the doubt here. I believe this person either is a troll or doesn't know much about U.S. television. A quick Google search turns up plenty of media coverage, for example, the article I've cited here.

[14]2601:244:8400:8640:3016:8D5B:1B8D:EF1A (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is actually a system admin on Wikipedia. Banana Republic (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep are per everybody else. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arif Habib Corporation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Fertilizer Company

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a public limited company passes GNG. DJRSD (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJRSD, A public limited company ≠ GNG. No idea where you are getting such notion. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it is a Karachi Stock Exchange listed and traded company with significant market share in this industry, it is important to keep the entry. There are enough references to show that the article is rich in substance. --Crosji (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crosji The references are primary sources. Please put the alleged references here that you think help qualify notability so that they can be a part of discussion. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent company, Arif Habib Corporation. Deb (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article had somewhat unclear reference formats. Actually, 5 out of 6 existing references are from third party independent newspapers and business websites – not primary sources. Have improved the article by fixing the formats of existing references. This fertilizer company is the third largest company in its field in Pakistan. For the company to be traded on the Pakistan Stock Exchange, it has to be fairly large. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Analysing all sources for ease of discussion (also a counter to all the raining keeps):

[15] Routine stock related information. [16] Stocks again. Some more info on ups and downs on revenue but such sources don't contribute to WP:GNG. [17] - Broken when I opened. [18] A research paper that mentions the subject only twice. [19] Some case study of sorts. Seems like a primary source. [20] Standard company reports.[21] Something from their own website. [22] Some case study of sorts again. Primary. Hope this helps. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect to Arif Habib Corporation. All I could find were press releases outside of one feature article here. This company does not meet WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This above 'feature article' found by Missvain makes it TWO feature articles by the largest independent business newspaper of Pakistan, Business Recorder, on the above Fatima Fertilizer Company. Besides them, there are existing references on the company by two other major newspapers – The News International and The Nation newspaper. Total of 9 references for a company stub article. This should be enough? This company has been trading separately on its own for years on the Pakistan Stock Exchange already, I feel it deserves its own article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shravan Kummar

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

Blatant Advertisement. Unable to satisfy notability. DJRSD (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concurring with the nominator. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur. The article is blatantly promotional.TH1980 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Lennart97 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Krawczyk

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. I can't find any significant coverage of her, or of her only novel. The current sources (her publisher's website and a blog) aren't nearly sufficient. Lennart97 (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only review is a blog. fails WP:GNG and, as per nom, NAUTHOR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her novel has been reviewed in Wukali, which appears to be a reliable source, and by RTBF which is definitely a reliable source. It also appears to have been shortlisted for the Prix de la Closerie des Lilas[23]. pburka (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- These seem to be decent sources, but I do think two sources is still pretty thin overall, especially for a biography when the sources are both book reviews; neither provides any biographical information about the author. Lennart97 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're sufficient to demonstrate notability of her book (and there seem to be more, but my French is rusty and I didn't feel like sorting through more hits). We could rename the article to Avant elle, however I prefer articles about authors over articles about their books: see Sole authors of notable books for my rationale. pburka (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand. But as it stands, we have exactly zero reliably sourced biographical information on the author, and without that, we can't have a BLP, I think. I do see that the book passes NBOOK, so an article about Avant elle is possible, although it's not unlikely that article would, as you describe it, languish as stub-class article indefinitely :) Lennart97 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Other sources are available to support a brief biography. These aren't sufficiently independent to support notability, but I think they're acceptable for sourcing non-controversial biographical facts: "Contributors" in Aesthetics and Ideology in Contemporary Literature and Drama, "Présentation des auteurs" at Université de la Réunion, her doctoral thesis, and her publisher's website. pburka (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your work on the article. I'm happy to withdraw my nomination at this point, if Alexandermcnabb agrees. Lennart97 (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine by me Lennart97... :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

2020 ABS-CBN Christmas Special

The result was Procedural speedy close. This is a redirect, so AFD is not the right place for this. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the same as Ikaw ang Liwanag at Ligaya: The 2020 ABS-CBN Christmas Special, other ABS-CBN Christmas Special articles are not created. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here you go again. AfD isn't the right venue for redirects. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HueMan1: Oh!, Can you tell me where redirect articles that will be deletion debated should be? Sorry I didn't know. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it as it is. Read the entire section of WP:R#CRD. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 13:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 13:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 13:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep that is a redirect; it should be nominated at WP:RFD and AfD isn't the right venue for redirects. This redirect is mentioned in article, like the ones of Kapuso Countdown to 2021: The GMA New Year Special, Countdown to 2016: The GMA New Year Special, 2018 GMA New Year Countdown: Buong Puso Para sa Kapuso, etc. Based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 ABS-CBN Christmas Special (resulted in "Redirect"), I find it highly unlikely that there would be deleted, as those redirects of GMA countdowns are mentioned in List of GMA Network specials aired, and sourced if appropriate. Chompy Ace 13:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ikaw ang Liwanag at Ligaya: The 2020 ABS-CBN Christmas Special

The result was Procedural speedy close. This is a redirect, so AFD is not the right place for this. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article creation failed here in Wikipedia. Other ABS-CBN Christmas Station Articles here in Wikipedia are not created. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 13:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 13:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 13:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep that is a redirect; it should be nominated at WP:RFD and AfD isn't the right venue for redirects. This redirect is mentioned in article, like the ones of Kapuso Countdown to 2021: The GMA New Year Special, Countdown to 2016: The GMA New Year Special, 2018 GMA New Year Countdown: Buong Puso Para sa Kapuso, etc. Based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 ABS-CBN Christmas Special (resulted in "Redirect"), I find it highly unlikely that there would be deleted, as those redirects of GMA countdowns are mentioned in List of GMA Network specials aired, and sourced if appropriate. Chompy Ace 13:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Laïla Tittley

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

Fails W:GNG; WP:NARTIST; WP:NORG. Passing mentions in media, articles promoting retail location or exhibitions only. No claim of significance or influence. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's enough coverage provided in the article. Some examples:
- "Pony, born Gabrielle Laïla Tittley, was born in Quebec City but lived quite the nomadic lifestyle. She bounced around from Newfoundland to Outaouais and Buckingham, Quebec in her formative years before finally moving to Montreal. She gained a steady following over the past half decade with her artwork, which is just as colourful and hilarious as it is rich in substance. Pony explores topics such as drugs, existentialism and mental health through accessible figures. Rappers, philosophers and Quebec celebrities are among some of her most prominent subjects." CultMtl,
- "« C’est drôle que tu parles de Parts Unknow, parce que c’est l’émission sur laquelle je trippe le plus », lance Gabrielle Laïla Tittley, artiste visuelle et hôte de Résiste !, nouveau magazine culturel de TV5, quelque part entre l’enthousiasme expansif de Mange ta ville et l’œuvre d’inapaisable curiosité du défunt chef new-yorkais." Le Devoir,
- "l’artiste montréalaise Pony a choisi de s’y installer. Dans sa toute première boutique permanente, ses illustrations aux couleurs vives font oublier un peu le bruit des travaux et la grisaille de la pandémie. Après plusieurs boutiques éphémères, Gabrielle Laïla Tittley, plus connue sous le nom de Pony, s’est décidée à jeter l’ancre. Elle a ainsi ouvert sa boutique permanente sur la rue Saint-Hubert au début du mois." Journal Metro.

The exhibition at Phi, which is one of the most prestigious galleries in Montreal, is indicative of serious recognition. They show a lot of heavyweight artists.--- Possibly (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An artist like Pony does not fit neatly into artworld genres. I had not heard of her before this AfD, however based on Possibly's comments above, and a BEFORE search, I think she clearly meets WP:GNG but not NARTIST yet. The article should be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 13:33, 9 May 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) 07:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. There are plenty of English and French reliable secondary sources in Canada. She's also been featured on Vice. Missvain (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baháʼu'lláh's family. Missvain (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aghsán

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

Not a notable topic. "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." - Fails WP:NN Serv181920 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge anything of value into Baháʼu'lláh's family. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep, this is notable enough that Iranica mentions it: "Afnān is paralleled by the use of the term Aḡṣān to designate the descendents of Bahāʾallāh" ([24]). Other academic sources also cover the term, e.g. [25], [26], and [27]. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge seems to be the only solution. Above mentions seems to be trivial. I could not check all the sources but the last link, this, https://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/vol1/nahl2.htm has only one mention. This is not enough for a standalone article.Serv181920 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 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) 07:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moideen Koya

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

Non notable actor/media executive. Has acted in some blink and you miss roles and has no references indicating any of his roles were notable. The rest of the references are from his own site or press releases in which he was mentioned in his role as an executive. The article has been made by a single purpose user, and has mainly been edited only by them. Jupitus Smart 07:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the creator of the page. The lack of references and sources are disappointing. The mentioned personality is notable not just for the minor appearances in movies. Moideen Koya is a household name to many Indians living in the U.A.E. If I could find newspapers from the past three decades, I can easily provide thousands of references. But on online media, there aren't much references available. Kindly provide clear guidance as to how I can provide proof about the notabality of the concerned personality in this case. Moideen Koya is the founder of the then most popular Malayalam radio in the U.A.E. There won't be any references about this in today's media since the ones who took over the radio later have tried their best to hide the fact. Moideen Koya's fame comes from the services and contributions he has made to the Indian community in the U.A.E, which he never wished to publish or make news of. That is the reason there aren't enough references about Moideen Koya. The single purpose user, in this case, decided to create an account because not having such a personality on Wikipedia severely questions the credibility of Wikipedia's inclusion of personalities outside of the western world. A random survey among the Indians in U.A.E will give a clear idea as to how notable Moideen Koya is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubhasrk (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubhasrk:Since you or I would be unable to conduct a survey among Indians in UAE and publish the results, I would suggest scouting for online/offline references in any language from any major publication that talks in depth about the said personality, and that would be enough to establish notablity. I would also request you to indicate any conflict of interest you may have as it seems evident that you know the person closely. Jupitus Smart 16:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Jupitus Smart. Tip to creator - even regional language sources would work. I agree it can be difficult when most of the sources have been in print. But in such cases, there is always something or the other in archives or google books etc. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Milo

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

Unlike his more notable compatriot, Bernard Greenberg, there is not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not entirely sure here. There's this, for starters and a significant body of published papers. Arabic and the Arab world tend to get under-covered in Western media, and Arabic typography is getting pretty esoteric, but we have this paper here that mentions him in context of Decotype and Egypt Today is RS and starts to squeak him into the room here. Now we add the Times of Oman and a piece that is non-trivial (just) and we're getting closer. I agree his notability is marginal, but he's influential and respected in his field. Now we add Arabic sources such as Atheer and Alaraby (not my favourite source, mind) here and you're starting to get close to a reasonable case. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks more like a case of WP:BLP1E here since all coverage is about the digital quran and nothing much else about his scholarship. He fails WP:NPROF pretty clearly with almost no citations to his papers. --hroest 00:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Milo created the World's first interactive online Quran. Milo mentions Wikipedia in the 2nd paragraph of the .svg article. I think he is interesting because he is the link between القرآن >> Koran >> al-Qurʼān. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:35, 15 May 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) 07:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Everything I could find is a passing mention for his work with Arabic font. I don't see anything that qualifies him under WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Missvain (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage consists of WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Reid (baseball)

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

Fails WP:NBASE. Never played in a major league and no references to indicate that his career was notable enough to meet WP:BASIC. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

~~Delete, I'm afraid. I'd like to keep if possible, but I'm not seeing it as possible.~~ Keep {changed my vote per arguments below]18:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC) We do have articles on minor league players sometime, IF they're remarkable in some way. Happy Hogan had a long career and is in the Pacific Coast League Hall of Fame. Steve Dalkowski was maybe the fastest pitcher ever. Brien Taylor was a #1 overall pick who flamed out. So let's see... Jackie Reid won 277 games, which is a whole honkin' lot of wins.

So, in Reid's day, the minor leagues were very much different. They were independent, they existed to win championships and make money rather than develop players, they were important to their cities, and they had some pretty good players. Their players were below major league calibre generally, but having a career as a minor leaguer was fine -- you weren't playing to get "called up", you were playing to win championships and batting titles and make a living and hopefully get raises. Some of these players could have been good players in the majors. Think of the minor leagues back then as like top-level college football. Iowa and Michigan and Nebraska and Alabama aren't NFL level, but they're independent and very notable. The Texas League and the American Association and the International League (all of which Reid played in), think of them like the Big 10 or something.

Yes the minor leauges played in smaller cities. But I mean Nashville and Oklahoma City and Dallas and Atlanta (places Reid played) are still pretty big. Reid played in Class A a fair amount. There was no AAA in his time, but there was AA. Reid played AA for a couple teams, Baltimore and Toledo (but not much), and more time in A1 which was just a step below AA but higher than A. From 1936, when A1 was created, Reid pitched all his games in A1 (except a handful in AA and C). 271 wins... three 20 win seasons and a couple of 18's... he is the second oldest player in Texas League history...

I'm not worried about the lack of biographical details, if he actually is notable for his 271 wins... the Nashville papers etc. probably have info on him which we can't access right now. He is in the Encyclopedia of Minor League Baseball (altho probably just bare listings).

BUT the problem is Reid didn't play in AA very much -- 17 games, 5-5, 4.85 ERA... That makes him a pretty hard sell. Lifetime AA player with 271 wins, yes. Lifetime player below AA level with 271 wins... not too sure about that. Herostratus (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT... well since there's actually useful info enough to make an actual decent small article about him, that's different, so now I'm thinking Keep. On the one hand, players below (what is now) AAA level... that is getting down into the weeds a a bit. On the other hand "250 wins at A or above" is a reasonable standard. There aren't very many people who meet it I don't think. But if there's a bio in the Fort Worth papers (can't access it right now), yes, that's enough to hang an article on. Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won almost 300 games in the minors over a very long career that included stops in some big cities, during an era when baseball was enormously popular. Sources might not be online but they surely exist. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor leaguers have to be notable for reasons beyond being minor leaguers, and after a newspapers.com search Reid appears to fit into that mold. This article from the Sunday Fort Worth newspaper is quite the profile, especially for a player of the time, and also [28]. This is an Associated Press article talking about Reid's 22nd season. I thought I'd be a delete coming into this, but it appears he's an exception. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 11 May 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) 07:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SportingFlyer's 2 sources already meet the lowest bar of GNG, but given that they are 80 years old and newspapers.com hardly comes close to having all the newspapers and sources that were available back then there is surely more. Rlendog (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of those types of articles. Most are local, but I wanted to demonstrate the fact he received non-local coverage, and the fact his local coverage was front-page fare. SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Improv aRts

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

Cannot find sources online that would demonstrate notability for said record label. nearlyevil 665 18:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:nearlyevil665: There is an article on Asian Improv aRts in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, published by Oxford University Press. Grove is the most important encyclopedia in music studies. Yes, I know the page is currently a stub, but this is a really important company that helped to launch the careers of Jen Shyu, Vijay Iyer, Miya Masaoka and others. Msumeric (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:nearlyevil665: I want to second Msumeric's comments. The label is a significant one for jazz history and Asian American history. Beyond the Grove encyclopedia article, there are a number of scholarly articles on the label's artists, including those mentioned by Msumeric, so there is plenty of evidence to support the label's importance.

Note: This second unsigned comment is from POIpoke00, whose first and only edits were made today for two pages, namely Jon Jang and Francis Wong, both of which are the co-founders of Asian Improv aRts. I am assuming good faith and not implying sockpuppetry, but I thought it would be meaningful to make this observation. nearlyevil 665 20:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 9 May 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) 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I added a source from the SF Examiner. It seems they are more of an arts sponsoring org than a record label now, and there is an affiliated group in Chicago (AIR Midwest). Hard to find sources other than mentions as sponsors/organizers of events, though. But I think it could be edited and improved by someone with subject knowledge so that it meets WP:ORG. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with addition of the SF Examiner, which includes only a passing mention of the label itself, I don't think there is enough here to establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 07:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deception Point

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

Recreation of page previously closed as redirect from AfD, without addressing notability concerns and seemingly having copyvio issues, 17jiangz1 (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Journals:
  1. Francisco Junior, Wilmo Ernesto; Andrade, Danilo Rosa; da Silva Mesquita, Nyuara Araújo (2015-02-01). "Views about scientists and scientific work in the novel Deception Point by Dan Brown: possibilities to insert History and Philosophy of Science elements". Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física. 32 (1). Federal University of Santa Catarina. doi:10.5007/2175-7941.2014v32n1p76. ISSN 1677-2334. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Directory of Open Access Journals.
    The abstract notes: "Considering the influence of literature on people lives, this study investigates elements concerning views about scientists and scientific work presented in Deception Point, a novel by Dan Brown. Multiple aspects to represent the scientist figure, life and work, emerge from the novel and problematize characteristics that can be considered as a common sense view, or others perspectives based on more contemporaneous philosophical thoughts on science. Reading and analyzing this novel could be an interesting opportunity to insert elements of history and philosophy of science under different focus. This study discusses some elements, from excerpts of the novel, which may become possibilities for debates in Science classes at schools, and in teacher education."
  2. Mandasari, Liannisa; Nababan, M. R.; Djatmika, Djatmika (2019-05-01). "The Acceptability of Predicting Utterances in Deception Point Novel". International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding. 6 (2). doi:10.18415/ijmmu.v6i2.649. ISSN 2364-5369. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Directory of Open Access Journals.
    The abstract notes: "The purpose of this study is to find the type of predicting and the quality of translation on the acceptability aspect. This research can be classified as a descriptive qualitative research with an embeded study and translation of product-oriented. The source of the data in this study is novel in English, entitled Deception Point and its translation in Bahasa. The data were collected through document analysis, questionnaire and focus group discussion. The data was sentence that contains predicting utterances. From the data collected in the novel Deception Point, there were 87 data."
2. Magazines:
  1. "Deception Point". Kirkus Reviews. Vol. 69, no. 17. 2001-09-01. p. 1232. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Gale.
    The review notes: "A mostly tedious third technothriller from the author of Angels and Demons (2000), etc. ... Although Brown is a more astute storyteller than most of his brethren in the technothriller vein, and he won't lose any fans this time out, he's never able to convincingly many the technical and the human sides of Deception Point."
  2. Ayers, Jeff (2001-10-01). "Deception Point". Library Journal. Vol. 126, no. 16. p. 139. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Gale.
    The review notes: "He has skillfully blended his own wit and style with the rip-roaring adventure of Cussler and the modern technology of Clancy. Highly recommended for all public libraries."
  3. Pitt, David (2001-09-15). "Deception Point". Booklist. Vol. 98, no. 2. p. 198. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Gale.
    The review notes: "The phrase mixed bag was probably invented to describe novels like this one. It has characters that range from inventive to wooden, dialogue that bounces between evocative and cliched, a narrative structure that is sometimes serpentine and sometimes childishly simple, and a plot that lies somewhere between bold and ridiculous."
  4. "Deception Point". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 248, no. 37. 2001-09-10. p. 1232. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Gale.
    The review notes: "Brown (Angels & Demons) moves into new territory with his latest. It's an excellent thriller -- a big yet believable story unfolding at breakneck pace, with convincing settings and just the right blend of likable and hateful characters."
  5. Carlson, Joseph L. (2005-06-01). "Brown, Dan. Deception Point". Library Journal. Vol. 130, no. 10. p. 186. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Gale.
    The review notes: "There's intrigue aplenty, both in the Arctic and in Washington, and Brown (The Da Vinci Code) does not disappoint with this genuine page-turner. Reader Richard Poe excellently captures the tension, suspense, and terror with his well-modulated voice."
  6. Duncan, Marty (February 2005). "Deception Point". Reviewer's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Gale.
    The review notes: "Deception Point has all of the scientific gadgets that any reader could possibly want: ... Pull your comforter around you. You will enjoy the deception and the twists and even the final little slight of hand (in plain view of 30 cameras)."
  7. "First and last and always: Dan Brown's original thriller becomes the fourth of his books to sell a million". The Bookseller. No. 5190. 2005-08-05. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Gale.
    The article discusses sales of Deception Point and other Dan Brown novels.
3. Newspapers:
  1. Uddin, Nasir (2006-01-16). "Dan Brown brings sci-fi to life in 'Deception Point'". Burlington County Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
    The review notes: "Yet another successful book by Dan Brown, whose genius is in making sci-fi come to life with facts, research and basically, making readers feel as though they are there, is an exciting thriller."
  2. Sparks, Jon W. (2003-12-14). "'Deception Point' Paints Picture but It's No 'Da Vinci'". The Commercial Appeal. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
    The review notes: "Boyd Gaines, a familiar voice to audio listeners, could be said to overdo it somewhat, but then, this story calls for just such a treatment."
  3. Cogdill, Oline H. (2004-07-07). "Brown's Work May Be Trite, but, Boy, Is It Fun". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
    The review notes: "The next step is to reissue these novels on audio. "Deception Point" and "Digital Fortress" illustrate why readers may not have discovered Brown before. Both are serviceable, interesting thrillers with good plots that burst at the seams with cliched writing, stock characters and predictable dialogue."
  4. Bagga, Bhuvan (2005-08-27). "Book of the Week: Deception Point". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
    The review notes: "With his writing, Brown has blended his own wit and style to this real life. Definitely a must read for everyone, not just da vinci fans."
  5. ""Deception Point" by Dan Brown; Pocket Books; cloth; 373 pages; $25". The Telegraph. 2001-11-11. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
    The review notes: "There are plenty of surprises, and boatloads of deception in "Deception Point," but in the end, it all makes a terrible kind of sense. If "Deception Point" isn't on the fast train to bestseller city, I'll . . . I'll swim with hammerheads. Maybe."
  6. Wineke, William (2001-12-02). "'Deception Point' a Good Thriller". Wisconsin State Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
    The review notes: "Dan Brown's "Deception Point" (Pocket Books: $25) works on all stages. It's a good political story, a good love story and a good thriller. ... The writing isn't great. The writing in this kind of book is rarely great. But the story moves in surprising ways and keeps the reader's attention until the end."
  7. Davidson, Dan (2003-11-28). "Techno-thriller Deception Point would make a gripping movie". Whitehorse Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Newspapers.com.
    The review notes: "Deception Point would make quite an exciting movie. It's got the White House, a shootout on a glacier, a submarine, a frantic aircraft ride or two, a climax on a sinking boat, and a nice twist at a press conference to hold everyone's interest."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deception Point to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed the copyright violation that had been added here in May 2020. I restored content from the 00:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC) version of the article. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not all of Cunard's sources are good, but some are, plus there is more in Google Scholar: [29], although in all honesty that seems like low-quality scholarship coming from India (theses, poorly-indexed journals some of which even openly describe themselves as student journals and have format and quality closer to a blog than any serious academic work [30], etc.). So I am concerned that there is much more smoke then fire here, but cobbled together this is probably notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as meets book notability. Great work by Cunard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondRemley39 (talk • contribs) 23:35, May 18, 2021 (UTC)
Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above all. -Hatchens (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BattleTech games. czar 05:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Succession Wars

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

It actually pains me to AfD this as I'd very much like to instead rescue this (I am a fan of BTech and I actually own this very game, which I think is a relatively rare collectible evoking the "oh, cool" feeling from anyone familiar with this, a bit like the Dune (board game)). I tried to expand this for a DYK, but failed to find any reliable discussion of this. No reviews, no media buzz about it being cool, nothing. I asked User_talk:Guinness323#The_Succession_Wars who has shown a flair for finding sources in this context, but he drew a blank as well, ditto for User_talk:BOZ#The_Succession_Wars. As things stand, it appears this game fails WP:GNG and at best may merit a redirect to List of BattleTech games, but I'd very much like to be proven wrong here. PS. Current sources include a sentence-long mention in the SF Encyclopedia ([31], fails WP:SIGCOV) and a review [32] from a fanpage ("Site created and maintained by Terren Bruce. This page is simply a fan created site which is in no way affiliated or endorsed by Fasa Corporation.") so a WP:SPS-fail. A while ago there were rumors of a reprint but it seems the idea was shelved and generated no media coverage, even the cited press release(?) didn't make it to the Internet Archive ([33]). The idea was also suggested a bit earlier, but again it didn't get any traction outside of the official blog post: [34] that I can find. Other than that, all we get are a few mentions in passing like in the SF Encyclopedia, confirming that the game exists, but no SIGCOV: [35], PPS. Here's the fan wiki page about this, it does not have anything useful outside noting the name of the German edition ([36]), which I assume Guinness323 already accounted for. PPPS. It doesn't help that the name of the game is a generic, in-universe at least - we get a bunch of google hits, but they tend to be about the fictional history event much more than about the game ([37]). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination openly states that it doesn't want to delete the article. Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, AfD is not the right place to request help developing an article. 99% of Wikipedia's articles are imperfect and AfD is just for those which are hopeless. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found (and courtesy pinging @Guinness323: for clarification on any questions above), otherwise merge to BattleTech or List of BattleTech games per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article or list as above. Without sources establishing independent notability, this cannot meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of BattleTech games - It doesn't look like there is anything currently that would need to be merged to that page, but anything that I'm missing in that regards can be done so from the history. I was also unable to find any additional sources on the game from searches outside of the passing mentions noted in the nominiation. The official blog post mentioning the possibility of a reprint was eight years ago, so it seems very likely that idea will never come to fruition, but if it someday does, and that reprint gains proper coverage, this can always be spun back out then. Rorshacma (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can confirm that I have been unable to find RS yet for this article. I have been thumbing through my collection of various magazines from the late 80s, looking for reviews, etc., no luck yet. Searches on the interwebs likewise fruitless to date. Guinness323 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in lieu of a valid argument for the article to be kept. The most fervent keep vote here is laughable and borders on obfuscation, but more importantly, sources are required by WP:SIGCOV. So far, it has not been claimed or substantiated by anyone that reliable third party coverage exists. A quick glance at Google doesn't pull up anything substantial either. Dark knight 2149 06:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of BattleTech games: as pref. Alternative for deletion, argumentation per nom CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Avagama

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

No reliable sources to meet notability. Fails WP:GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Good work Powerful Karma. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhorse, West Virginia

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

I can find a few scattered passing mentions about this, but I'm not convinced they rise up to being notable. Not in Hamill Kenny's book of WV place names. Newspapers.com brings up two things for this, both from the 1880s: a drunk person falling into the river and drowning at Blackhorse landing, and some railroad work going on near "the Blackhorse works". This says Black Horse was a log house used as a tavern and ferry, and that the site was by then a brickworks. The other mentions in that book appear to be passing mentions to the brickworks. Not in this county history book under either "Blackhorse" or "Black Horse". I can only get a tiny snippet of this, but it also seems to be referring to a tavern that became a brickworks. Evidently an old railroad feature there, as it appears in a listing directory. Passing mention here, stating that it was a brickworks in New Cumberland, West Virginia. Found several other references to the brickworks, but none seem to be too in-depth.

It's possible that others can find significant coverage for what is apparently an old brickworks (likely easier know that the true nature of this site has been determined), but I'm not convinced of notability here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hog Farm has put at least 20 times more time researching this than the spammer who mass-created it with false content, no reason to waste anyone else's. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to a 2007 Ohio River Guidebook it was the site of The Black Horse Tavern in 1814. According to the 1963 History of Hancock County: Virginia and West Virginia by Jack Welch and a 1901 issue of Clay Record, it was then the site of The Black Horse Works founded in 1844 by James and William Porter, who sold it to the American Sewer Pipe Company in 1889. The ASPC plant and this history was also recorded in the 1905 West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, which is in turn referenced by the 1909 History of the Clay-working Industry in the United States. It's a bit thin for a standalone article, because (except for some minor partership changes from an 1879 History of the Pan-handle) I cannot get past the 2 sentences that I just wrote here. I cannot find a way to expand via the companies or the Porters. This is made especially difficult because there were multiple companies by this and the name the American Clay Manufacturing Company, and they had a trademark dispute. No-one has really pieced together the history for us. I do not see a way to refactor this into a stub with scope for expansion beyond those 2 sentences. Uncle G (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chirinuruwowaka#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiro Ana

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

The recording fails WP:NALBUMS- there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, no reviews in published sources (just routine coverage such as this one). The album did not chart on any country's national music charts, or receive any certifications, or major accolades. I cannot see any reason for a standalone article since there is no evidence of notability and there is not enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Ashley yoursmile! 16:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 16:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 16:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant find anything in Google news and they have no citations. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chirinuruwowaka. While there does not appear to be enough coverage to support an independent article, it may be helpful to keep this as a redirect since a clear target article exists and this may be beneficial for anyone who is looking for information on this album or the band in general. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chirinuruwowaka. This fails WP:GNG and WP:ALBUM. Missvain (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Connexions: An International Women's Quarterly

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

Obscure NN periodical, fails the GNG. Of the two sources listed that aren't primary, one is a namedrop, and the other just an archive of back issues. No substantive coverage of the subject found. Article created by an editor with quite a few such articles on periodicals lacking sourcing or notability, several of which already have been forcibly removed to draftspace, deleted or are at AfD/prod. Ravenswing 04:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I struggled to find any sourcing to support GNG and inclusion as a notable journal. Missvain (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, more or less WP:SNOW per WP:SPECIES. BD2412 T 04:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fusinus amadeus

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

Still has an infobox and a single sentence after eleven years. DarklitShadow (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. DarklitShadow (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. DarklitShadow (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Species are automatically notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NSPECIES; species are currently considered inherently notable. This seems to be a valid species name. Hog Farm _Talk 05:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely the wrong approach to writing Wikipedia. If you see an article that is a stub that hasn't been expanded for eleven years, you should try expanding it yourself. Ironically, this article can be significantly expanded, with Tokubei Kuroda's original name and information about how this species slipped through the cracks for starters, from the very first source cited. Per Project:deletion policy this is keep. Please learn how to find and fix a stub. See also User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do which gives the old direct procedures from deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a species that has existed for millennia, and is notable per NSPECIES. The article should be improved, not deleted.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPECIES. This is snowballing.Cinadon 36 18:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, current consensus is that individual species are inherently notable. The article is not in such a sorry state as to motivate either turning it into a WP:DRAFT pending improvement or deleting it entirely per WP:TNT. TompaDompa (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uyghur cuisine#Breads. Missvain (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamirdin

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

Unverifiable and looks to be non-notable. No serious references since 2009, search results turn up nothing other than information mirrored from Wikipedia. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uyghur cuisine#Breads (with the history preserved under the redirect), where pamirdin is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Here are two sources about the topic:
1. Minahan, James B. (2010). The Complete Guide to National Symbols and Emblems [2 volumes]. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-313-34496-1. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
  In "Food" section in the "East Turkestan" entry, the book notes: "Other specialties include ... pamirdin, baked pastries filled with minced lamb, carrots, and onion".
2. Lin, Eddie (2013-05-15). "This is Food from the Edge of China: Uyghur Cuisine at Silk Road Garden in Rowland Heights". Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
  The article notes: "Silk Road Garden is a restaurant cooking very specialized and otherwise hard-to-find Chinese-Islamic foods like pamirdin (baked pies with lamb and vegetables) and xurpa (lamb soup)."
Cunard (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks delicious and, as pies go, not toooo unhealthy. I was intrigued by a pie that comes from a region of China for which we have been given a translation not in Mandarin but in what looks like Russian. Then I looked at a map and realised that maybe the folks in the XUAR still prefer to communicate in Russian.

The solution for the "keep or delete" discussion depends on whether you think we will ever find someone with enough Russian or Chinese to find sources and build it into a more substantial wiki-entry. There are lots of folks across China, Europe and America who speak both Chinese and English fluently, but I don't know how many of them also take time to contribute to wikipedia. Writing as someone who spends a lot of time eating and even more time thinking about food, I guess that if pressed I would vote for keep in the hope / belief that sooner or later someone will turn up with the necessary language skills to build it into something better. But I agree that if you need to restrict your search to (1) what online google searching produces from here and (2) stuff written in English, there does appear to be a serious shortage of accessible sources. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cunard. It's not helpful to have a one line stub article that is redundant to Uyghur cuisine. Spudlace (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uyghur cuisine#Breads, can find sources to meet WP:V but they are not in-depth enough to need a separate article. Content is already in the other article so no need for merge. Jumpytoo Talk 21:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh Uboweja

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability can't be inherited. I am on the fence for notability of the company as well. Written like an advertisement. Being a visiting fac also doesn't help him qualify WP:Academic. The creator has significant edits to subject's company BOD (consulting firm).Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not merit to have an article of himself. No independent significant coverage from multiple sources thus failing GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I swear, puff pieces in the Times of India will be the Wikipedia death of me, LOL. There are two puff pieces about him and the rest he either isn't mentioned at all or it's a passing mention. Everything else I found sourcing wise is either written by him, or again, is a brief passing mention. I believe this subject fails WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinson Mountain

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

Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng, also per this and this precedent. Geschichte (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is not a correct way to build an encyclopaedia. Notability is not a blanket. One has to look at each subject on its merits. Uncle G (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 10 May 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, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mass-produced Geoland failure. Notability is certainly not a blanket, so articles should be created with care individually from substantive sources, not en masse from passing mentions of place names. Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any sourcing that helps this mountain meet WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rabia'a al-Ossaimi

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

Literally not a single news result for this person. A plain Google result brings only 13 results, one of which is a product listing and the rest of which are automatically generated lists of people (likely scraped from Wikipedia). The single source in the article is a generated profile page on a website; literally the entirety of it is "was born in 1975 in Sana'a, Yemen, where she still lives. She has one poetry collection". Does not pass GNG and there are no sources. jp×g 01:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. jp×g 01:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. jp×g 01:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. jp×g 01:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. jp×g 01:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references found per Nom. Delete, unless someone can dig up Arabic references which may be found acceptable enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. Chirota (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an Arabic search does not bring up RIS to consider. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, lack of significant coverage here with no references, Myconcern (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Marr

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

WP:BLP of a film producer, not making or reliably sourcing any serious claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The only notability claim on offer here is that films he has worked on exist -- the subject also repeatedly self-edits the article to add the advertorialized phrase "His passion for telling great stories has enabled him to work with some of the world’s leading brands and create award-winning content that has been seen all over the world", which isn't a notability claim either and violates our neutral point of view and conflict of interest rules. As always, simply existing is not automatic grounds for a Wikipedia article per se -- he needs to be the subject of a significant volume and depth of reliable source coverage about him, but that hasn't been shown here, and Wikipedia is not a platform for our article subjects to write about or promote themselves advertorially.
Also see our WP:AUTOBIO rules, as yes, the subject did start the article himself. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed a autobio article. Good to see the promotional phrases are removed by nom. The subject of the article also started the article about the film Passenger Side, only where he was an exclusive producer. Producing four movies over two decades that too only being credited as primary or sole producer in a single movie is not making any producer notable. Also, per nom, we lack sinificant coverage here. Chirota (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks SIGCOV.-KH-1 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly lack of [WP:SIGCOV|, Myconcern (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Macchia d'Isernia

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

Recently founded (well, a decade ago) Eccellenza team, sourced only to a reference site, fails WP:GNG. This suggests the club lost financial backing in 2017, and a look at the Italian Wikipedia shows they were promoted to Serie D but never registered, and then never appeared again in their local league. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing in a league that is one level below the highest amateur league in Italy implies that they too are not a professional team. No indication that they have played for the national cup nor will they ever, but if they do, we can create an article for them then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parc de la Rivière-aux-Pins Disc Golf Course

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

Only one secondary/independent article on the course (CBC) and it's two sentences long (not SIGCOV), fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the CBC source (it's actually two sentences and a short video report) is good, but there seem to be few others that could be called SIGCOV.--- Possibly (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 20th disc golf course opened in Quebec (per CBC) is not notable. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Tracy, Marc (2020-01-21). "The Former Journalist Who Is Bernie Sanders's Media Critic". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-05-19.

[2] "He Broke The NSA Leaks Story, But Just Who Is Glenn Greenwald?". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-05-19.

[3] ttps://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/drummer-phil-jones-interview-tom-petty-bob-dylan-1130122/

[4] ttps://ultimateclassicrock.com/tom-petty-full-moon-fever/

[5] King, Kelly, The Perfect Gig, Drumhead Magazine, October 2016

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]