Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilal Bhat}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahrukh Inayet}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahrukh Inayet}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 19:58, 4 April 2021

< April 03 April 05 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Bhat

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

Fails WP:GNG, The sources are youtube and ETV mostly for which he works and i couldn't find any SIGCOV on the subject. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrukh Inayet

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

Fails WP:GNG, NO SIGCOV AND RS. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, WP:JOURNALIST, and WP:BASIC. There is biographical, education, and early career information from the Verve magazine source that is now added to the article, as well as additional support for WP:JOURNALIST notability, i.e. she is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, in part due to her reporting on the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, e.g. by the Hindustan Times, The Quint, in addition to Verve. She also received a non-trivial mention of her general work for Times Now in The Hindu afterwards. In addition, Aaj Tak reports she won an eNBA award in 2013 for her journalism. Her tweets during the 2014 floods in Jammu and Kashmir were reported on by FirstPost and a contributor to Buzzfeed India. Her tweets during the 2019 telephone and internet blackout in Kashmir were reported by The Times of India and Scroll.in. Her commentary on the media has also been featured by SheThePeople.TV, and quoted by The News Minute. Additional biographical information has been reported by The Quint and her commentary related to some of her biographical information has been commented on by another journalist in the Hindustan Times. Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and the independent and reliable sources that have been added to the article now appear to demonstrate sufficient notability per the guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes GNG as per the improvements made by Beccaynr. The subject is notable now. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing:- Beccaynr has done some crazy additions. My WP:BEFORE didn’t comeup with so many results. I’m more than happy to withdraw this AfD because it’s in a far better state now. Thanks Beccaynr.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 02:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Uunona

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

This was the subject of a contentious no-consensus AfD in December where the closing admin found the delete arguments stronger than the keep. Since then, it's been at the core of a fair amount of controversy regarding its appropriateness, particularly in the context it was apparently written for a DYK hook that was later deemed inappropriate.

The subject is at best extremely borderline for WP:NPOL, an SNG that has been interpreted as exclusionary as well as inclusionary, and quite likely doesn't fit it at all. What coverage he has is quite certainly WP:BLP1E -- and I say that with significant intent, as someone who in the vast majority of situations is on the critical, "that's not a 1E" side and wrote the damn essay on it. Uunona hits every hallmark for BLP1E, specifically the fact it's more or less a by-proxy WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. He is, in his personal life, low-profile. He is covered only in the context of a single event -- his name -- that is, independently, not exactly something where he has a significant role (he certainly wasn't Adolf Hitler himself, and it's not something he particularly chose). He does not seek out attention for his name and indeed is actively ashamed of it. He actively opposes media attention on the topic, refuses interviews, and otherwise shows every hallmark of wanting the matter to be low-profile. Essentially: BLP1E is at its core a proxy BLPREQUESTDELETE, something where we must make the call for ourselves "would the subject request deletion if they knew how?", and delete as BLP1E if so. I confidently believe Adolf Uunona would want this article deleted. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL since his elected office is municipal. Doesn't meet notability for one event, since the event is not notable. TFD (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable local councillor. The subject received some coverage in December but it was all related to his unusual name and therefore fails WP:SUSTAINED. This is as close as we will ever get to a textbook WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E example. Valenciano (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL by holding a notable office, as his role is at the local level rather than the national legislature — but getting a brief blip of "news of the weird" coverage because of his name just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring international significance who would pass the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Meets WP:NPOL Adolf Unona is notable under the provision for people who have been members of legislative bodies at provincial levels. In Namibia, constituency councillors have a dual role as far as I can tell. Although they are local officials who have a local office, they also members of regional councils, which are the Namibian equivalent of state or provincial legislatures. ( Regional councils also elect members of the National council, the Nigerian upper chamber of the national legislature from among their members) Although this technically meets NPOL, and therefore I feel like it should be kept, I don't want my vote to stand in the way of a snow close if there are no other keep votes soon given the subject not wanting attention because of his name. Changing my vote to Keep per my already stated rational, since it thankfully did not go to the main page and give the subject unwanted attention.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Having a politician (as opposed to just an ordinary person) with such name, which did not prevent him from being elected, seems to be marginally notable/interesting. Or may be this is just as a hilarious story, something like "vote for the name you know". That is why this story was published in many RS and was widely debated in other media, which is a reason to keep. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make it any less BLP1E. And yes, this is BLP1E, not the conviction of a lot of deletionists that BLP1E means "anything where if you squint there's a primary event means BAD ARTICLE". Someone who got a flash of news-of-the-weird coverage that they were openly unhappy with and avoided as much as possible is classic BLP1E. Vaticidalprophet 01:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what exactly event you are talking about. He won several elections. Sources refer mostly (but not exclusively) to elections in 2020, but again these local elections were not a notable event. The potentially notable is the story about the person. If the subject likes the story is irrelevant. Saying that, I agree that the case is weak, and would not be surprised if the page will be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LOWPROFILE -- seeking political power at the level he does is entirely compatible with being low-profile, and nothing he's done outside of having an awkward name is relevant. Whether the subject likes the story is indirectly relevant to BLP1E (which is far more a privacy guideline than a notability one) -- a subject who rejects attention for their one event fits the relevant clauses. Vaticidalprophet 08:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this link/policy, Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile. That guy clearly was seeking media attention, for example by giving interviews to Bild and other newspapers (see here, for example). It would be strange if he did not. Every politician does it if he wants to be elected. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians are covered by the clause above the level normally expected within the field in question. There's nothing going on here that makes him self-promotional for his field, and every indication he isn't. Vaticidalprophet 02:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as described here [1],
"He told Bild, the German tabloid, that his father named him without realising the connotations. "As a child I saw it as a totally normal name," he added. “Only as a teenager did I understand that this man wanted to conquer the whole world."..."
Here is link to Bild [2]. This is a self-promotion. See Media attention He gave interviews voluntarily. These are not local newspapers. There is nothing bad when someone does self-promotion, especially in politics. If he did more or less promotion than other politicians is irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, I think none of three conditions of WP:BLP1E was satisfied here ("We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met":
  1. No, there were multiple elections, not a single event; or perhaps there was no an a event
  2. No, he is not a "low profile" individual (see my comment above)
  3. Not clear what event. The role of the individual in his elections was the key. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what BPL1E is intended for, a subject who is barely notable for one thing, especially where that one thing is not a major high-profile event, and the subject does not wish to be known for it. If he had committed a prominent murder, or if his political career had included a significant scandal, something like that could be a single event sufficient to make him notable. He appears to be notable solely for his unique name, and the article quotes him explicitly as not wishing to be known for that reason. Aside from his name, and holding a non-notable political office, what is notable about this individual? Hyperion35 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per detailed rationale by Vaticidalprophet. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing about him comes even remotely close to indicating notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I was a child, there was a member of the local city council in my hometown named Michael Jackson. He was not the same person as the world-famous singer who has the same name, although this was during a time (late 1980s) when that singer was perhaps at his peak of fame. I feel fairly comfortable in asserting that the local politician Michael Jackson was not then or now notable by Wikipedia standards, and he almost certainly received more votes than Mr. Uunona. There are a great many people who have the same name as someone famous, or otherwise have an unusual name. Occasionally, some people do go on to become notable despite their names, but it is not notable that a local politician has the same name as someone famous. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But was the story of that man covered in Bild, Independent, Euronews, etc.? That is what makes someone famous, and I simply think that man is already famous. I do not think it really matter so much for what reason - from the WP notability perspective. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a person is just famous for their name that seems like a rather flimsy reason for them to be notable, especially if the coverage was against their will. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not just name. The story gain such publicity only because he is a successful politician and an former anti-apartheid activist. Despite some his statements, nothing was really against his will: he gave all these interviews willingly (see links with citation above and on the page) precisely to gain publicity as a politician. I suspect he would be disappointed if this WP page about him was deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Haryana cricketers. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virender Dahiya

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Ugochukwu

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article states stated that he made his pro debut on 4 April (today), but he was an unused substitute in the game against Reims according to Soccerway. So also fails WP:NFOOTY. Nehme1499 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 19:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haruna Sentongo

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

Possible covert upe G11 eligible borderline article on a non notable entrepreneur & philanthropist. Having observed the ref bombing, I assumed a WP:BEFORE would turn up cogent sources but nothing of value could be observed. I saw links to sponsored posts, self published sources, and user generated sources. Furthermore wealth or opulence doesn’t translate to notability. In all, they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @ Celestina007Thank you very much for this obersvation, let me comprehensively this Article, it will only take me a couple of hours, to sort this mess, then come back. Thank you very much. Ibitukirire (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In Regards to Robert McClenon's observations, I did not create any drafts for Sentongo, the draft was created by a different user, the only page I created was for deceased Nuhu Muzaata Batte which was tagged for copyright infringement and deleted by admin Liz. It was later undeleted, dratified at Draft:Nuhu Muzaata Batte and Submitted for Review by the same admin, and I'm Still working on it with others' inputs. another draft I made is Reason As the World Masterpiece which I submitted: requested other expert editors for more professional edits and is currently pending review, the rest are just edits on the Existing Articles/pages as I work on more research for other articles offline. As of now, The only Existing page that I created is Haruna Sentongowhich individual I do not personally know or Ever met as of now. After finding the draft, I tried putting the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruna_Sentongo direct in the search tab which gave me the provision to directly create the page, and I first made inquiries at the TeaHouse where I was advised that I can place my own drafts in the main space, but New Pages patrol folks are likely to treat it more harshly than an article that has gone through the WP:AfC process. Hence Making the page based on that background. Ibitukirire (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I believe it would not be right, to call me a Spammer here, for instance the Shiek Nuhu Muzaata Batte who is already a dead person, someone was saying undisclosed paid editing, really? a dead man when I am not even a moslem??. I only made that after making some edits on the recently deceased Archbishop Cyprian Kizito Lwanga and Checked for Buzaata only to find no articles hence making that. kindly check my history since joining Wikipedia please. I just honestly believe that based on Reality without doubt, this gentleman is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Given his different search engines notability. Ibitukirire (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prayer
Comrades, I pray that given the number of Articles of living individuals on Wikipedia with a far less notability than this gentleman, not only in Uganda, I pray that you humbly take an appropriate action. Where necessary I can improve the article replacing and eliminating the non independent links.
  • Note:: Based on the recent history, I have decided to rescue myself from making any additional editing on my own drafts, articles pending census here in order to avoid any suspicion on my account, but ready to do as you may advise.
Independent sources in Uganda include Daily Monitor,([[3]]) New Vision (newspaper), ([[4]]) [[ The Observer (Uganda) News Paper, Nile Post NBS Television (Uganda), Newslexpoint among others.
I am not here to complain or object but rather, to learn and get more professional guidance towards becoming a better Wikipedia Editor, hence I request that you should not take me as otherwise. Thank you very much. Ibitukirire (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: this user's "improvements" have little improved the article. Still no sign of notability exists. Additionally the editor may need blocking for UPE spam. JavaHurricane 06:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any further inputs and comments in regards to that gentleman, Honestly, I finally give up on that Article.Ibitukirire (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kant Singh

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that for every article under AfD, and then nothing would ever be deleted... JoelleJay (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NCRIC creates a rebuttable presumption of notability, which has been rebutted here because nobody has found WP:GNG-compliant sources. Sandstein 08:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Sinha

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meeting an SNG such as NCRIC is a shortcut to identify subjectsthat are likely to meet our notability requirements. This is handy when creating new articles or preventing articles to be speedy deleted or PRODded. However, if a subject is challenged at AfD, it is not enough any more to simply say "meets NCRIC". Instead, it actually has to be shown that in this particular instance the SNG correctly predicted notability, that is, it has to be shown that GNG is met. As Johnpacklambert has already observed, no sources meeting GNG have been found by the participants in this debate. Here, GNG is not met. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Sayyed

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

Has played 7 first-class matches, but there is nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played in 12 matches (7 F/C, 5 LA), meets WP:NRIC. Found a bit praising his brief F/C stint, along with a couple of indepth articles about him missing out at playing at the U19 World Cup, and expanded the article with them. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A reasonable, if short, career (7 FC, 5 List-A matches and 7 U19 matches for India), but more importantly there does seem to be just enough coverage for him to pass GNG. There seems to be more than just match reports here. List of Maharashtra cricketers a suitable WP:ATD if it's deemed not enough to pass.
  • Keep 7 first class matches and 5 List A is a reasonable number; at age 25 it's unclear his career his over. Therefore a clear and obvious pass of WP:NCRIC. Also has coverage from several sources in the article; therefore would pass WP:GNG without anything further needing to be found, including potential non-English sources. As with so many other cricket articles, the AfD nomination does not appear to have a clear factual basis, and it seems WP:BEFORE was not adequately conducted. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Addition of sources satisfies GNG IMO. StickyWicket (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdeep Baweja

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

Baweja made his first-class debut in the 2015–16 Ranji Trophy, but hardly there is any significant coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian–American Long-term Census of the Arctic

Russian–American Long-term Census of the Arctic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is unsourced, unreferenced, not linked anywhere else on Wikipedia, and feels it was pulled off of a website which would imply a violation of copyright. I can't find a single news source that covers this subject. A quick google search for this comes from a website that is operated by the United States Department of Commerce. It is the first result under the banner of the cached link to this article here on Wikipedia. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NextStep ReUse

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

A single charity shop. Tagged advert since 2010. The refs are dead. Before not leading to anything other than routine local coverage. Desertarun (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Telugu language#Dialects. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godavari Telugu

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

A single reference, and sources turn up virtually nothing else. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searches for "Godavari dialect" do better:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming it is the same thing as "Godavari dialect" per above comment, and I assume it includes both "East Godavari dialect" and "West Godavari dialect", some English sources: Mohan Lal (1992). Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature: Sasay to Zorgot. Sahitya Akademi. p. 4075. ISBN 978-81-260-1221-3. "His (P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri's) stories run into twelve volumes, written in the native idiom of the East Godavari dialect."; Mikhail Sergeevich Andronov (1970). Dravidian Languages. Nauka Publishing House, Central Department of Oriental Literature. p. 20. "Five dialects may be distinguished in Telugu: the dialect of the eastern districts (Guntur, Krishna, Godavari)..." Rinbro (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per rationale by Onel5969, I too don’t see how GNG is met. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Telugu language#Dialects. May not pass GNG but verifiable and a likely search term. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine, Los Angeles County, California

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. See also the essay Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data. Only cited source here is a reference to the Geographic Names Information System. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The irony here is that the Alpine Springs Mobile Home Park is by definition a populated place. ☺

    Arcadia Publishing to the rescue, again. Gurba 2010, p. 7 tells us outright that Alpine Springs is synonymous with the old settlement that was Harold, Palmdale, California, with an Alpine Station railway station and a Trego post office. And before Little Rock Creek was dammed, there used to be a Harold/Alpine Reservoir.

    • Gurba, Norma H. (2010). Palmdale. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738581224.
    • Thompson, David G. (1929). "Antelope Valley". Water-supply Paper. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 293.
  • Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I needed a talk page message, I did not object to TheCatalyst31's deprodding last year after reviewing the topos, and Uncle G is correct. It still false to say "Alpine is an unincorporated community" because what was once Alpine or Alpine Springs no longer exists. It was on the 1937 topo and disappeared by 1958. I see no irony about the mobile home park because its existence as a populated place is not related to any notability. My house, my street, and my neighborhood are populated places too. The article should be in the past tense, since a search of newspapers.com and Google Books and News do not show continued use of either Alpine or Harold as still names for this area near Palmdale, and perhaps it should be moved to Harold to cover the history in Gurba. Reywas92Talk 20:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uncle G seems to have established reasonable evidence of the place's history. The relevant part of WP:GEOLAND then seems to be

    * Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.

    So, if this is or was part of the Harold settlement then either it should be kept for improvement or merged under some wider title as a subdivision. Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what's the correct result here? "Merge" this to Harold? A mobile home park isn't really what we would consider a "legally recognised populated place" under GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet that is what the page says, and the mobile home park is both legally recognized and a populated place. Hence why it's ironic. Clearly we do not want to follow that idea.

      Half the battle with these poor GNIS stubs is figuring out what they even are. A poor reader or editor would follow the map reference and think that we were writing about the trailer park. Well we know what Alpine is, now; what the name on the map was; and the question is indeed what to do next. Is there enough to rename and refactor (or even keep the name and refactor, since it was named Alpine) into Harold/Alpine and all of its stuff? At least this is in the history books, with Gurba 2010, p. 7 having a few things, which The Arboretum, Charlotte (AfD discussion) in contrast is not. I've found Arcadia Publishing good for showing the way, or indeed not showing the way, but it's not the only thing to look at. Let all of us have a look, now that we know (sadly, despite the article at hand) what to actually look for.

      Uncle G (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Delete - Even with evidence that this place exists/existed, there is no evidence of legal recognition (e.g., incorporation). In that circumstance we need a WP:GNG-pass and we don't have one here - at most there is one instance of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It turns out that a second historian has scoured the public records for us. Somewhat bizarrely, it's in an application for a power plant. Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It shows up on one topo, and that's it; there's no evidence it wasn't just someone's house, or a named point on the rail line. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of legal recognition.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm calling Heymann on this. It certainly looked delete-worthy as it appeared at time of nomination, but the edits made since then have cleared that up. A couple editors have suggested that the lack of legal recognition requires deletion, but I agree with Andrew Davidson's interpretation of WP:GEOLAND, above. I don't think it's a candidate for merger, because not only can it be developed using known sources, but it has been so developed since the time of its nomination.
Nor do I think we are declaring that the mobile home park is notable; rather that the settlement is notable. Yes, it happens now to be the site of a mobile home park, but that fact that has no impact either way on its notability. The place, not the mobile home park, is the subject of the article.
It will always be a small article, given its low relative importance, but that's not a strike against keeping it. TJRC (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article as it stands is overly reliant on the Gurba source and probably needs further cleanup, and there's a reasonable question as to whether this should be at Alpine or Harold. WP:GNG is marginal, but there's at least an argument it was a recognised place. SportingFlyer T·C 22:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I agree with SportingFlyer that the article relies too much on Gurba. I wrote a book for Arcadia and although Arcadia is by no means an academic publisher, my book did get a fairly thorough review by an editor. The unfortunate thing about Arcadia is that footnotes and references are limited in the final publication. It would help the article if someone would go find the original sources for the Gurba references. This location did have a post office (Trego and Harold), which for me meets the legal recognition requirement of #1 of WP:GEOLAND. However virtually no one agrees with me on this, so I would not want to see the article remain merely on the basis of my post office opinion. The coverage of the location is quite trivial, other than passing references in Gurba, I was not able to find much. Newspapers.com has only trivial mentions of ' "Alpine Station" Kern'. I agree that a mobile home park does not make this location notable. If it weren't through the post offices, I would !vote for delete.
  • BTW - Uncle G, I mildly question these orphan redirects you created. As they are orphans, perhaps they should be deleted? I don't have strong feelings here, it is the bolding that caught my eye.
    • Alpine Springs - Orphan redirect. GNIS (insert rant about GNIS reliability here \s ) does find an Alpine Springs Park, which is a variant of Tejon Park. GNIS also finds 8 other springs named Alpine. As nothing links to this redirect, is it necessary?
    • Trego Post Office - Orphan redirect. Searching GNIS for "Trego" and Feature Category "post office" finds three post offices. I would think that the post office in one of the places listed at Trego#Places is far more notable. Perhaps the redirect could be changed to "Trego California Post Office" or removed.
    • Alpine Station - Orphan redirect. Searching GNIS for "Alpine Station" returns 25 hits, none of which are for this locale? What's notable about this Alpine Station?
  • Cxbrx (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. Redirects at alternative names are cheap and prophylactic, and all of those are alternative names by which this subject, which encompasses the station and the post office as sub-topics, may be reached. Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting explains some of this. Notability does not apply there, as the subject is here. That's just something that takes the duplicate article builders and people looking for alternative names to here. And if ever another article turns up that has Alpine Station as a reasonable alternative name for a topic or sub-topic, we grow headnotes and disambiguation pages, just like Harold and Alpine already are. This is how the encyclopaedia develops.

      And the good thing about Arcadia is that it does, as I've seen myself from the books, choose bona fide local historians and isn't a self-publishing service for just anyone who rocks up as some other local history books turn out to be. Norma H. Gurba, museum curator and historian, is much more like an identifiable expert in the field who has done the research and the fact checking for us, poring over the records and newspapers and photo libraries and whatnot, than all of the self-published authors of histories that I've come across (and discounted) researching things over the years. Also see what I said earlier in this discussion.

      Uncle G (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G: Thanks for the reply and the kind words about Arcadia. About the redirects, I agree that in general they are cheap and can be helpful. We have a minor disagreement, which is no big deal and I'm happy to move on. Cxbrx (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per A7 SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlogNewss

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

Declined AFC. NN, lack of sufficient in-depth independent coverage. MB 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MB 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MB 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raving Loony Green Giant Party

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. This article does not prove notability as required by GNG, politics and organisation policies. Sentences in this article such as " who disagreed with the split and stood as a joint candidate with the OMRLP – the candidate also wished to highlight the duplicity of a number of individuals that were holding clandestine membership of each and waiting to see which "Loony" faction came out on top" sound like someone has been using this article against WP:BLOG amongst others. No evidence of notable achievement before or after elections, and no evidence of notable results in elections. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rush (fencer)

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

No notable sports accomplishments or medals, best ranking 402nd in 2012/2013 season, see https://fie.org/athletes/33245. Simeon (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 20:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Al-Hassani

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

a biography of living person who is not notable Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yazh Sudhakar

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

WP:BLP of a writer and radio personality, not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for either writers or radio personalities. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of the person's significance (e.g. noteworthy awards, critical analysis of the importance of their work, etc.) supported by real reliable source coverage by journalists in real media. But this is basically a résumé, documenting his career but offering no evidence of any distinctions to make it special, and "referenced" solely to his own (deadlinked) personal website rather than any evidence of media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sources are provided, and not credibly challenged in any detailed manner. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences

Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The institution is accredited so it passes a minimal bar of legitimacy. It doesn't appear to award degrees; the only credential documented by the U.S. Department of Education is a "Recording Arts Technology/Technician" certificate. Nevertheless, it would be highly unusual to delete an article about an accredited institution even if the current article is a stub that is poorly referenced. If editors believe that different standards should be applied to accredited postsecondary institutions that do not award degrees then that discussion should be explicitly held with notifications for relevant projects. ElKevbo (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: Re: "If editors believe that different standards should be applied to accredited postsecondary institutions that do not award degrees then that discussion should be explicitly held with notifications for relevant projects." You might want to read through Notability#Request_for_Comment_on_the_Subject-specific_notability_guidelines_(SNG). To sum it up, "Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field. Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at WP:AFD)." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't referenced any such guidance, merely noted the prevailing practices and consensus usually reached in similar discussions. ElKevbo (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I was merely pointing out that giving Wikiproject authority when it comes to notability standards isn't the prevailing practice or consensus anymore. Incase you or anyone else wasn't aware of the RfC. Since it's fairly new and I know not everyone has to time keep with every little policy change. That said, you saying "If editors believe that different standards should be applied to accredited postsecondary institutions that do not award degrees then that discussion should be explicitly held with notifications for relevant projects" sounds a lot like you were giving guidance that if we are going to use different standards that we should discuss it "explicitly" with the involvement of the "relevant projects." Otherwise, I don't see why you would bring it up. Usually don't say people should do something if it's not something they are giving "guidance" about. Like, I'm not going to say someone should start an RfC about something unless that's literally what I think they should do. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I mentioned projects is that notifying them is often a quick, handy way of notifying many editors who have an interest in a particular area. If you think that other methods are better then of course you're free to pursue them, too (although I imagine that having a discussion focused on a specific topic for which there is an applicable project but not notifying that project may be perceived as uncollegial). ElKevbo (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, makes sense. The more opinions about something the better. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking over this it's a private school and lacks the sources to pass WP:NORG. So, I'm not sure what else the article should kept based on. If someone wants to provide WP:THREE good, independent in-depth sources I'd be more then happy to change my vote keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Researching into the school itself, I believe that it should be kept. The school is Accredited and although article is lackluster as best when it comes to sources, there is a large amount of sources and information that could be added to the article. I can update the article with more information and independent and in-depth sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toumablack (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's non-trivial about anything cited by Cunnard in relation to this? Just to take one example, "Founded in 1980 in New York City, the school moved to Phoenix in '87, then to Tempe in '95" sounds pretty trivial to me. Maybe your referring to "Daley profiles the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences in Tempe, Arizona. He gives its history. It's curriculum and audio equipment are discussed. Photos and contact information are included"? I'd love to see you or anyone else here try and argue that the places contact information isn't trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say far more than that. They appear to discuss the history, curriculum, internship process, etc for this school. They provide more than contact information. Are you here to have a civil discussion about whether there is sufficient coverage to build an article? Hyperion35 (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Are you insinuating that asking questions or disagreeing with you isn't having a "civil discussion"? Because that's how your comment comes off. Anyway, more on topic we (or at least I) don't have access to anything in the article that I was talking about where Cunard said it gives their contact information because it's behind a paywall. So, we (or at least I) wouldn't really have a way to determine if it contained "sufficient coverage to build an article" beyond what Cunard has said about it would we? Therefore, all I (and I assume everyone else has to go on) is what Cunard has told us and in my opinion (that I never claimed was represented anyone else) there isn't. Also, I would assume, because Cunard has contributed to AfDs quit a lot, that if there was more sufficient coverage in the article besides their contact information that Cunard would have said so. Since I'm pretty sure they (Cunard) know what constitutes "sufficient coverage" (contact information clearly not being up to that standard) and what doesn't. Either that, or they (Cunard) are just knowingly listing a bunch of arbitrary information in AfDs that is completely irrelevant to the process (and what your saying we should all be doing) when better information "to build an article" off of exists. Which it seems like your saying Cunard is doing. If I was Cunard I'd swiftly tell you otherwise and ask why your questioning my ability to do this properly. Also, we can't really "build an article" with information we don't have access to can we? Or maybe I just can't, but you can, and you rather just call out other people then do it yourself. Since I haven't seen you "building the article" since this AfD was opened or Cunard provided the references. When, I assume, your fully capable of doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I don't understand most of what you are trying to say. Rather than risk offense due to misunderstanding, I will simply re-iterate my point above that the articles that Cunard has posted appear to include more useful information than you seem to credit, it is more than just "contact information". I did not see anything behind a paywall, but I did not click on each and every link. Regardless, sources with paywalls are still valid. Please try to avoid speculating on the motivations of other editors, what they think, etc. It comes across as uncivil or worse, and contributes nothing to the conversation. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You literally made this uncivil in the first place by calling out my motivations by asking me if I was here to improve articles or not when I has 100% sticking to discussing the article and hadn't said anything personal to you or anyone else. Nice try on the gas lighting though. Your the one making this uncivil by using such tactics instead of sticking to discussing the AfD and the references. I guess you decided to go that route since you couldn't answer my question about what's not trivial about contact information. Which is cool, but I have better things to do then be attacked or have my motivations called out just because you can't answer a simple question about the quality of references someone is providing. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Sutherland

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be a regular Bomber Command member. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't appear notable for his war service, despite the statement in the lead. He will have been one of thousands of Britishers who served in Bomber Command. The MBE doesn't add to notability, I understand from previous discussions that an OBE is not sufficient in its own right so this will be the same for the lowest class of the order. Zawed (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anybody here even bother to look for sources? And possible improvements, instead of deletion? WP:Before Shaw, Allison; The Newsroom (3 May 2014). "Obituary: Alec Sutherland MBE, Bomber Command veteran BORN: 19 August, 1922, in Inverness. Died: 16 April, 2014, in Inverness, aged 91". The Scotsman. {{cite news}}: |author2= has generic name (help) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No "aspersions" intended. Nor was I "making a case." I was simply asking a question. If the shoe fits ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that you weren't casting aspersions, but conclude with "if the shoe fits" which undermines your earlier denial. I would remind you of your recent warning at ANI. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The obituaries mentioned don't add anything to the article in terms of notability. NOTAMEMORIAL and all that. I did check for RS mention of Sutherland and found nothing that would distinguish him as notable. Obituaries are not neutral, and there doesn't seem to be anything else out there about him. Intothatdarkness 01:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the exended obituary in The Scotsman has a lot to say. It goes on in detail about his activities, particularly while in service. And it came out of their newsroom with byline. So it should not be dismissed as a source.
Indeed, he apparently has multiple extended obituaries. I tried to update the article to better reflect that.
Whether Mr. Sutherland meets the thresholds for inclusion of Wikipedia is the remaining question. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lengthy obituary doesn't mean he's notable. Actually, if it's in a major national newspaper, yes it does, by longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay, but WP:OTTO is a good starting point in my view when it comes to newspapers in general. An obituary is not automatically a secondary or disinterested source. In this case, the unattributed obit in the Herald came out before the one in the Scotsman. It's not easy to determine if the first was contributed by the family, and the second one could have been copied from the Herald with some slight modifications. Intothatdarkness 16:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an irrelevant essay. The facts and the new and expanded sourcing have superseded the argument.
  • "North's leading lights honoured". BBC News. December 31, 2008. Retrieved April 2, 2021. A veteran swimmer, a medical professional and a leading figure on the island of Eigg have been recognised in the New Year Honours. They include Alex Sutherland for voluntary services to swimming in Inverness. ... Earlier this year, Inverness Leisure renamed its refurbished boardroom after 85-year-old Mr Sutherland. The Inverness Swimming Club stalwart has been a regular at the pool for many years and has won several gold medals in the veteran sections of competitions.
  • Patterson, Laura (28 April 2014). "RAF Veteran Inspired Many to Sporting Prowess". The Press and Journal. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
Easily surpasses WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to the question of newspapers and obituaries contained therein. Intothatdarkness 18:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?
You might read what I posted and the sources. They aren't all obituaries. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you are entitled to your opinion and assertion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You might wish to read GreenC's question again, which was inquiring specifically about long obituaries in reliable publications. As both were technically from newspapers I referred to that essay. Intothatdarkness 19:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the essay and while I understand the concern that some journalists write some articles based on hearsay or whatever sounds good without doing much factual verification, there is no evidence of that being a problem in this particular case. -- GreenC 19:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rondolinda, please provide a rationale for why all these sources do not meet GNG. Your activity on Wikipedia seems to consist mostly of voting Delete in AfD with the same generic explanation and no underlying arguments specific to the case. -- GreenC 20:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus exists that the subject meets the essay WP:FOOTYN.

However, it is reasonable to re-nominate the article on the basis of WP:GNG, though there exists a not-as-clear consensus that WP:GNG is met. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 21:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ta' Xbiex S.C.

Ta' Xbiex S.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur team which does not meet WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 TT me 16:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - Passes WP:FOOTYN, because of the clause here: "Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." as shown here: "https://int.soccerway.com/national/malta/fa-trophy/20192020/preliminary-round/r53597/", in the 3rd line. Also passes WP:GNG as they have significant coverage from the Maltese Football Association, which is reliable and official and a FIFA member, thus being naturally independant. apple20674apple20674 Talk 12:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As this is clearly floored grounds for a delete argument, you can't delete an article on WP:FOOTYN when technically they qualify under WP:FOOTYN, as apple20674 has clearly shown with the soccerway url above. Which show the club do play in the FA Trophy which is Maltese version of the FA Cup here in England. @Celestina007: , @GiantSnowman: would you reconsider your votes? GNG is a slightly different matter. However there are previous incarnations of the club as shown by this article. [5], There is support from Argus Insurance for the new incarnation of the club. I am sure there are more historical sources that can help. (site:timesofmalta.com "Ta' Xbiex" football) into google shows there is a fair amount of content to go through locally for Malta. Govvy (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:FOOTYN due to playing in a national cup, as evidenced above. If we keep all clubs that play in the FA Cup or even the FA Vase, it seems silly to delete an article on a Maltese club that has done the same. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The discussion has been refactored slightly. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attard F.C.

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

Amateur club which does not pass WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 TT me 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Club plays in the national cup and thus passes WP:FOOTYN. User:apple20674 16:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per soccerway link that apple provided, which passes WP:FOOTYN (playing in the national cup). I've updated the article a little bit, but it could still be improved a lot more. I am sure there is more that can be added. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FOOTYN is a shortcut to determine whether a subject may be expected to pass GNG. However, once challenged, a subject can only be kept if compliance with GNG actually can be established. "Keep" !voters are encouraged to present independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given my heavy involvement in closing football related AfDs I will specifically abstain from any vote, but I think it is worthwhile as an administrator seconding Randykitty's relisting rationale. FOOTYN is not a guidelines, it is merely an essay within a WikiProject. It quite clearly says:

Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, teams are required to meet the general notability guideline. The following guidance may indicate at what level teams generally have enough coverage to meet the GNG.

Its obvious from this that FOOTYN cannot be cited on its own as a valid Keep rationale it is a locally determined essay suggesting a line beyond which clubs can be expected to have coverage sufficient to meet. It is still on individual editors to evidence this. Clearly following this comment I should not be involved in the close of this AfD, but I hope editors can focus more 9n GNG hare rather than local consensus. Fenix down (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timmion Records

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

Current coverage fails WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions: 2013-03 ✗ delete
Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create, 2013-03 ✗ deleted
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: in Finnish I found mostly just mentions. However this (in the biggest music magazine of the country) is about the label. This (in the biggest daily newspaper) contains at least a few sentences as does this (financial newspaper). One should also search with "Timmion Cutting" because that's their brand name for manufacturing the physical records. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KMP College of Engineering

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

Nothing notable found on doing a WP:Before other than the college website and some blogs. No reliable sources as well as no sigcov, hence failing GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xenaverse

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

Another example of being de-proded w/o explanation nor improvement. No signs of notability per WP:NMEDIA, unsourced, no significant coverage found CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 5 April 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 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to How I Unleashed World War II. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franek Dolas

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

Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 14:50, 4 April 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) 21:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 21:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alqi Bllako

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

If I were to make an educated guess I’d say this is a promotional autobiography. The subject of the of the article lacks in-depth significant in reliable sources independent of them. Although the article is unsourced at this point. A WP:BEFORE search turns back 0 reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajayendra Urmila Tripathi

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

Non notable activists, web programmer. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I had a discussion with the page creator,Gocorona (talk · contribs), on my talkpage @ User talk:220 of Borg#Help me. They said "This person is a journalist, social media research programmer and social activist and works for Stop Acid attack".
"Stop Acid attack" is not mentioned on the Tripathi BLP page, I advised Gocorona to add it, hasn't. They don't seem to understand how to establish notability, despite me telling the how to, at least twice. They finished with "... will start a campaign against wikipedia on social media." WP:CIR. 220 of ßorg 05:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nota bene* A similarly named page less middle name, Ajayendra Tripathi, has been deleted twice before. See deletion log. 220 of ßorg 06:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Bataa Do

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

Non notable book. No significant coverage / book reviews from reliable sources. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 01:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're the One (The Black Keys song)

You're the One (The Black Keys song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NSONG; I can't find any in-depth significant coverage, only this very short review from Contactmusic.com and a mention of the song in this listicle from diffuser.fm. The single did not chart anywhere and I don't see any other obvious indication of notability. Should probably be redirected to Magic Potion (album) if notability can not be established. Lennart97 (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! 16:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a CSD G5 (created by sockpuppet of User:Zaid Zayd). Liz Read! Talk! 17:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahira Sharma

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

Non-notable person; article was attempted to be created twice in 2019 and once in 2020 and has been returned to draft space each time as non-notable MurielMary (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Right to Write

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

A non notable book. Tagged as an advert since 2010. Created by a single purpose account with likely conflict of interest. The book exists but I can't find any substantial reviews of it, just a paragraph here or there from the online booksellers. The refs in the article are primary.Desertarun (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has 323 reviews at Amazon.com, so clearly there is some interest in it. Athel cb (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge I feel somewhat confident that sources exist. But if good faith belief isn’t enough then merging is a healthy compromise. She is a highly notable author in this space and this book paved the way for bigger successes around the same subject matter. There is content to preserve at least in her author page. Archrogue (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Julia Cameron. Most of what I've found about this discuss it in relation to the author and her creative writing process, rather than of the book itself. I think that this would be best covered in a section in the main article, as it doesn't seem to have received enough coverage to really argue for its own article but is mentioned enough (even if in passing) to where a section devoted to the book would be good to have. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed about whether Cunard's presented sources are sufficient for notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in London. Since List of bus routes in London already mentions this route, I'm just doing a redirect. If you need article history or anything just ask. Missvain (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 82

London Buses route 82 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like most London Buses routes, this is another run of the mill bus route with nothing overly notable nor spectacular. Only ounce of notability is that it is a recently discontinued route. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like most London bus topics, this is notable per WP:GNG, as London buses are historic and well-documented. The nomination is based upon WP:MILL which is neither policy nor guideline. It's just an essay which means that it has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Per WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTPAPER, we do not delete pages for this reason. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most London bus routes are not notable, and those that two are covered thoroughly using independent secondary sources. You have not provided anything additional to what exists in the article to validate notability for this particular route. Ajf773 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CENSOR applies to controversial topics. Is a London bus route controversial? WP:NOTPAPER also explicitly states "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." Also, notability guidelines state notability is not inherited. Being a part of something notable does not make something else notable. This is a discussion not for the London bus, but this specific bus route. Ardenter (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because defunct routes aren't notable and it would set a precedent that this material should be in articles when it shouldn't. Readers wanting that sort of material can always hop over to Wikia or whatever it's called. –Davey2010Talk 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a list of current bus routes is a notable aspect of buses in London, and notability is not temporary, then why are former routes differently notable to current ones? Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a section did exist until deleted in September 2019 seemingly without discussion or an attempt to addresss issues. Have partially reinstated. Lilporchy (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't researched the subject at hand, but Thryduulf's reasoning is sound. Those are the choices, that's one of the purposes of redirects, and this is not a bus route directory where we only list things because they exist now. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting rather tired of these discussions where deletion is called for but an obvious redirect target is available. Just redirect it if it is not notable, and if that is contested discuss it on the article talk page, rather than start an attention-seeking deletion discussion, and leave deletion discussions for those articles where an admin needs to hit the "delete" button (something that I was shocked to find a few months ago that many people don't understand to be the purpose of AfD). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing 'attention-seeking' about this. AfD's have been used for at least 50 other bus routes in London and dozens more elsewhere. They are necessary sometimes to solve such disputes. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ajf773, On the one hand, AfD is not (and has never been) Articles for Discussion, so you should not open the debate unless you think deleting might be a satisfactory outcome. On the other hand, other avenues such as Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers sit for ages without much feedback, so AfD can be chosen in order to get a better and quicker feedback - which can be done per WP:IAR, if there is sufficient agreement it is a sensible idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those saying merge, there is nothing really to merge as the List of bus routes in London page now mentions the route (alongside a few discontinued routes), the same as it does all other 500 routes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss China United Kingdom Pageant

Miss China United Kingdom Pageant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an audition for Miss China Europe Pageant - which does not exist. Tagged as an advert since 2009. Created by User:Miss China United Kingdom Pageant. Before returns a deleted blogspot and youtube. Desertarun (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Houshmand Dehghan

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

Fails notability - WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Serv181920 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As was noted in the last relist the keep participants do not actually show how this meets any notability guidelines. While I am sympathetic to the idea of using parallel discussions as a guide as to whether or not something should be nominated (i.e. if similar stuff repeatedly is kept don't nominate something) once a nomination is made there is an obligation to show how the topic qualifies for notability. As that was not done here while delete participants, to the extent that negatives may be proven, attempt to show how it does not qualify. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1983–84 South Midlands League

1983–84 South Midlands League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this passes WP:GNG let alone WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe that Number 57 demonstrates this to be useful to readers, that is, having a consistent set of such articles provides reader-friendly and -desired information that would be less convenient anywhere else. Ultimately, despite a bizarre section in a certain essay, this is what all our notability guidelines are intended to be, and indeed the only reason we should do anything at all. Or -- to speak of misapplied essays -- this is exactly the kind of thing the much-misunderstood WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says we should have. Vaticidalprophet 21:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence multiple, reliable sources are discussing this league. Eldumpo (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are no reliable sources presently giving enough coverage to this to have an independent article. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Will relist one more time, but there is nothing at the moment in any of the keep votes to support gng, so am extending as a courtesy to those editors to present sources that satisfy gng rather than because there is insufficient consensus because at the moment the delete votes present the stronger argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8VC

8VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Venture capital corporation does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is a mix of non-independent sources, routine events (such as fundraising) and WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that you have very few edits and that all are connected with either this company or that of Joe Lonsdale who is a partner with the topic company. Please disclose if you are a paid editor or if you have a connection the topic company (and possible conflict of interest), please see WP:COI. Also, "notable new publications" is not a criteria for establishing notability. Please read WP:NCORP and especially the section on "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Also be aware of WP:NOTINHERIT. If you still believe there are references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of the topic company, please post a link below. HighKing++ 12:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply WP:NCORP requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." That criteria is met with a Freightwaves publication about 8VC logistics investing and Tech Crunch article about 8VC's investment approach, among others.
Reply You haven't read ORGIND by the looks of things. For example the Freightwaves reference is written by ... Freightwaves. Who received investment from 8VC! So not an "independent" source, there is no Independence of the Author as they're "connected" to the topic company and fails the WP:ORGIND section of NCORP. Then the TechCrunch reference is based on information provided by the company and/or the company executives and it says this in the article. ORGIND says in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This reference fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 18:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SIGCOV is asserted but no sources presented to back this up. Sourcing in the article is mainly novelty coverage and/or unreliable sources, so I don't see that it meets SIGCOV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lili Hayes

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

I have doubts about this person. She is a popular Tik Tok bloger and Christina Aguilera mentioned her recently, but all in all it looks like WP:TOOSOON. Not sure that she passes WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Courtauld Institute of Art. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of faculty members of the Courtauld Institute

List of faculty members of the Courtauld Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should Wikipedia really maintain a list of something as fluid as the faculty of this institute? Page hasn't been updated since its inception eight years ago. Compare List of alumni of the Courtauld Institute of Art which seems much more stable and also more notable (also naming inconsistency). Regards CapnZapp (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CapnZapp (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the institute is notable and so are the faculty, then yes. And we wouldn’t want to just list current faculty, but also include former notable faculty and the list can annotate that status if verifiable. This list could probably be merged back to the parent article as it’s short, however. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the nom, a result of merge would be acceptable (once this page is deleted we can discuss the notability of the staff over at Talk:Courtauld Institute of Art). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the page is merged it would be redirected there, not deleted. postdlf (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enuff, User:Postdlf. CapnZapp (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I wouldn't mind deleting the list. Included in the list of reasons I would agree with are that it isn't getting timely updates, that we don't need a separate article, and that the faculty might not be notable in its own right. (But as I have already said, I'm okay with a merge outcome too, since we can always discuss the notability issue separately afterwards, so I do not intend to start an argument here.) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This list only includes faculty who are notable, every entry is bluelinked. And that's all we'd normally mention in the parent article unless we had an informational reason to mention anyone nonnotable (i.e., they were significant in the school's history or public perception in some way even if they did not merit their own article); we would not attempt to list all faculty. So that's why JPL's comment about high school faculty lists is completely off base, and I don't see how there's any notability issue to discuss. I also don't get what you mean by "timely updates", as we would not be trying to give a directory of just who is currently working there, rather a historic record of anyone notable who ever had regardless of if they still are. postdlf (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss the difference between a list being notable and individual items being notable later. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant here. First, this page isn't about a list, the list is merely the method of presenting information/indexing articles, just as is Category:Academics of the Courtauld Institute of Art, which appears to be the corresponding category (and the contents of which suggest this list could be expanded by quite a bit). See WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP. And "list notability" (whatever you mean by that) is doubly irrelevant if it is merged to just a subsection in the parent article, but if we do have enough notable entries then it's justifiable to keep as a standalone WP:SPLIT even apart from its value as an index of articles. It's then a clear keep or merge. postdlf (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact I've said three times this isn't the right place for the notability discussion means I agree with you. List articles are rarely about a list? This is AfD, not CfD. I'm unsure what you mean by a "standalone SPLIT". Whether this list has any value is debatable, yes. Thank you for finalizing your not-votes. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See comment to postdlf above CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United College of Engineering & Research

United College of Engineering & Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this is a high visibility research institute. Apart from a few press releases, paid advertisement and primary sources, there is no RS to support WP:NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Fenix down (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Boakye-Yiadom (footballer)

Nana Boakye-Yiadom (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite making three appearances in an WP:FPL league. Most of his sources seem like WP:ROUTINE sources and possibly doesn't pass WP:GNG with that. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Passing WP:NFOOTBALL only means that the subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline, not that he does. Most of the sources are game recaps, database listings or articles on teams sites that are not independent of the subject. This is probably the best source in the article and this is the best I found in a Google search. I am more than happy to change my vote if someone has a better luck than me finding sources. Alvaldi (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus as yet and to my mind a lot more needed from the keep voters. Yes the article has a lot of sources in it but which ones help satisfy gng? What I am seeing is a lot of primary sources, routine match reporting which doesn't discuss the individual in detail and stat sites. Not really seeing where the significant coverage is. Also, the argument that he should be kept because he scrapes over the NFOOTBALL threshold and has an ongoing career is laughable as he is currently competing for Barking in the 8th tier, four tiers below the level that is considered fully pro and has been in non league football for years.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fenix down: polite reminder that your job when reviewing/closing an AFD is to objectively assess the consensus in the discussion, not impose your own opinion. GiantSnowman 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We would generally discount the Barnsley FC source due to not truly being an independent source, even though the coverage is good. The other two are okay-ish coverage-wise, not clear cut GNG. There's clearly enough consensus for now for the article to be kept, anyway, but I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up back at AfD in a few years if his career doesn't head back to NFOOTBALL levels anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources proffered above are routine and not SIGCOV (or are not independent). 5 sentences relating to a transfer is decidedly not in depth, and even if the Barking article wasn't hyperlocal transfer coverage it's strictly a proseified list of his former clubs and injury reports -- identical information to that in stats databases, which do not contribute to SIGCOV. And Barnsley FC is very obviously not an acceptable source for establishing notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's enough of a WP:NFOOTY pass and enough written about him to scrape the article over the WP:GNG line, even if a couple better sources are needed in the article as it is. SportingFlyer T·C 18:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We establish clear black lines like WP:NFOOTBALL to avoid spending month-long debates like this. It's a clear pass, with a year and 4 appearances in a fully-professional squad, and there's been continuing media coverage of this player in subsequent years that's borderline GNG. There's more than enough material available on-line to flesh out the article, and provide more references. I've improved and added additional references. We'd also be better served if during this month-long debate, that there was more energy spend improving the article, rather than debating it! Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz I'm still not seeing any SIGCOV? Routine play-by-play match coverage and transfer announcements are not nearly in-depth enough for notability even if the subject is prominently mentioned, and combining those sources doesn't magically make such material encyclopedic. Per NSPORT, NFOOTY does not supersede GNG so having played 4 games doesn't mean he deserves a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Routine play-by-play match coverage isn't significant, but printed newspaper articles about things like hat-tricks are. Corporate transfer announcements aren't significant, but national media coverage of transfers is. Also note, that as per WP:N, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if" it either meets GNG and SNG. By meeting WP:NSPORT, SNG is met, and GNG is indeed trumped. Now you would be correct, that if NSPORT was met, and there weren't actual sources to write anything, then the article should be deleted, but I'm finding more than enough coverage of this person over the last 7-8 years to flesh out an article. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That article is still a routine play-by-play match report; his being in the headline is immaterial to the lack of in-depth coverage of him overall, and it's also irrelevant that it appears in a printed newspaper article (especially since it's a special-interest newspaper devoted specifically to all levels of UK non-league football; it might be different if it was a headline in The Times in a non-sports section). And being "national" doesn't magically make trivial mentions somehow SIGCOV. Of course you can find abundant coverage of the plays this or any other player, league or non-league, made throughout his career; but per NOTNEWS that material is not encyclopedic unless it garnered unusually substantial in-depth attention in multiple IRS. WP:N is referencing the GNG-independent SNGs with that sentence (NPROF, GEOLAND, the extra requirements for NPOL); NSPORT is explicitly subordinate to GNG, per the very first sentence (emphasis mine): This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The FAQs right at the top of the page even say The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline and eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted the first sentence not the second, which says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." It says GNG or SNG ... not GNG and SNG. I quickly found dozens of sources. I only opened a couple of them. There's adequate sources to write an article. This wikilawyering over borderline cases needs to stop - it's a waste of everyone's time. I expect given sufficient time, and infinite resources, GNG sources would be found. Nfitz (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No votes to delete, nominator withdraws. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Víkarbyrgi

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

Not sourced at all. versacespacetalk to me 05:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. versacespacetalk to me 05:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although this village in the Faroe Islands no longer has permanent residents ([7]), Google Books shows mention of it in the 14th century ("Before the Black Death came and devastated the Faroe Islands, Víkarbyrgi in Suđuroy was one of the largest villages" [8]) and in discussion of early 20th century local politics [9]. I think WP:GEOLAND criterion 1 applies here. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Johansen 1963, p. 12 does seem to indicate that (a) it's not in Scotland, (b) sources can be found, (c) it was indeed populated back in the 1960s.
    • Johansen, Sámal (1963). "Suðuroy sunnara sysla". Foroya Landalaera (in Faroese). Torshavn: Foroya Skulabokagrunnur. OCLC 858367544.
  • Uncle G (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not being sourced is not a reason for deletion unless no sources can be found - a quick look at foreign language Wikipedia sites, especially Faroese, show this likely passes WP:GEOLAND. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AllyD's sources; this seems to be a legitimate GEOLAND-passing village. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep — @VersaceSpace, As Hog Farm already stated, id do you one better by pointing to the relevant guideline which is WP:NEXIST, & per NEXIST Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: Thank you. I didn't understand the guideline when I first read it and nominated it, and I would like to withdraw my nomination but do not know how to. versacespacetalk to me 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Emmer

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

Only 1 source cited in the article and only 2 more articles found online... actually they were the same article published on 2 different websites. Topic does not constitute WP:BIO or adhere to policy guidelines as far as I can see. It looks like he was just a "good guy". Megtetg34 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mid level manager for the Disney organization. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hotjar

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

An article on this topic was speedily deleted under G11 and subsequently this version was created. The talk page sets out concerns with the use of sources, which are essentially passing mentions and interviews with the founder, stitched together to give the appearance of a substantive whole. Reviewed by Jikaoli Kol and recently unreviewed whin their UPE was discovered, it lacks in depth coverage by reliable sources and so fails WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Butler (entrepreneur)

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

Sources 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 come from websites that the topic owns and operates. I saw no mention of the topic in source 5 and only a trivial mention/comment in sources 6, 7 and 10. The sources reference his company mostly, and not him. The best article of the bunch is 11, and obviously 1 article about the topic is not nearly enough to constitute WP:BIO. Topic fails notability guidelines and the article can be seen as promotional material only.  Megtetg34 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are not enough sources that are independent and reliable providing significant coverage to justify having an article on Butler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone (an IP address editor) has since added 10 additional sources since the AFD of this article, and re-worked the sources so my initial AFD summary looks incorrect. Regarding the additional 10 sources, the summary now is:
    • Source 3 - Trivial mention about flea markets in NY neighborhoods, with minor comments from topic.
    • Source 7 - article is about a building development the topic and others were involved in, not about the topic itself.
    • Source 12 - article mentions topic, his partner and other foodie business owners. No depth.
    • Source 13 - links to Chelsea Flea, no article mentioning the topic.
    • Source 14 - trivial mention of topic in paragraph 2, simply naming him as co-founder.
    • Source 15 - not a single mention of the topic.
    • Source 16 - trivial mention of topic 3 quarters down the page, simply naming him as co-founder.
    • Source 17 - not a single mention of the topic.
    • Source 18 - 20 second video speech where topic suggests people like to take pictures of their food whilst waving it around in front of the Empire State Building.
    • Source 20 - article covers the topic, but is from the college he graduated from which makes it a dependent source, not an independent source that would count towards WP:GNG.
    • Source 21 - article is a dead link, doesn't exist.

The topic has the majority of the coverage of his business enthralled in posts by the New York Times. If they are thought to be inlcuded by the article editors in an attempt to establish WP:GNG, please see WP:MULTSOURCES: The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher). No additional sources constituting depth of coverage independent sources have been found. Topic continues to fail requirements to meet WP:GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)  [reply]

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved and notability established. (non-admin closure) Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ATLAS Forward Proton Project (neé FP420 experiment)

Advanced search for: 
"ATLAS Forward Proton Project"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr


ATLAS Forward Proton Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It was original prodded by Tercer (talk · contribs) with the rationale "No information can be found about this experiment, probably it just didn't happen or was renamed. In either case, having an article under this name is pointless."

I have undone this, basically because there is plenty of information about the project (e.g. [10]). However, Tercer is right that this project seems to be one that fizzled out, or was never carried out.

So I'm putting this up for AfD instead. Sources are weak/all primary sources, but maybe some more digging can find what happened to it, or if it's just one of many projects that never took off. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. XOR'easter, this is not "internal infrastructure". This is the process of cutting edge experimental physics. Wikipedia covers theoretical high energy physics and the standard model and lots of speculation thereon in great detail. All that would be nowhere without the experimental science and engineering that goes into the enormously complex and expensive accelerator facilities providing the data. Wikipedia covers experimental high energy physics poorly. We don't even have categories for the colliders and detectors. This is like covering space exploration without having articles about rockets and satellites. The technical details in those innumerable rocket and spacecraft articles don't come from the daily papers, they come from the agencies responsible. It will be the same way for high energy physics experiments. This article is an important subtopic of the Large Hadron Collider whose discoveries are covered in every media outlet on the planet. The technical details will come from the papers that report the science and engineering that creates the experimental facilities. We need more of these articles. More could be split out from the ATLAS experiment and more could be written about older experiments. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even after the expansion, this seems more like a merge than a keep-separate situation to me. The content is fine, but it appears at the moment to be better used as part of a larger whole. XOR'easter (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hawaii Rainbow Wahine softball. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Wahine Softball Stadium

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

Non-notable college venue. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Group of Institutions

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

Did a clean up of the advertising cruft. The page fails WP:NSCHOOLS. Apart from press releases, paid advertising and primary sources, there are no RS. Creator appears to be a SPA. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure about this one, Times of India is clearly not just paid advertising/a press release (1 2 3). FOARP (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources, "Online assessment, video interview helps students beat Covid" and "Freshers welcomed at induction programme of United College" are based on press releases by the institution. The third source titled, "UGI Allahabad president Jagdish Gulati honoured" states that "65 hard working faculty were honoured". So none of the sources add notability to the private educational institution. Vikram Vincent 11:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From looking this over all that exists reference wise is a few press releases and otherwise extremely trivial coverage. There's nothing that would be up to muster for notability though. So, I'm going with delete for now. Unless someone can find WP:THREE good independent, in-depth references since I couldn't find any. If so, I'm more then happy to change my "vote" to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Persuaded by Vikram Vincent's analysis. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Romer Carlson

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

WP:COATRACK article on a subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Generally, an individual is notable when they satisfy our notability threshold or peculiar SNG & not by their proximity to seemingly notable entities/persons. Notability isn’t a birthright or WP:NOTINHERITED. A before search showed me this, which is overtly unreliable, this, which is overtly unreliable also & hits in numerous sponsored posts. In summary, there isn’t a single source that I can observe which discusses her with in-depth significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rachel Romer Carlson is the founder and CEO of a female-led company that is valued at $1 billion or more. How many women have this accomplishment? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That´s the company. You are writing an article about a person, a biography. What is your biographical source material? And why does this article contain only 3 sentences that are actually about its subject, the person? Where is anything else about the person going to come from? Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's three sentences out of eight sentences total. She's 33 years old and is the founder and leader of a billion dollar corporation. How many people have biographies at 33 years of age, other than professional athletes and entertainers? Should I include information about her twin daughters or her marriage ceremonies which were officiated by David Brooks (commentator)?[1]--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is a co-founder, & not founder that isn’t my point anyway, she fails to satisfy any of our notability criteria for inclusion, you can of course prove me wrong my providing us with RS that proves the contrary. Your point about her being 33 & cofounding an organization is irrelevant. Furthermore the article mainly discusses the organization & not subject of the article per se. In your opinion what notability criteria does she meet? Clearly you shouldn’t be creating articles directly to mainspace. Perhaps use the AFC method of submission instead. Celestina007 (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. She is the co-founder and CEO and her name is synonymous with Guild Education. Maybe you can help me get through the paywall?[2] CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple Google search returns multiple RS, for example a cover article in Forbes (and yes, by a staff writer, not a blogger, so RS) and an article from Stanford Graduate School of Business (although it is something of a "look at what our alumni are doing" article). Her wedding appears to have been covered by the New York Times, for what it is worth. Additionally, as the cofounder and CEO of a company with a billion dollar market cap, one would expect to find further RS because simply having that position tends to generate coverage. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — @Hyperion35, you do realize that in-depth significant coverage in multiple RS is required by GNG for GNG to be met? The forbes source isn’t bad, but one source isn’t sufficient for GNG to be met. A biographical article needs at least WP:3REFS so by all means, please do provide to this AFD, any of the three(just three) of the multiple RS you claim to have discovered, if you can’t, then I’m afraid your keep !vote is invalid. The article in itself as well as a host of other sources I observed make reference to the organization and not the subject herself hence WP:SIGCOV isn’t met. The whole article is a coatrack. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off, that "three sources" "rule" is an essay, it is NOT Wikipedia policy. Second, you do NOT get to say that my keep vote is "invalid", that is once again uncivil. The Forbes article in and of itself goes a long way towards establishing notability. The MoneyInc article itself may not be from a RS, but it does contain some interesting biographical information that could probably be found in better sources. A link to a Fortune article was placed, but it is nehind a paywall so I cannot assess it, I merely note that another editor claims that it contains significant coverage (remember, AGF).
There is another article and interview at InfoQ although I am not familiar with that source. However, that article notes that she was the keynote speaker at a conference called Develop Denver 2019, the Develop Denver website confirms that it is a real thing, but I cannot immediately find the notes of her actual keynote speech on that website.
In searching for that speech, I instead came across This article in the Colorado Sun about the subject. The article is also about the company she founded, yes, but it is primarily about Carlson and her role, a significant number of paragraphs actually start with her name, for example. This strikes me as a highly valid reliable source with significan coverage. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lee, Allen. "20 Things You Didn't Know About Rachel Carlson". moneyinc.com. Money Inc. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
  2. ^ MURRAY, ALAN; MEYER, DAVID. "Can tech solve the re-skilling challenge?". fortune.com. Fortune. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while there is valid points from Hyperion35, I'm going to air on the side of delete here because it does appear that the article and her notability stems more from the company than independent notability. In my view, she's borderline, and I'm of the belief that encyclopedic topics either pass notability or they don't. I think WP:TOOSOON is applicable here. If anyone finds anything additional I'd be willing to change my vote, but I didn't just find enough online to merit keep. Megtetg34 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage that I am finding, such as that Colorado Sun article, tends to focus more on Carlson's role in founding the company than the company itself. In many of these cases, it can be hard to separate the two. There is certainky far more coverage of Apple than of Steve Jobs. And way more coverage of Franz Ferdinand than Gavrilo Princip. And yet both of those individuals have significant independent notability. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in disagreement with you that she has a bright future, and that a $1 billion dollar company valuation is impressive. Personally, I think it's impressive. However, as it pertains to this particular discussion, whether or not I, or anyone else, thinks that what someone is doing is impressive doesn't necessitate inclusion into the encyclopedia. Opinions aside, the facts are: 1) There isn't enough independent, reliable sources about her to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The Colorado Sun article that you mentioned is a local newspaper, not a mainstream newspaper. Not gonna work. See WP:SOURCES. The Stanford blog post is where she went to school. Can neutrality apply there? I don't think it can. The institution has a vested interest in presenting to the public that they have successful alumni. See WP:ORGIND: any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly are considered dependent sources. Dependent sources don't count towards independent sources. 2) Just because Steve Jobs or other business people have an article, doesn't mean that all founders of highly valued companies, or any companies at all for that matter, should get an article. See WP:WAX and WP:OSE. 3) The debate that you and Celestina007 are having pertaining to WP:3REFS is the bare minimum for encyclopedic inclusion. Even IF the topic had 3 independent sources, it doesn't mean that a bell tolls, and the article is automatically accepted into Wikipedia, no questions asked. Other factors come into play. The basis of your argument is that there is "just enough", and I don't even think there's that. My vote is firmly planted on delete. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three references is, once again, not Wikipedia policy or a guideline. It is an essay by one user. Please see WP:NEXIST. The standard is the existence or even likely existence of sources. I believe that you have also misunderstood what I meant about Jobs, I meant that most of the articles about him will also be about his company. I do believe that it is possible to agree to disagree, but I do find misunderstandings disheartening. Hyperion35 (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what is the objection to the Colorado Sun? It does not appear to be a local newspaper, amd I am confused about the statement that it is not a mainstream news source. Perhaps you can add citations on that to our Wikipedia page about the Sun? Hyperion35 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a mainstream newspaper like the Wall Street Journal for example. I have given my vote and reasons above per Wikipedia policy and for no other reason. However, it's clear that it's very, very important to you that she stays. Let's let the rest of the community have their vote and respect them, whatever they may be. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the worst nomination I have seen today. Subject meets WP:GNG. There is an in-depth Forbes article about her from a Staff Writer, which unlike contributing writers, is an acceptable format. There are also CNBC and New York times articles. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject does not meet any reading of GNG that emphasizes the coverage has to be significantly about the person in question. This is not the 1990s, $1 billion is just not what it used to be, and a company valued over $1 billion does not automatically make its head notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I have revised the article and added sources, including a reference to a regional EY award in 2020, and created this source assessment table, which does not include the NYT opinion article co-authored by Carlson nor the CNBC source about Guild:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
2019, Class Act: This 31-Year-Old’s Company Rocketed To A $1 Billion Valuation Helping Workers Get Degrees, Forbes (Staff) Yes Yes Yes The article focuses on Carlson, and includes biographical information, e.g. a history of Guild focused on her role, information about her family, her childhood, some of her past career, her family's history in the education industry, and some of her education background. ✔ Yes
2016, When Education Innovation Is the Family Business: a Dinner With the Romers The Chronicle of Higher Education Yes Yes value not understood The article is more focused on the Romer family, but Carlson is discussed in the article, including some of her education background and past career before Guild, and her personal goal for Guild. ? Unknown
2018, Guild Education’s twist on college is working for cashiers, sales clerks and others who abandoned the idea of a college degree, Colorado Sun Yes Yes Yes This article is focused on Carlson, and includes biographical information, including her family (children), the creation of Guild, discussion of managing Guild in the context of being an expectant parent, her family, her childhood, her education background, and some of her career history. While there also is a substantial discussion of Guild, per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ✔ Yes
2021, Managing Future Growth at an Innovative Workforce Education Startup, Harvard Business School Cold Call Podcast Yes Yes value not understood This source is more focused on Guild, but includes some background on Carlson, because the podcast host asks, "Tell us about Rachel. Rachel Carlson is the... She's the protagonist in the case. She is the founder of the firm. She's an interesting person. Tell us a little bit about her background," and there is a brief discussion of her family, some of her education, some of her prior career, and the creation of Guild. ? Unknown
2020, #StoptheSpread: Hundreds of business leaders and investors signed a commitment to help stop the spread of the coronavirus pandemic., Business Insider India Yes Yes value not understood This article is not focused on Carlson, even though her picture is at the top, but it takes notice of the open letter she co-authored that advocates for business leaders to take action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. ? Unknown
2020, Steph Curry, 400 CEOs And Investors Sign Open Letter Pledging To Take Bold Action In Combatting Coronavirus Spread Forbes Staff Yes Yes value not understood This article is not focused on Carlson, even though her picture is at the top, but it takes notice of the open letter she co-authored that advocates for business leaders to take action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. ? Unknown
2014, Rachel Romer and David Carlson, New York Times ? ? value not understood There is no byline in this wedding announcement, but some information is provided about her family, her education and her past career. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
My !vote is based on the results of my research and the sources assessed above, but there is also WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, which states, Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company, and several of the more robust sources are included in the Guild Education article, and relevant information could potentially be added to the History and/or Leadership section of that article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I have updated my !vote to delete after further consideration of the sources as well as the recent comment by Celestina007. Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::::Comment I am not sure if it is an error, or if there were two separate Forbes stories, but the Forbes story you have linked to is not the Forbes story that I mentioned earlier. This Forbes article appears to be a full length feature, possibly a cover story, specifically about Rachel Romer Carlson. I do not know whether it affects your vote, but I believe that it should be included in a list of sources. It os clearly non-trivial significant coverage of the subject herself. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I should not post comments while watching baseball. I apologize, this article was right at the top of the list. Mea culpa. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is leaning towards a keep consensus but relisting in an attempt to see if a firmer consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are solid !votes to "keep" or to "delete", more discussion might lead to a more satisfying close than "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Danny Roark

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

As with most twelve-year-olds, there's no sign of substantial coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Although the article asserts that he is "widely known", he would appear to be simply a run-of-the-mill child. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographical article of a child with zero good sources cited. Content and deletion policy is a lot stronger in this area, and the burden of showing sources a lot more immediate. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if you search up his name, almost nothing comes up except for his Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.49.2 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For the reasons already stated. I partially suspect that the Little Dany Roark article may be a Wikipedia Conflict of Interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landino1 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Absolutely nothing here is a reliable source that indicates notability. Apparently he wrote a self-published e-book. According to a Facebook page, he is associated with a gospel band that does not have an article of its own, which includes his father who, according to this article, has only been a Christian for four months, thus suggesting that the association with this band has been only of short duration. Also, a newspaper article showed a photo of him and his fourth-grade classmates when they went to a state park and learned about identifying trees. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: It would appear to be pretty heavily SNOWing. In light of the substantial BLP issues presented, I would encourage any roaming sysop to close this discussion sooner rather than later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jesus loves me too, but I don't need a wikipedia article. Nothing found to show him as being more important than a random 12 yr old. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one of the worst sourced and most engaged in over the top promotionalism articles I have seen. Having your name mentioned in a hyper local paper article on your school doing a fundraiser is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. With all the Keep votes coming from socks, there is clear consensus it should be deleted Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Nied

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

Promotional article about a non-notable teenager. There is some coverage, but not enough; the "non-profit" is all local human-interest coverage, and the Virginia Beach Neptune Festival incident would be BLP1E. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article should be kept because of numerous articles in Virginian-Pilot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocean11s (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Ocean11s (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sock !votes, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/360nosc --Blablubbs|talk 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep: This Article should be kept for the help with positive changes the the Neptune Festival and contribution to environmental changes

Keep: This article should be kept because of the amazing work Planting Shade is accomplishing

Keep: This article should be kept because of the great app, HeyyyU, that helps young adults

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 01:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Nurmagomedov

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights in top tier promotion (UFC/Invicta) and fails GNG for the fights are routine reports. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the author. I agree there is a failure on part of WP:NMMA and that the subject is two fights short in Bellator to meet the requirements. Nevertheless, I think he just might be scraping the surface of notability as per WP:GNG when complemented with the coverage received in reliable Russian media sources, much of which I must admit is based on his relationship with Khabib. If the vote swings towards deletion, I'd recommend it to be substituted by Draftify instead. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not by association and the subject would not able to meet the notability for a long time (years) as he is fighting in Bellator, so ratifying serves no purpose. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand. If he is two fights short in Bellator to satisfy WP:NMMA, how would that mean a long time wait? That could happen in a span of a single year, even. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh wait, WP:NMMA says "Bellator Fighting Championships (Top Tier: 2009 through 2015)". It all makes sense now. Could you kindly move the article to my sandbox as I could find use for its template if I find notable MMA fighters in the future? Consider this a formal approval to close the AfD from the author, if such a request exists by nature. Thanks. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearlyevil665. I have copied the content to your sandbox - see User:Nearlyevil665/sandbox. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearlyevil665. No worries. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cassiopeia: MMA is not my area of interest. So consider me an intruder here. But your statement "The BBC article is an interview piece of the subject and thus it is not independent soruce." caught my attention. Could you please elaborate a little on this. I mean I do not understand how the BBC piece is "not [an] independent source" i.e., "independent of the subject" of this article. Is this because the piece is an interview? Best. Mosesheron (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mosesheron Thank you for the question. When a source content is derived from and interview with the subject/subject associate, that make the source not independent because the info/content comes from the subject themselves. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cassiopeia: I still do not get your point. Perhaps a failure on my part. But I mean if "a source content is derived from [an] interview with the subject/subject associate", that may not be considered WP:SECONDARY as far as the "content" coming from that source is concerned. But how does that frustrate WP:SIGCOV and make the source "not independent"? Mosesheron (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mosesheron Primary sources are those of first-hand information on a topic, creative texts, experiment results, historical documents and etc. Independent sources /third party sources are those without of any direct influence with the subjects involved/view. A source is considered secondary if it contains an analysis, synthesis, discussion, evaluation etc. of primary sources. SIGCOV "significant coverage - subject is covered by sources in length and in details and not passing mentioned. The above BBC source is reliable but not independent. This is a AfD discussion. I think we would leave the discussion of type of sources discussion here. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:GNG. I'll dissent from the nominator's opinion and say that the subject does meet WP:GNG as he has been covered in various secondary, independent, reliable sources as can be verified by a simple google search (the standard method).
Secondly, there's a thing about the corresponding criterions that is going under the radar- passing WP:NMMA can validate a fighter notable but its not vice-versa, i.e. failing the aforementioned criteria "is not the last word on the notability of a subject" and thus it cannot prove Usman non-notable. P.S. it should be noted that WP:GNG has a slightly higher importance than any other criterions which comes naturally from it being a set of "general guideline". Generally, we don't find subjects that pass GNG and not SSG because passing GNG demands a little more. So this looks pretty clear to me- it should be kept.
Please note that i haven't voted it a strong keep so there must be some scope of deletion based on any factor like content verifiability. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I appreciate your contribution to this discussion I reverted your latest edit to the article as the website linked looked like providing pirated recordings of UFC and Bellator fights. If I'm wrong please feel free to put those back in, but I had to act as per WP:BOLD. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe. My only motive was to provide a source that referenced the time of the third fight. I think that's clear now. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is clear he fails to meet WP:NMMA, so the question is whether or not he meets WP:GNG. I'll start by looking at the 5 current sources in the article. All of them refer to his appearance at Bellator 255, so that seems to be WP:ONEEVENT. Most of the articles focus as much on Kahbib as Usman, but WP:NOTINHERITED. The Insider article is part interview, part glowing comments from Bellator's boss, and partly about Usman's family--definitely not significant independent coverage. It also seems to be standard pre-fight reporting/hype. The BBC article is mainly an interview and therefore not independent or reliably sourced. The third source is an MMA database. The fourth and fifth are routine sports reporting of results for the same fight. I see nothing that shows WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable MMA fighter. Riteboke (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Riteboke He is not a notable fighter. Since you stated keep, pls explain which Wikipedia notability guidelines which the subject pass as notable fighter as AfD required? instead just stating he is. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at WP:GOOGLEHITS to see that the number of google hits has no bearing on WP notablility. The fact that you edited 140 AfD discussions in a 24 hour period leads me to believe you didn't put much effort into your research on any of those topics. In addition, those make up a large number of your edits and I would suggest you start more slowly and familiarize with WP criteria such as WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:N, etc. WP:NOTAVOTE explains that AfD discussions are passed on WP based arguments and not just votes. Papaursa (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The editors's who voted as keep almost fails to explain under which of the notability guidelines does the subject pass as a notable fighter. So relisting once again to generate more consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability is not a requirement for GA and so it is entirely possible for an article that is (correctly) rated GA to be deleted. So whether or not an article is GA, or whether it should not be a GA because of failing a GA criteria like NOR, doesn't matter at AfD. In terms of the deletion discussion here, there is a consensus that sourcing exists that support notability for this song. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moments (One Direction song)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. Its coverage comes from only album reviews. Some very low chart entries. One interview with Ed Sheeran (song-writer) which falls under the "other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work" umbrella. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep This article is currently a GA status, surely it's notability was scrutinized when it was reviewed. Despite low chart entries, it charted on 3 different national charts and received Gold certification in Australia. That alone means it meets WP:NSONGS. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Up All Night--album reviews may be sufficient for standalone song articles if they discuss the song specifically in-depth (usually within a paragraph). For this song, however, album reviews only each cover one-two sentences regarding this song, which turns out to be trivial coverage. Charting and certifications are only cherry on the top, not the determinant factor of notability. 05:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    • That is not to mention that the Entertainment Weekly and the MTV News sources, which I did a small spotcheck, do not mention this particular song anywhere. A potential case of WP:OR. HĐ (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Up All Night, as the reviews are in the context of album reviews which doesn't establish notability per WP:NSONG. The only thing that seems to make the song distinct from coverage of the rest of the album is that it was written by Ed Sheeran, but the sources for that are not enough to satisfy notability on their own, as much of it is as a trivial mention in discussing the group's debut album or a passing mention in an interview by Sheeran. Nangears (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wow, I've just been thinking lately about the issue of quality-assessed articles being AfDed and redirected on the basis of narrow interpretations of SNGs, and my regret in abetting it, and I run into this. Suppose it's time to put my money where my mouth is.

    The thing about notability guidelines (G or S) is that their intent is to provide a shortcut for "Could you write a decent article about this?". Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is a line drawn not because it sounds cool or respectable but because an article without that is going to be either a pile of puffery or a very sad stub. The extension of this is that if an article is not only 'decent' but 'in good enough shape to pass our quality review processes', there are three possibilities: it has enough coverage, it's a hoax, or it's a bizarre edge case of the 2012 tour of She Has a Name sort. (The second and third cases shouldn't be passing said processes, but they do, and that's another discussion for another day.) "GA/FA don't assess notability" is a red herring -- they don't check an article fits the XNG because the XNG is the guideline as to whether an article complex enough to hit GA/FA can be written (indeed it's the guideline as to whether an article complex enough to hit "the more respectable end of Start" can be written).

    I look at this, which has passed GA review, and I find myself agreeing with that assessment. It's not a topic of particular interest to me, but it's a respectable, solid article that hits the beats it needs. It's able to cover a broad swathe of areas of interest to readers without falling into puffery, exaggeration, or any other habits of a stretched-thin article on an insufficient topic. I spot-checked the reviews and found them acceptable even if sparse; one devoted much of a paragraph to the song, which seems "acceptable for NSONGS". The Ed Sheeran coverage doesn't seem trivial, either. As to the claim of OR, I removed one reference that was simply duplicating another, and the other one accused of it clearly and obviously references the song by its lyrics -- which is exactly what the article says.

    Essentially -- "if this wasn't notable, the article wouldn't look like this". Is that circular? No, it's exactly what XNGs are designed to do -- screen out articles that would never be able to be improved to the level of a thousand decent words. It is a complete misinterpretation to weaponize SNGs for the deletion (via redirection or otherwise) of GAs, and a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be building (including via curation and the removal of unacceptable content) an encyclopedia, because an article that has distinguished itself as high-quality is not unacceptable content barring extenuating circumstances (as described above). The purpose of XNGs is to serve the project, not the other way around. If an SNG prescribes that high-quality articles should be deleted, then the problem is not with those articles. Vaticidalprophet 04:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Vaticidalprophet: This shouldn't have passed GA as not only the article doesn't pass WP:NSongs but it shows a lot of original research. GA doesn't grant notability to any article, the reviewer at the time might not take a closer look. Truth be told, nowhere in the GA criteria sais it needs you as a reviwer to check for notability. It clearly states on WP:NSongs "coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability", there is nothing in this article besided reviews in the context of an album. To begin with it has to be multiple, not one review (with a pragraph) and Ed Sheeran is an interested third party as he is one of the writers of the song, "This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise" you haven't read WP:NSongs like you should. The problem is this article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. There's still no clear consensus on whether WP:GNG or WP:NSONG should be followed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find myself entirely in agreement with Vatricidal Prophet. I think that AfD has been ignoring the spirit of deletion and notability guidelines for some time in favor of wikilawyering and "well technically..." (and don't even get me started on "give me three sources..."), and nominating a GA article just seems to be almost a parody of AfD. I don't know if I've ever heard of this song, it's certainly not my preferred style (I think Rock & Roll peaked in 1975 with | Born to Run and everything since is irrelevant), but I am impressed with the article itself, that people were able to source the background and compositional style of the song. The rest of the article quite literally explains the notability by covering its critical reception, charting, and live performances. As I said, I couldn't care less about this band and this song, but I wish we had more editors and articles like this. Do not nominate GA articles for deletion! If you disagree with the GA nomination or the quality of the article, use the talk page. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:NSONG. Independent sources that should cover ONLY the song, they are album reviews. Its not about being GA or not...if it wasn't GA it would be on the same spot. Ga doesn't grant notability to any article, independent sources do. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the GA process, or perhaps the process is different for different types of articles or different Wikiprojects. Isn't an evaluation of the sources a significant part of the GA process? In Wikiproject Medicine, MEDRS gets repeated so many times during a GA process that you almost think it's someone's username, for example. Now, perhaps you disagree with the GA result, but I am looking at the result of the process and the consensus that resulted. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperion35: I'm not trying to get a GA demoted, just simply showing this article its not notable as it lacks coverage of independent sources. This was promoted back in 2012, a lot of things have changes including the criteria...therefore we have WP:NSONG. The first GA reviewer who looked at sources, failed it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why you trying to save an article that fails WP:NSongs. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarioSoulTruthFan, I'm neutral when it comes to notability of non-single songs. Honestly, there's nothing wrong if the people who voted to keep the article agree with the reasonings of Vaticidalprophet and Hyperion35 that this song meets WP:GNG. So, it's best to respect their views than to waste your time arguing with them. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 07:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wellp. That's a solid consensus if I ever saw one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games notable for negative reception

AfDs for this article:
List of video games notable for negative reception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a POV fork when "notable for" is an inherently subjective description (rendering it inappropriate for an article title in the first place per WP:Neutral point of view) plus people will impose their own criteria for what is/isn't worth including. Any details on poor reviews are better for the games' individual pages. That's better having than a compilation of cherry-picked titles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's in fact much discussion on on the talk page (/its archives) about why it's called what it's called and even more discussion about the actual criteria for it. In fact the article isn't actually about the "considered worst" games, the title reflects the content. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, it could be renamed to "List of video games known for negative reception" or "List of video games noted for negative reception" (which would be more encyclopedic without editorializing), but that wouldn't resolve the issue of how selective the page is. Whoever decided on the page's current "List of video games notable for negative reception" title made a big mistake and should've gone with a different choice. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even going beyond NLIST, there is notable interest in the "worst games of all time" eg The Guardian, GamesRadar, for example. Of course that's a POV title and thus located to here. Further, the list is careful to avoid games that are expected to be bad (like shovelware or mobile games), and thus the list is more curated to games that have a known reputation for being poor, and not simply because of their low review score or the like; hence why it is called "games notable for negative reception" --Masem (t) 06:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to be clear, those of us that edit that page are careful about what is added to it, as to avoid that cherry picking. We're trying to go by sourcing that affirms the intent of the list, and while there are games that are considered bad or worse out there becuase of low review scores, we don't include those just because of low scores - we're looking for long-term reputation as bad games, which helps to make sure this list says on topic and not cherry picking. --Masem (t) 06:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasonings provided by editors who have commented before me. The only rationale I could identify from the nominator's rationale is, I don't like it. Haleth (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all my rationale. I was basing it off of WP: Content forking#Point of view (POV) forks (WP:POVFORK). The title just emphasizes this page's biased nature even more (i.e. only picks certain games that got poor reviews and not others even when many games not included also had unfavorable reception). Keeping it around (especially with the current name) is just enabling neutrality problems. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it's not a fork. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • SNUGGUMS, according to the content guideline you linked to, a POV fork is defined as another version of the article or another article on the same subject. Could you point us to what you believe to be the original or legitimate version of this article, or another article somewhere in Wikipedia about the same subject? And going by your own definition of a biased article, you may also find List of video games considered the best to be unacceptable, since the contents are also defined based on an arbitrary set of inclusion criteria set by editors themselves (minimum of 6 lists by 6 different publications) which you decried as biased in your rationale and subsequent responses. Your thoughts? Haleth (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not to delve too far into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory, but that other page at least uses some attribution within its title (signifying it is what critics consider top-tier games). A minimum of six publications sounds random. Focusing back on this list, I'm not sure where exactly it first was supon off from aside from somebody compiling games that overall got poor reviews. Any instance it may have been more legitimate must've been before September 2012 (where its current name was implemented), and that was also problematic with its WP:EDITORIALIZING (namely the "notably negative reception" bit) in the opening sentence. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am aware that you don't like to discuss further per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it is a valid question because in your rationale, you are alleging that it is a POV content fork, which means it is forked from another existing article to give undue weight to a point of view, so I have asked you to point us to another article which it is allegedly forked from. Citing an older version of the article which is more agreeable with your subjective view on what constitutes a legitimate inclusion criteria that is compliant with Wikipedia guidelines or policies, in fact gives other editors more reason to believe that the issue is of an editorial nature. It is inappropriate to deal with an editorial dispute by subjecting the article to an AfD. Haleth (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • For what it's worth, that old diff I linked was preferable to what we have now when it didn't generally exclude titles based on category, developer, or systems they were available on. By removing the one editorializing sentence and going back to a previously used title of "List of video games considered the worst" (which provided some attribution for the view on these listings), that would be something better to work with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's compare to List of films considered the worst, which has similar criteria to omit certain classes of films and focus only on those that have professional production. This list's criteria that omits indie games, tie-in licensed games, and phone games is the same type of thing since these are treated with the same "lack of respect" in terms of proper coverage in RSes as amateur-produced films - meaning that maybe exceptionally one of these will be called out, but most of the time they slip under the radar and while you may get one or two sources that note that game as bad, it is again unfair to include that among games with numerous sources. Now the question is, why not name this list "List of video games considered the worst" and that said, not all these games are necessary "the worst" but that they do carry strong negative perceptions, and as we know there are games with even worst scores/critical reviews, that would be a flawed title. --Masem (t) 16:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • While "List of video games considered the worst" might not be the best name (there's the idea of "List of video games noted for negative reception"), I'm not going to pretend the one currently used is neutral or any better. It also doesn't feel appropriate to leave out entries based on characteristics that are irrelevant to critics' opinions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per others. The deletion rationale is inherently flawed, as wide critical agreement is anything but POV.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above. Whether a game is bad is subjective, but there is no disputing the fact that all the games in the article's list are known primarily for their poor quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.49.2 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I would like to see more refs based on real "official" ( = based secondary sources) lists of games with negative reception (article/lists about more than one or two games); otherwise this will always be OR to some extent, even if the editors do their best to define and "enforce" the criteria. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whilst I understand what you are trying to say, these games have been severely criticised by multiple sources, and the topic as a whole appears to be notable enough, at least to me. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. No idea what the nom means by the list being a "POV fork" (it's not), this comes off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:DINC. The topic of "worst games ever made" is clearly notable, as evident by the amount of proper citations both in the article and what can be found through Google and the WikiProject's custom reliable source search engine. Namcokid47 16:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case I hadn't already made it obvious, I was saying this is a POV fork based on how it involves people picking and choosing what they think should be highlighted for their negative reception. The sheer number of references isn't my concern, and as I mentioned above, it is NOT an WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance. If one wants to focus on a "worst games" topic, then having a page titled "List of video games considered the worst" would at least be more neutral. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria used is questionable when the lead openly admits that this tends to omit mobile games, indie games, and "licensed tie-in games for movies or television shows". It comes off as a "those games don't matter" sort of ordeal. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're free to challenge the criteria, of course. Still not a deletion rationale. -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the reason we generally omit those games is because they don't get wide coverage but may have one or two reviews that call them bad, and it would be unfair to list those alongside games that have multiple reviews and other RS sources that clearly outside the negative reception of the game. Sometimes one of those exclusions will make it (like Superman 64) but this is the exception, not the rule. --Masem (t) 20:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the others. Bad video games are notable and sometimes they have really interesting stories as to why the game turned out in the end. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Faulty deletion rationale. List is not a fork. List clearly meets WP:LISTN. It is not an arbitrary list of items, it has a defined inclusion criteria on the talk page per WP:LISTCRIT. AFD is not cleanup. AFD is not a venue to argue that the page title may need changed. I fail to see how "negative reception" is less neutral than "worst games" besides. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am genuinely confused by this nomination. Notability is not subjective, or at least that is a central assumption of AfD in general (or at least, we assume that notability can be a matter of consensus). The list appears to have, as one of its primary criteria, a requirement that these games be notable specifically for wide RS coverage of their negative reception. In other words, it's not obscure games or bad games, but games that were prominent or anticipated or controversial or for some other reason received widespread coverage, and that coverage was negative. That strikes me as being literally the definition of the sort of lists that we want. If there is an issue with the title, or an issue with the criteria for inclusion, or an issue over whether certain other titles should be included, those are properly issues for the talk page. In fact, I may start following that talk page because I can imagine that this would lead to some excellent and fascinating discussion. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Panini!🥪 13:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:SNOW. JOEBRO64 16:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also want to clarify the concept of Forking. Forking involves taking a parent topic, and creating a new article about some part of that topic, for the purposes of getting around POV or Undue Weight or other restrictions. Often this is done when we have an article on a scientific topic, where there is general consensus among reliable sources in ths scientific community, but where there is some "controversy" or disagreement in public discourse, perhaps due to political or religious views. Wikipedia guidelines normally mandate placing a small section near the end to note that such beliefs exist, where their due weight allows only a few neutral sentences, if that. Sometimes editors get around this by Forking, creating a separate "controversies" page, where they can give undue weight to fringe views and pretend that they are merely "covering the controversy" rather than pushing a specific POV. This is what the rules on Forking exist to prohibit, the use of forked articles for the purpose of evading Wikipedia guidelines. In this case, the games on this list already have to meet a standard that is actually more stringent than Wikipedia would require simply to include a game on any list, therefore it is not and cannot be a Fork from some other list of video games for the purposes of evading Wikipedia guidelines. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:LISTN.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's a long history of this article, and similar ones, being kept at AFD. As others have noted, this nomination is baffling and ill-conceived. It should have already been abundantly clear that articles like this need fixing, not blowing up. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All of the games on this list are considered notable enough for their own list, and the old title calling them the "worst games ever" would be innaccurate; yes, many of these games like Big Rigs and E.T. 2600 are definately fitting for a "worst" list, but this list covers games that caused effects in the gaming industry (i.e., Star Wars Battlefront 2 '17). AlexField290 (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a POVFORK as the nom claimed it to be. If they think there are issues about the inclusion criteria they should propose changes in its talk page. "Worst game of all time" has been and always will be a valid topic. enjoyer|talk 02:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- not 'speedy', that's a separate thing to the clause being invoked, but it sure does look like a snowstorm out here. I wouldn't usually comment on an AfD this overwhelming, but I ran into it while looking at the article and was so shocked I recused myself from the reader role back to the editor one. Vaticidalprophet 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If we have "list of games considered best" and "list of movies considered worst", I feel it wouldn't be redundant to have "video games known for bad reviews" Sergei zavorotko (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have lists of worst other types of media, so why not video games? Also, meets WP:NLIST. Melmann 11:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. This clearly isn't going to go anywhere, and I really don't see the point of just outright detonating the article because it has some problems. Maybe a page move would work better? Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A page move would certainly be an improvement. It would only fix part of the problem, though. After that's carried out, there's still an issue of cherry-picking among unfavorably reviewed games on a dubious basis. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As several people have pointed out, disagreements over issues like inclusion criteria are best dealt with on the article's talk page. AfD would only make sense if the inclusion criteria did not comply with existing notability criteria, but in this case the list's inclusion criteria incorporate and are more stringent than the GNG. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This list includes only video games that are notable enough to be considered "bad" games by multiple reliable sources, not by few people without reliable sources. There are plenty of "bad" games around the internet, but many of them aren't notable enough by multiple media to be included in this list. As long the games included in this list are notable, it meets WP:NLIST. Stylez995 (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matchpoint NYC

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

Fails WP:MILL and WP:NORG. Promotional article for a health club, sources do not establish any notability. Rogermx (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Not a lot of participation, but even searching the links provided shows nothing, so the one keep argument is too weak to override the consensus to delete. It isn't likely that breaking tradition and relisting again would provide a different outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hackolade

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

Mentioned in various sources; most of the refs are refs to other software with which it can be used, Not one substantial 3rd party reliable published source DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2016-07 ✗ G11, 2016-07 ✗ deleted, 2016-07 ✗ deleted
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Velella  Velella Talk   21:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn with the discussion leaning to keep. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex Society of Newfoundland and Labrador

Wessex Society of Newfoundland and Labrador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization. I declined the AfC for this; the editor User:HeritageNL, rearranged the sections, added a paragraph sourced only tot he groups own minutes, & moved it themselves into mainspace. The one good reference is about someone associated with the organization. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are several good references there. The unfortunate thing is that they are supporting content that is not about this subject, and are mainly about Newfoundland English. Fortunately, our article on that is not apparently in need of them. Others are about Otto Tucker and about a Trinity Trust. The sources supporting the stuff that actually is about the article subject are by Otto Tucker or from the organization itself. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added citations for two secondary source articles about the society, cleaned up the article a bit more. Thanks for your suggestions! --HeritageNL (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our Power

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM. While released by a notable label and featuring notable musicians, I can't find any evidence that the album itself is notable; it doesn't seem to get better than this passing mention. Lennart97 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although I'm the creator here, I did so at a very different time in wikihistory — once upon a time, the only notability claim a compilation album had to have was that it had notable artists on it, the end, and nothing else was necessary beyond that. That's no longer the case, however: an album now has to have much stronger evidence of notability, such as awards or chart performance or WP:GNG-worthy critical attention, and I can confirm that this one just doesn't clear the tighter standards that apply in 2021. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Above, Bearcat is an experienced article creator and is knowledgeable about music notability guidelines, so his analysis is convincing. I also can find no evidence that the album was noticed by reliable media sources, and it seems to have only been discussed insignificantly by the participants in the associated charity drive. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I found three mentions on ProQuest from 2006–07, but they're only 3 sentences each. The best of them is from Maclean's; Vol. 120, Iss. 8, (Mar 5, 2007): page 87. on their website at SOME PRETTY POWERFUL MUSIC. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the creator of the article agrees this no longe meets the standards for article creation. The sources pointed out don't go in depth regading the album. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Caherly

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

Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and reads like promotional content in my opinion. No verifiable articles online to substantiate that he is a known business person, which is the first line of the article. Also, I don't consider having a TikTok account with a large following enough to satisfy the requirement for inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially in a day and age where social media followers can be purchased. Topic appears to be promotional content and nothing more. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My nom is baked in WP policy, and nothing else. I see that you created the article, and have been editing it since the nom. Perhaps you have a connection to topic, or your opposition is more a case of WP:ILIKEIT? Megtetg34 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification: Source 1 is a local, neighborhood publication. Doesn't pass WP:NEWSORG. Source 2 talks about one of his posts, not him, and only mentions his username. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources 3 and 4, talk about his relationship with another social media star, Tatayanna Mitchell, who's Wikipedia page has also since been deleted. Source 5 is about one of his social media posts, not WP:SIGCOV of the topic himself. The argument that the topic meets WP:ENT based on criterion #2 large fan base is referenced in WP:YOUTUBE: A frequent argument put forward for keeping the article is that a subject is notable because of their number of subscribers or the number of times their videos have been viewed. There are other trivial or passing mentions of his name, and/or TikTok name on other, unverified sources, however they lack depth, and the only other sources I found that offered deep coverage on him was on hiseye.org, which is the publication of a high school in which he went to, vizaca.com, a submit your own interview/content website, and celebpie.com, a social media directory. So, until WP policy is amended to allow social media personalities in with big follower counts, there should still be WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to warrant encyclopedic inclusion and I have found nothing additional to meet GNG criterion for this topic. Hence, the nomination. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkman Concrete

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

Despite the bogus claim to notability, a WP:BEFORE search doesn’t seem to substantiate this, as all I could see are user generated, self published & unreliable sources. I did see this source but it is insufficient to demonstrate the organization satisfies WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder, yes Rathfelder you are very much correct that sources don’t have to be online, and I agree to that but the problem is even when I tried other means to find RS, the sources I observed do not seem to discuss the organization with in-depth significant coverage that would be required by WP:NCORP thus I came to the conclusion that this must be an archetype example of bare notability. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_April_4&oldid=1015993226"