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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:52, 4 May 2021

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 03	May 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freak (Lana Del Rey song)

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

I put up the {{notability}} template for three months but the article has seen little progress. There was a music video, but the article deals nothing with the song's composition and significance, but instead talks about irrelevant and cherry-picked information from album reviews. Per WP:NSONG this song does not have enough coverage for a standalone article. Suggest redirecting-- HĐ (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The coverage on the music video should be enough to pass GNG. I see coverage from Vogue, Consequence of Sound, MTV, Time, Flavorwire, and Pitchfork, plus a PopMatters review of the single. I have no strong horse in this race, since I'm not a Lana fan, so I'd be happy to clean it up if that's the result. If not, well, redirects are cheap. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if the coverage on the music video contributs to WP:NSONG. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Kncny. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. K. Sekhar

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. - TheWikiholic (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article when I was pretty new to Wikipedia. Saw the obituary in news and added a page. Should have been flagged for quick deletion then itself. Agree for deletion now. asdofindia (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, fails WP:POLITICIAN. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. State-level vice-president of a political party is not an "inherently" notable office, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Territories claimed by the Philippines. Anyone can include whatever content to the target article if ever. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Philippines

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

As per WP:SYNTH, there is no such concept as "Greater Philippines" which include Guam, the Northern Marianas, or at least it is a fringe theory that was never picked up by reliable sources. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect This concept looks like an uncommonly used name for some Territories claimed by the Philippines. There seems to be some reliable sources that reference the concept (e.g. Blust 1991), but not enough to establish notability or warrant its own article. Perhaps move the relevant info to Territories claimed by the Philippines and turn Greater Philippines into a redirect. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about we move this article to Philippine irredentism and reframe it there somehow or redirect it to Territories claimed by the Philippines? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Territories claimed by the Philippines per Qwaiiplayer's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, this is pure WP:SYNTH--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on notability after weighing the arguments. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Unger

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

CV page created back in 2012 when the notability bar was not as high as it is now. There is little significant coverage outside of sources closely associated with the subject and there is nothing suggesting that they meet wp:anybio. Ch1p the chop (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A glance at subject's references, including articles about him on the front pages of Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Billboard, Screen Daily, etc, as well as his IMDb page would immediately confirm that he a major entertainment industry figure. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject seems notable, but it required clean up badly. I have cleaned up some, more clean ups are welcome. The article is written from a very promotional perspective. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Danger

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

Band that never received any meaningful coverage or reviews from the typical major media outlets. They've played with some notable bands but that doesn't confer notability itself. Never charted and seems to be a typical garage band that hit a stage a few times. TAXIDICAE💰 12:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Though this "garage" band has not received widespread mainstream success like its counterparts of the time, success in record sales and/or coverage does not solely determine notability. The nearly three dozen references in the article put up a red flag for me for outright deletion. That being said, I am open to the possibility of deletion should the nominator present a more detailed argument, specifically regarding notability. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 17:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are in depth coverage, which is required. They're all either non-RS, or not independent. TAXIDICAE💰 17:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can see, there is not a single reference from a reliable, secondary source in the article. The multitude of references listed are just things like user reviews, track listings, sales pages, etc. Not a single one of them is actual coverage that would pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Searching for any additional references that includes actual coverage from a reliable source turns up nothing. Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant, independent coverage is the key point. I agree that notability is not connected to success, but it is connected to the availability of suitable sources. That is what we're lacking here. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Freese

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

Virtually unsourced BLP dating back to 2007 (!), with likely COI editing by mystery IP editors. I tried searching for sources, but only found a couple of old articles in local papers, nothing even approaching sigcov. I did think of cutting down the content to only that which can be supported by such sources, but fundamentally the problem remains that having worked for Disney for 40 years and playing an instrument simply doesn't suffice for an article. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep Agreed, this one needs citations. Sources found include Forbes and the Minnesota Post, Orange County register. He seems to be a legend in the field. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If memory serves, the Forbes piece was a contributor ('Sites') one, so not RS. And being a 'legend in the field' is great, if you can somehow substantiate that, which the article as it currently stands fails to do. But anyhoo, if your searches find more and/or better sources than mine did, I'm more than happy to stand corrected; I just thought it's time to put an end to this flagrant disregard of referencing guidelines. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok so follow me here; he's in the Minnesota Musician Hall of fame, elected 1995. https://mnmusichalloffame.org/inductees/, LA Times article https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-aug-25-me-25789-story.html, Disney blog article https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2016/03/the-beat-will-go-on-for-retiring-disneyland-resort-cast-member-stan-freese/, Orange County Register, https://www.ocregister.com/2016/04/04/45-year-career-at-disney-started-and-ended-playing-the-tuba/, OC Weekly magazine https://www.ocweekly.com/stan-freese-that-guy-with-the-speedo-playing-the-tuba-who-is-way-more-punk-than-anyone-else-6589312/, Pioneer Press, https://www.twincities.com/2016/04/06/b-board-hows-this-for-a-dusty-old-prank-did-you-bag-your-phone-on-april-fools-day/. One mention in the Journal of Performing Arts Leadership, https://www.academia.edu/download/44972292/jpalhe_volume6.pdf#page=15... I think we've got enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as enough substantial reliable sources coverage has been identified in this discussion to show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No participation despite relistings. I'm going with delete per nom (and this includes spending time looking at the article and sourcing myself). Missvain (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devraj Sanyal

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

No significant roles played in multiple notable productions to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Also fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. PangolinPedia 13:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of steepest gradients on adhesion railways

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

There's no source for the entire list, nothing to say that whatever lines listed here are in fact the steepest gradients. Therefore it fails WP:OR as it’s original research and not verifiable. It could be renamed List of adhesion railways with steep sections or something but that would fail WP:LISTN. --Pontificalibus 13:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is not, despite the above claims, unsourced, nor does it claim to be a complete list of the steepest rather it is explicitly "some of the steepest gradients on adhesion railways". Although having said that the source for the first entry (Calçada de São Francisco, Lisbon Tramways, Portugal) does claim "The world's steepest adhesion railway grade is a 13.8% grade found on the tram network of LIsbon, [sic] Portugal.". The list does need improvement in presentation and not all entries are sourced but these are issues that do not require deletion. The introduction to the list summarises why the list is notable, and see also Steep grade railway which this could/would be a section of if the list wouldn't overwhelm that article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim it was unsourced - sourcing individual entries is not sufficient for lists of biggest/smallest/tallest/steepest etc - the entire list needs to be sourced to verify the items presented are in fact the biggest/smallest/tallest/steepest. You're correct that it does claim in the article to list only "some” of the steepest gradients, but that's contrary to the article's title. As I said in my nomination if it is only to be a partial list of some steep railway sections then it's name should be changed to reflect that, but I doubt such a list topic would satisfy WP:N.----Pontificalibus 14:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Yes, the entries are sourced; but the list isn't. It's all well and good having the #1 entry sourced at being 13.8%, but how do we know that there isn't one steeper? We don't. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 14:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus and SmartyPants22: The source explicitly claims it is the steepest, so unless the source is wrong (evidence please), that's that sorted. If your issue with with the title of the list deletion is not required and WP:RM is thataway. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was probably a bad example on my part. But still the point stands, for example: #2 is stated as 11.6%, what if there is one between #1 and #2? Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having a source for the steepest doesn't mean we have a source to say the second on the list is the second steepest, or that the third on the list is the third steepest. To create a list of "steepest" per the title we need all the items listed to have a source stating their position in the list (and/or a source for part or all of the ordered list). I addressed a possible re-titling in my nomination too - if this isn't to be a list of "the steepest..." then it would merely be a "list of some examples of steep..." and fail notability and probably WP:NOT criteria.----Pontificalibus 15:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps rename the article to "List of notably steep gradients on adhesion railways" or "exceptionally steep" or something like that, to remove the ranking element. NemesisAT (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, generally interesting and useful list; suitable sourcing. Details and title name are not particularly relevant to an AfD discussion. I am very unclear how the nom. should consider an article with this age with several independent contributors could have considered this suitable for the PROD prior to this AfD nomination. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: to be fair Pontificalibus did prod this (with essentially the same rationale as their nomination here) but I deprodded it (for essentially the same reasons as I give here for it being kept). Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf:: Thankyou for spotting and dePRODing this to avoid the wastage of people's effort that brought this article to its current albeit imperfect state. I'd note in passing RHaworth good faith moved to the current name back some 11 years ago so possible they may have any comment on a title change. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark 11:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"interesting and useful" isn't a sufficient reason to keep, but is it even useful if it just lists some random railways that someone thinks are steep.----Pontificalibus 15:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pray goad all ye like. Bit sad the Lickey isn't on the list, and its a pity the length of the gradient isn't listed also, but there we have it. A steep enough gradient can be a operating limiting factor for a railway; George Stephenson frowned at anything over 1 in 300 from memory; Lock would go to 1 in 75 from memory.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the steepness of adhesion railways is best tackled in Adhesion railway. We're unable to list the steepest adhesion railways because the sources don't exist - most sources give a single example of a steep section on a railway, much better to use these examples in the Adhesion railway article, rather than try and create our own ordered list of railways and/or sections of railway ordered using original research.----Pontificalibus 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources, it just needs more of them. This is clearly something that gets mentioned, it a notable thing. Dream Focus 14:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Can you point to a single reliable source that lists the steepest gradients on adhesion railways? If not, how can you claim this a notable thing? ----Pontificalibus 15:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice the 16 references in the article already? A few brief moments of using the reliable source search at the top of this AFD and I find https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42384814 Dream Focus 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in the article discuss the topic of "steepest gradients on adhesion railways" or list the steepest such railways. The source you give above is about a single funicular railway, which is a different kind of railway not relevant to this article.----Pontificalibus 15:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ain't a civils but it doesn't have to be in the article, but oclc 67899506 looks good for starters.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google news shows https://jalopnik.com/cruise-through-this-holiday-weekend-on-the-front-of-a-t-1846612571 which reads: “The Bernina railway sets a few records, including being the highest railway alpine crossing in Europe (2253m), the highest adhesion railway of the continent, the open air railway with the greatest height difference (1824m) and furthermore one of the steepest adhesion railways (conventional railway without cogs) worldwide, with gradients of up to 7 percent.” Being one of the steepest adhesion railways is apparently noteworthy and it list the gradients. Sources that cover trains of this type cover this information. Most of the trains on the list have their own Wikipedia article, this is a logical sorting of things by a notable feature they are known for. Dream Focus 18:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again a source that gives an example of a section on a railway, claiming it's one of the steepest (although it doesn't make our top 10), but giving no exact figures so we don't have enough information on where to insert it in our list - would this go before or after "Red Marble Grade"? Is this really 1 in 14.2 or is it 1 in 14? Sources are too vague and don't cover this aspect in enough detail for us to create a proper ordered list ourselves, which is probably why no reliable sources present their own ordered list, - it's not really achievable with an acceptable degree of accuracy. We'd be much better off therefore to discuss the best examples in a prose article rather than trying and failing to create an accurate list. --Pontificalibus 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@Pontificalibus: Well if it was a merge you were after that was pretty vexacious to PROD it. We remain happily within context of LISTN guideline anyway. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are world-famous railway locations, many of which are recognised upon reading the list. These are locations people go to take photographs - of trains, of the steep grades, of the former right-of-way locations. The per-cent notation in the listing is critically important and of significant interest to railfans and tramway buffs. Maybe rename the article to "List of notably steep gradients on adhesion railways", or like this. This is a significant listing. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't need the list to be sourced in its entirety to a single source, which is what those arguing for deletion seem to be implying. What we need is sources that establish that the topic is notable (which does not seem to be a serious area of contention in this case), and sources that give the numerical values for each entry. Ordering the list by numerical value is to my eye self-evidently covered by WP:Routine calculations. The possibility that the list is incomplete is not a reason to delete the list—we have {{Incomplete list}} for that exact situation—but it is a reason not to rank the list (are we sure number 33 is really number 33 and not number 34?), which indeed we don't with this one. These arguments apply to all lists of superlatives by numerical values. For instance: if a new film is released that would qualify to be included on the list of longest films, we don't need to wait for some external source to provide an updated version of the list that includes the new film, we can simply add it in the proper spot by noting that e.g. 8 hours is longer than 7 hours but shorter than 9 hours. TompaDompa (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giordano Vanin

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

Only played in lower division Italian leagues, Livingston stint was six days long, Olbia was Serie C2 in 2005-06. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: contrary to what is asserted in prose (Olbia being a 3rd-division team), he at most played in the Italian 4th division. Also, fails GNG. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to have played at a high enough level anywhere in his career. His very short stay at Livingston did attract some coverage had the time, but this is not enough to make him notable enough for an article. Dunarc (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Vandever

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

Non-notable college football player, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with abundant WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable sources. E.g., this from Chicago Tribune, this from The Taos News, this from The Des Moines Register, this and this/this from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and this and this from The Gazette. Cbl62 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the suitability of the sources given above. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Teen Titans enemies. ✗plicit 13:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Chaos (DC Comics)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There does not appear to be any particular real world coverage of the character. Mentions are limited to trivial listicles. TTN (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is currently nothing but in-universe plot summaries, sourced only to primary & officially licensed sources. I checked for anything additional, both under the "Lord Chaos" and "Robert Long" names, and came up with nothing in-depth. It could potentially be redirected to List of Teen Titans enemies, where he is already listed (though without a single reliable source there, either), but nothing should be merged as there is no reliably sourced content. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Teen Titans enemies: There are problems with that article as well, but Robert Long got to be the starring villain of an arc in 1991, so redirects are cheap, and he's a plausible enough search term. Considering he hasn't shown up anywhere in almost 20 years, however, I don't think he's enough of a standout to merit his own article. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Teen Titans enemies any relevant information can be covered in that article. Rhino131 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Teen Titans enemies, no evidence he meets WP:NFICTION/GNG requirements for a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please discuss renaming, mergers, etc on talk page. Missvain (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Foutouri attack

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

A sentence or two on Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) would suffice, like every other event on the timeline. Although absolutely dreadful, we cannot create a page for every attack that occurs as part of the insurgency. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In fact we don't create a page for every single attack which is part of an insurgency. However this is the deadliest attack in Burkina Faso since the 2016 Ouagadougou attacks, so is a notable event. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Possibly rename to 2021 Kodyel attack (this is the specific village in the district). Large scale attack with many civilian casualties, and unlike most other event in the insurgency this is covered by international news in an extensive fashion.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kodyel massacre - this is notable enough for an article. No-one's saying that every insurgent attack should have an article, but this one has a death toll of about 30. Without realising this article exists, I created Kodyel massacre minutes later, which I believe is a better title. Jim Michael (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a reverse merge to here (assuming it survives CSD A10 on it), and then a move to there. But in any case this is the same event.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same event, but performing the merge quickly will prevent the article I created from being deleted. It has some info that's not in here, so merging before either is deleted will give the article a much better chance of surviving long-term. Jim Michael (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: Definitely a reverse merge; yours should be merged into the target.

Keep: As much that I agree with you that not every attack should have an article, this one is significant considering that this is the deadliest attack in Burkina Faso because od the insurgency since the 2016 Ouagadougou ones. • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 17:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Shabpareh

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

Might be missing out on non-English sources for WP:BEFORE, but the current reference list is either: 1) BBCPersia which is actually just a photo gallery; 2) Primary sources; 3) Italian Wired article which is more about one of his songs; 4) Promotional article from Radio Javan announcing that his songs will be played on the radio. nearlyevil 665 13:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 13:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, significant coverage can be found here,^[1] and on BBC News. There are also some more trivial mentions.^[2]^[3]

References

^ Farzaneh Hemmasi (2020). Tehrangeles Dreaming, Intimacy and Imagination in Southern California's Iranian Pop Music. Duke University Press. pp. 55–57. ISBN 9781478012009.
^ Pardis Mahdavi (2009). Passionate Uprisings, Iran's Sexual Revolution. Stanford University Press. pp. 11–13. ISBN 9780804758567.
^ GJ Breyley; Sasan Fatemi (2015). Iranian Music and Popular Entertainment, From Motrebi to Losanjelesi and Beyond. Taylor & Francis. p. 151. ISBN 9781317336808.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources identified above such as multiple stories from the BBC and book sources that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I believe he passes WP:GNG and we can beef up this article per WP:BASIC. I think if we had some folk who can read Arabic we'd not be here. He has a solid VIAF entry. He's been sampled by NAS [1][2]; he's released a song supporting women to get rid of their hijabs that got him some attention (here is just one English source). He was profiled in the [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-aug-22-la-me-persian-parties-20100822-story.html Los Angeles Times about Iranian culture in 2010]; his cover of an Italian song has been featured in numerous Italian sources including Wired[3] and many more [4][5][6][7] (there are ton of sources)....I could go on. Even if you just Google him his videos are everywhere and every Persian event website calls him a "legend" over and over again. His work has even been featured in numerous journals via JSTOR. I am confident he passes GNG with the right attention. Missvain (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barclay Fox

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Fails WP:GNG, most of the sources are Fox family journals or genealogy-type references. Penale52 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be enough independent coverage of the subject to establish notability. The most significant coverage is from his own journal, which is obviously a primary source. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retain, please I have added a section on Barclay Fox's visit to Ireland during the Great Famine. ODNB's entry for his father and his sister, Caroline make more sense with this companion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernon39 (talk • contribs) 2021-05-17T11:51:27 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe there are more sources offline, but, a primary source as the main source and not much else offered up isn't enough to convince me this subject passes our WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 23:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Shamaizadeh

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

There might be non-English sources I'd miss on a WP:BEFORE, but as it stands this subject is a fail of WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. The only reference provided is a dead link, but title reads that it was an interview, therefore would not be independent. The only assertion of significance in the article is that he was 'selected as the most popular male artist in 1976 by readers of the magazine Zan-e Rooz.', which is unsourced and would not be a pass of any notability criteria either way. nearlyevil 665 13:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 13:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (possibly Draftify) - I tried to investigate and vote in order to save this from "no consensus" purgatory, and conducted some searches under the gentleman's Persian name حسن شماعی‌زاده . That name comes up in a lot of Iranian entertainment and news sites, but I do not trust Google Translate enough to determine if those sources are reliable. Also, since his career goes back to 1973 he may have pre-Internet coverage, and I found many results while searching for the Persian name in Google Books, finding tomes that appear to be histories of Iranian music, but once again I am uncomfortable with Google Translate. I think he may be notable in his country's music history but can't confirm. Allow me to suggest Draftify, returning the article to its creator or another recently active editor, with a request to find and translate any reliable Persian sources that may be out there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify - I'm OK with draftify. I guarantee if you have Persian readers we can have this article beefed up and it's fine. From the sourcing I found, he is a songwriter that has written hit singles for Googoosh [8][9]. Even just Googling him brings up a ton of photographs and videos - I know that is rather basic, but, clearly this guy is famous, at least in Iran. He was also featured in this book about Iranian popular culture as well as other books[10][11][12]. A lot of these Iranian musicians are living in the US after basically being ostracized by the Iranian regime. Missvain (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extensive musical output and persian language coverage Daiaespera (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - based upon his lengthy discography alone in the 1970s and 1980s, it appears highly likely this is a significant musical artist. However, what we have fails WP:V, or at least mostly. Do we have label and catalog #s for the discography? That would at least meet V for that section. Regarding Persian sources, what are they? I would say this individual is either quite notable, or this is a hoax. It would appear the latter is unlikely by Missvain's results. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax. Sadly, he just isn't popular in English. And again, over the years I've came across these Iranian musicians that are AfD'd because sourcing is hard to find. Many are exiled from Iran and end up in the United States entertaining the Iranian-American community. Sadly, due to my inability to understand Persian makes it tough to find the content needed. This is not an area of expertise of mine due to my monolingualism. But, perhaps the Persian language editors might have some insight, however we find them. Or folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran. Missvain (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making records in Iran in the 70s is nothing to sneeze at. It's not like today when anyone with a smart phone has a discography. I'd say he's notable by a mile, but we need sources. The [Persian] page has a lot of sources, but of course my own monolinguism is an obsticle. I would definately lean towards keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify, along Missvain's line of reasoning. As a minor supplement to the resources in previous comments, some Farsi-language outlets such as Bahar (2009, 2017) and BBC Persian (2018) have recently covered his personal life - apparently on the confiscation of his property in Iran. He's also seemed to live in Southern California since the Iranian Revolution (1979), and his activity in California and "Tehrangeles" is noted in this book (via JSTOR). Aranya (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cats (band)

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

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:BAND. References as they stand are to primary sources such as Facebook or to blogs (one of which has more porn pop-up ads that I'd normally expect for a WP reference). nearlyevil 665 12:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 12:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 13:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Google search does not turn up reliable sources that are independent of the subject and talk about the subject in depth. The only hits on Google are from self-published and user-generated sites such are Facebook and Spotify, or retailers such as Amazon. The recordings have not charted on national music charts or have received any certifications or accolades. The corresponding article on the Persian Wikipedia also lacks reliable sources. The content has been substantially supported from their website. --Ashley yoursmile! 17:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the users above. No evidence that this band meets our requirements for notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gagandeep Reehal

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

probably WP:TOOSOON, as of yet not a notable author, there's no real in depth coverage outside of the dqindia story which is partially an interview. Minus Zero may be notable soon but that doesn't extend to Reehal. Grogudicae👽 11:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved back to draftspace. It can be improved over a period of time until notability is properly verified.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrexcoder (talk • contribs) 08:35, May 4, 2021 (UTC)

The article has been moved back to mainspace. Please leave it there until the discussion concludes.--Auric talk 22:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to clarify, Gagandeep Reehal is not included on Wikipedia as a notable author. His books are a secondary addition to his bio. The notability is due to his R&D in his company, Minus Zero, in making India's first fully Self Driving Vehicle. They have succeeded in retrofitting a e-rickshaw into fully autonomous vehicle in span of 4 months, which is a notable achievement in the Self Driving Tech industry. This achievement have been covered by major news and media houses. And proper sources have been cited at every point. Mrexcoder

Delete WP:TOSOON; maybe if company becomes more notable, but insufficient reliable third-party coverage now. Minus Zero seems like it's a bit closer to meeting notability than Reehal; if the company article were to be accepted, it would be sufficient to mention Rehhal there and have this page redirect there.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify WP:TOSOON; the point raised is valid. But since the autonomous vehicle industry is progressing at a rapid pace, there are chances that subject might become notable in feasible time period, so article can improved upon by the creator in draft space and submitted for review when it meets appropriate notability guidelines. Mrexcoder (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOSOON; I agree with Ohnoitsjamie. QuantumRealm (meow • telescope) 20:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merve Akıl

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

A very similar case to Büşra Demirörs. No inherent notability from career to date and no ongoing career either so we need to look at WP:GNG alone.

The only sources cited are the Turkish Football Federation profile page and TSG 05 Bamberg's website, neither of which provide significant coverage nor are they independent of the subject. Google searches turn up no useful results at all and a Turkish source search only yields Wikipedia mirrors, stats websites and results about namesakes. No evidence at all of WP:GNG actually being satisfied. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable footballer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable footballer. Fails to satisfy inclusion criteria as mentioned before. Ahmetlii (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contextual awareness 101: This athlete played in the top league in Turkey where an estimated 90% of the population speaks Turkish. Where are you based Spiderone? Hmlarson (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any significant coverage from reliable Turkish sources about Akıl? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many Turkish female footballers that pass GNG but I can't see any evidence that Akıl is in that category. I am more than happy to be proved wrong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Phillips (journalist)

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

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

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

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

Already deleted in 2015, now restored by an UK IP that looks like Phillips himself and the article basically looks like a copy-paste of his resume with a ton of link "done video here, done video there". Arguments for his non-notability haven't really changed since 2015 when he was a cameraman working for Russia Today, now he's a youtuber and that's pretty much all he's known for. Cloud200 (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked Phillips' YouTube channel and he's been reporting from Croatia recently, so, nice one on that 'UK IP that looks like Phillips'.... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he's covered by multiple secondary sources (Ukrainian, Russian and other) such as RFE/RL [13] and Ukrainian Independent Information Agency [14]. Can you explain why the WP:BASIC criteria are not met? Alaexis_¿question? 08:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the WP:BASIC criteria are intentionally vague to facilitate discussions like we have. Phillips had been indeed mentioned a few times in the news, but these are all mentions critical of his actions like taking part of torture of an Ukrainian soldier or desecrating the grave of Bandera. In my opinion these do not make him any more notable than any other youtuber that does scandalous stuff to get more views. There's not a single WP:RS that would discuss the "phenomenon of Graham Phillips" or an interview suggesting he's a public figure. So while formally you could argue Phillips bio satisfies WP:BASIC, I would argue it satisfies it barely, only by means of having a few international mentions here and there, but at the same time fells into the clear guidance that discourages creating separate bios of people who are only known for such PR stunts, as mentioned in WP:PERP and WP:ENT. Cloud200 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how his covering the Russo-Ukrainian War for several years, as one of the notable western journalists to do that, like his reportage or not, counts as a 'PR stunt'.... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that he is on both the Russian, and Ukrainian wikipedia, largely for his work in the Russo-Ukrainian War - Филлипс,_Грэм_(журналист) , Грем_Філліпс - which again does not match your description of 'PR stunts'. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero reason WP:BASIC are not met here, it seems to be an Adhominem by Cloud200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 (talk • contribs)

Hundreds of journalists, cameramen, bloggers and youtubers cover the Russo-Ukrainian War, yet it doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia. Presence of an article in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia may indicate he was considered notable in these Wikipedias, but doesn't have any impact on his notability here. Cloud200 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If our policies against autobiographies are to mean anything, we need to delete them whenever we find them.12:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's very hard, actually impossible to believe here that you are being objective, and upholding the standards, and ideals of Wikpedia. You clearly have a highly negative view of Phillips, and his work, which is entirely compromising your actions here. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wanted to find information on British journalist Graham Phillips, mostly known for his coverage of the war in Ukraine, and found it here. His work has been covered in multiple, international sources, not always positively, but surely there is no question of his notability. Strange that this page is up for deletion. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, if Phillips wrote it himself, which Cloud200 claims, then why so much criticism about him? I'm not even a huge fan of Phillips, but this feels like someone has a personal vendetta against him.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 (talk • contribs)
Delete This has too many primary sources, self-promotional links to the subject’s own commercial YouTube feed, and questionable sources listed at WP:RSP. Let’s remove all that and see if there’s an encyclopedic article left in there. I’ll not support it in the current form. —Michael Z. 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is the original form. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is on both the Russian and Ukrainian wikipedia, he himself is British. What reason could there be that he is not here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.206.242 (talk • contribs) — 195.147.206.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Articles on wikipedia should be determined by their notability, and only that, not by bias of certain wikipedia editors against them. Phillips clearly meets notability criteria as per WP:BASIC. user:Lesya PZ 17:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I’m uncertain of the notability status but per TNT the article needs a fundamental re-write from a neutral stance or POV. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually did a few early edits on the Phillips page as I was looking to build editing experience on Wikipedia, before creating an account. So it's a) a bit surreal, and b) disheartening to see some of what's written here. Accusing Phillips of creating and then editing his own page, as Cloud200 has done seems actually slanderous, unless there is solid proof, which there couldn't be because the page was created by Sola virum and then worked on by over a dozen editors. I was surprised that there wasn't already a page on Phillips on Wikipedia, so when it was created with not much there it was easy to populate because there is plenty of information about him online. Ok, I'm a new editor and still learning the ropes so if some of the edits I made didn't match NPOV then surely that is where a more senior editor steps in, and edits to get it to Wikipedia standards. However, instead of that, the article has been left as it is, and all the effort focused on getting it deleted, for what seems like clearly political reasons. Phillips clearly meets the WP:BASIC standards - I've read and read over them again and there's no way he doesn't meet them. So surely the thing to do is end counter-productive disputes such as this, and all work together to make this page, and all of Wikipedia better? I'm sorry if that sounds a bit cliched, or idealistic but surely you can see where I'm coming from? 82.47.239.230 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly unlikely that an independent editor would go through the whole effort to create specific sections dedicated to "Journalism by Location", "Journalism by Theme" whose purpose is basically nothing more than listing videos done here and there, including unsourced sentences such as "However, despite Ukrainian efforts, Phillips is not known to have faced any charges, or any measures taken against him, in the United Kingdom" which are typically found in first-hand statements denying various allegations. There are facts in the article that are unsourced but speak in great detail of his personal interests ("He holds a keen interest in the dormant British car manufacturer Rover, he owns several vehicles of this brand and they are often a notable feature in his video reportage. He has reported extensively from the Longbridge plant.") which are not found in any articles. So yes, it is still my impression based on my experience that this article was written by either Phillips himself or someone close, such as a relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant. Cloud200 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could it also be that your own clearly negative view of Phillips means that you can only believe that anything written about him not in the negative must be by 'relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant'? All of the points you've mentioned can be easily found in any of his video reportage, or across media, also from the Russian / Ukrainian wikipedia entries on him. I am new to wikipedia, you are clearly a senior, and very respected editor here, but it seems to me that you don't like him, and are therefore making your 'impressions' suit that position, rather than looking at things objectively.... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in details why I have this impression. You don't argue with any of these items, and instead resort to an ad hominem argument. Cloud200 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't argue because I don't want to argue - I'd rather do something positive on Wikipedia. As I say, I'm a new editor, haven't even decided my username yet. I respect your contribution and length of time on Wikipedia, but clearly here you are acting not as Wikipedian, but somethign with a political / personal vendetta. And it's certainly ironic to accuse of me ad hominem after all the abuse you've written about Phillips. However, to take you up on a point, I looked over and saw that there is almost no pesonal information about Phillips on the page - surely if it were a source 'close to him', as you state, they would have access to this information, as it is, there is nothing. Everything referenced in the article is clearly sourced, searchable, accountable. As I say, you've made a huge contribution to Wikipedia over many years, but here you are letting your own personal agenda get in the way of making Wikipedia a better place..... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my very point. You don't dispute the issues I raised above, you just run and accuse everyone who thinks this autobiography is not notable of "political vendetta". That's textbook definition of ad hominem. Also be sure to read WP:NOTFORUM. Cloud200 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept your point, and apologise if I did anything incorrectly - I'm still a new Wikipedia editor, not even registered here yet. I've made major edits to the Phillips article and stripped out anything that does not meet Wikipedia standards as per WP:NOTFORUM. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable. And it's clear that all these IP edits are Philips himself. Sloutsch (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability criteria several times over, way too much bias and personal agendas going on here..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.138.201 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The multiple, largely co-located IPs participating here, with few edits to their names, some only on this subject, should be aware that these facts are evident about them.

To those proclaiming the notability of the subject, there is so much in the article which is not supported, not supported by the sources given, the source given is primary or not clearly reliable in Wikipedia terms that the impression is given that there is nothing to support notability. Drastically prune out all this dead wood if you want to highlight any remaining which does actually establish notability. It is perfectly valid to use citations in foreign languages but, as most English speakers can't establish its content or reliability, relying solely on these when the English language ones are not credible would be too much to ask. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the other IPs, and it seems 'largely co-located' means mostly in the UK, which would seem plausible. I'm in the UK and I've given my reasons above for being an IP at this stage. What you state clearly has a point, and I accept that I may be to blame for some of how the article looks - I saw the article on Phillips was sparse, and rushed to fill it in because I thought this was for the best for Wikipedia. If I've made misjudgements in this then, as a new Wikipedia user - this is the first time I've edited anything, and the only article I've edited here, and I'm still an IP address, then ok, I accept that. From what you say, I should have focused more on citations, than primary sources. However, surely it would be possible for other, more experienced Wikipedians to edit, and correct that? Or should I have a go at pruning? For whatever my errors, the move to delete the article on Phillips outright is surely also driven by personal and political motivations - user Cloud200 for example has made several ad hominem remarks against Phillips which would surely indicate a personal bias, even contempt, and that this editor does not have the requisite objectivity to be involved here. My own position on Phillips is pretty simple - I'm a viewer of his YouTube channel, general follower of his work, don't necessarily idealize him, and actually I added in several criticisms on the article. He is clearly notable enough to be on Wikipedia, just as you say, the question is in what format. I'm only making contributions here, for now, rather than the article as it would be great to get it resolved, I'll register with a username on Wikipedia, and we can all go forward positively in the true spirit of Wikipedia. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no objection to editing as an IP. My point regarded what the co-location may indicate and much of it is very considerably closer than "in the UK".

Whatever anyone participating here thinks of Phillips is neither here nor there in regard to the article in its current form. It is so crammed with chaff that wheat is not readily evident. Should anyone be motivated purely by bias, and I see no indication of this, they can have a field day anyway. You do realise notability has specific definition here and is not a subjective view on the subject's worth?

By all means prune away but it will have to be copious and what is left must establish notability from reliable sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, at your suggestion am pruning away. And, as I say, I will be becoming a fully-fledged Wikipedian soon, but I know then that everything I do goes on record, and wanting a perfect record I'm practicing as an IP. I accept your points, and acknowledge that some of my earlier edits were not to Wikipedia standard. I'm pruning now, working towards that, will hopefully resolve this, learn from it, and go onto other articles as a Wikipedian! Thank you 82.47.239.230 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history is as evident as an IP as it is as a registered editor and, it may not be what you are attempting to convey but I'm uneasy about the notion of practising as an IP to avoid imperfections being recorded. Genuine errors as a beginner will receive some slack, registered or not; attempts to obscure your history will be viewed differently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - I am trying to do everything correctly, including choosing the correct username for myself, thank you for the advice. As you suggested, I've pruned the Phillips article, and also removed all primary sources, so it's really over to you now. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be useful in checking the reliability, or otherwise, of sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for everything Mutt Lunker!! 82.47.239.230 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding notability, this guy was mentioned in the Russian news sites like RIA and Gazeta many times, especially since 2014. The article does look autobiographic though. Therefore, I'd recommend cleaning it up instead of deleting. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards delete. I'd like some more established editors to look this over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: barely notable, the IP Edits indeed look like self-promo, needs 100% NPOV re-write CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, I'm not a super-dooper wikipedia editor, but what is going on here? This guy is a well known journalist, has been referenced all over the place, and for many years. I'm not even a huge fan of his, but for sure there should be an article on him on wikipedia - and you want to delete it?? This seems pretty much like extreme wikipedia deletionism going on, shame.... 95.214.66.65 (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)— 95.214.66.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The sources on the page look like easily enough to meet general notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, take it to AfC Fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for journalists. Just another journalist. The article has multiple issues. I tried to fix some of them and it turned out that the article was written by someone who was trying to promote the subject of the article: original research, synthesis, omission, adding multiple irrelevant source for a single statement just to create the illusion of significant coverage. The main sources in the article are either sources with borderline reliability or, in general, sources with completely unknown status. It may seem that the article cites many independent English-language sources, but look at each of them separately. Some of them are either small unknown sources or Russian-language small sources with incorrectly filled citation parameters. If one of the editors really believes that this subject can have an article, then I see no problem to go through AfC.--Renat 09:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the one who listed it for AfD, so I will just reiterate issues with this article: the person barely satisfies WP:BASIC if stretched, but also goes against WP:PERP and WP:ENT. The article was written in self-promotional style, inflated with links to non-notable WP:PRIMARY sources, mostly YouTube videos of Phillips himself, some personal details (like that on cars) were completely unsourced indicating insider knowledge and personal relationship to the subject. The article is being pushed by a single IP user that didn't even have time/interest to register an account for over a month but is very vocal on this discussion, along with a number of other IP users. All other participants note low quality of the article. Edits so kindly made by User:RenatUK did clean up all the self-promotional content but even now the article is mostly sourced by self-published sources such as medium.com, YouTube and obscure Russia Today spin-offs. A few WP:RS sources mention him in the context of specific events such as arrests or provocative PR stunts, which goes clearly against WP:PERP and WP:ENT. When these are sifted, there's nothing much left apart from "a journalist born 1979" so I believe the proposal to delete and take it to AfC as proposed above is the most reasonable one. Cloud200 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment - so I had been following this discussion but before now I don't join in because I am seeing how much people here hate edits by IP addresses - sorry guys, that is just how many of us are using Wiki. So the comments by Cloud200 make me want to add something - I get that Cloud200 really doesn't like Phillips, and looks for everything negative, but when he says that 'the article is mostly sourced by self-published sources such as medium.com, YouTube and obscure Russia Today spin-offs' then I am gonna call bs. Just 5 examples -

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-27503743 - BBC 2. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maxseddon/how-a-british-blogger-became-an-unlikely-star-of-the-ukraine#.vs68mYGvd - BuzzFeed 3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/british-journalist-graham-phillips-detained-east-ukraine - The_Guardian 4. https://balkaninsight.com/2019/03/11/uk-journalist-banned-from-twitter-angers-some-in-kosovo/ - Balkan_Insight 5. https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/547116/exclusive-tayside-journalist-worked-russia-today-rubbishes-claims-alex-salmond-will-become-putins-puppet/ - The_Courier_(Dundee)

I could go on, but let me say this, that this debate does not look professional from Wikipedia point of view, Wikipedia risks to loose credibility - this seems like it is some kind of friends' club and only allowed on Wikipedia is people the Wikipedia admins like, and if they do not like you they write bs about subject to give a reason to delete page. It's like the school playground..... 195.133.224.50 (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my very point — you listed about all WP:RS sources from the article that even mention Phillips, and that's about it. You cay you "could go on" but you really couldn't. Out of the sources you listed 1 and 3 talk about the same event (arrest in Ukraine, WP:PERP applies). Number 4 is once again coverage of a single event Phillips participated in (Twitter ban). Then number 5 is an article about Salmond where Phillips is expressing his opinion and nothing more. Finally number 2 is the only article that offers a broader perspective on Phillip activities and biography, but even it calls him "a marginal character". You can raise your tone and apply ad hominem arguments as much as you like, but this won't change the fact the person in subject is precisely what BuzzFeed called him − "a marginal character". Oh, and I'm not even an Wiki admin, and I don't know any of the editors voicing their comments here (not even from IRC). Whatever will be decided about the fate of this article, is OK with me, I made my comments. Cloud200 (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then Graham Phillips is obviously notable enough to be here, he is the well-known journalist, a lot Russia, but not only. I do not think that this negativety here about Phillips is appropriate, imho. He is what he is, the well-known journalist - I see the last comment says from an article that he is a "marginal character", but this article is from 2014, and since then he is quite mainstream. Andrey.
Comment I read over this more and see that the same user Cloud200 who started this AfD then writes a stream of negative comments about Phillips, and even votes themself for the article to be deleted. I am only the 'IP address user' of Wikipedia it is true, but this seems to me not correct, not like a fair debate, or Wikipedia protocol, but like a campaign against the subject, Phillips. By the way there has been an article on him on the Russian wikipedia for many years, no problems, and here, all these problems and arguments..... Interesting. Andrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.138.0 (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Ahmed Khan

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

Nonnotable tv actor with no lead role in notable TV Shows. Fail to pass WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That there is no lead role this person has played is pretty indicative of the lack of significant coverage about the person. Fails WP:BIO. Java Hurricane 06:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: played only supporting roles. The topic's notability is very weak at this time to pass WP:GNG. Kaspadoo (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vikruthi. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emcy Joseph

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

Nonnotable Director released just one film. Fails to pass WP:FILMMAKER & WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vikruthi. He has received some media coverage. However, the primary topic of the news sources is his film and for this reason, it be redirected to Vikruthi. Moreover, he has directed two films Vikruthi and Ennittu Avasanam.[15]. I don't think deletion is preferred over "redirect". Also, the film actor has been awarded Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor for Joseph's dictatorial film. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal - I want to know the reason why this article is nominated for deletion. I'm one who follows Malayalam film industry and cinemas. So, I decided to create a Wikipedia article for him. His film won a state award and many more achievements. After all, He is a director, Screenwriter. You can check the reference links in the article published in top Indian portals. Please do the needful. It's not about how many projects he completed, it's about how popular and how much achieved director he is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgnew (talk • contribs)

*Comment - Sorry dear but he is not notable. His film might be notable but not him. All the news sources are mainly talking about his film and there is no indepth coverage about him. Notability doesn't mean popularity. Sonofstar (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm just curious to know onething!! How someone who is not in this field can judge his popularity. If you're from this particular place, Then it's okey. On what basis, you're arguing he is not popular. I'm from his place, which he lives and working in malayalam films. So I decided to create a wiki page for him. Because I love to edit and contribute to articles. I don't know what's wrong with this.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge discussion can take place elsewhere. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental data rescue

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

There seems to be an International Environmental Data Rescue Organization, but beyond that I don't see this term being used anywhere. Rusf10 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an active area of international activity as evidenced by: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 22 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) 02:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Data rescue. They are really about the same thing, data rescue is mainly for climate data preservation and collection. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sungodtemple, maybe but I would prefer to keep and then put up some merge banners and see what involved editors have to say. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Utah VHF Society

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Only cited reference is to the org's registration in the state database. No WP:SIGCOV in any reliable sources can be found. Phuzion (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Phuzion (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this organisation. Ajf773 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete: No notable coverage. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Netherlands). Feel free to redirect faster if not much to merge. I prefer WP:Alternatives to deletion when possible, Missvain (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Institute for Communication and Development

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

There are quite a few google hits (even on Scholar/Books) but I am struggling to find anything that is not a catalogue-entry or a WP:SIGCOV-failing repeat of their mission ("IICD aims to assist local stakeholders in the formulation of national policy recommendations..." and like). The current catalogue-like entry is also unreferenced. Also, there is a possible COPYVIO here from [22] (I don't have access to the full view here, but the first sentence is copied verbatim from there). No Dutch Wikipedia entry. The NGO seems to be gone (closed in 2015), so it is not likely to achieve feats granting it notaiblity in the future. Given lack of reception for its past activities it fails WP:NORG and I can't find sources to improve it - but maybe someone else here can? Just please, avoid pure googlehits or quoting sources that do not meet SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Brief article on a defunct organization in the general sphere of the presentday Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation (Netherlands), who sits at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Netherlands). Theoretically this is best merged into the government ministry, however, I did not find a great sentence that is missing at the target or a relevant list there so delete and redirect or merge without adding information are in order. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merge/redirect candidate is Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Netherlands). To the nominator: please identify possible merge/redirect targets as part of your WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any suggestions on merge/redirect as an alternative to deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity or Merge/Redirect per Gidonb. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing presented convinces me the subject meets WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Horn Evensen

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

A bronze medal on national level is extremely far from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT, and WP:GNG is also failed. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You have to see her in the perspective of that era and that the Norwegian secondary sources are not online. In that era there were, for women, no Olympic Games (in women's speed skating from 1960, for men since 1921), no European Championships (from 1970, for men since 1891). And yes, there were world championships but Norway only sent the best women to the World Championships. In that era women's speed skating was popular. Let me show, the Netherlands was in women's long track speed skating not as good as Norway, but the newspapers of the Netherlands are online. And of all people who were ative at national level in the Netherlands are meeting GNG. I created many of them; see for insntace the list of names at Template:Kortebaan speed skaters (women). To come back to Evensen, she finished third at the national championships. You say "bronze medal on national level is extremely far from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT", but note that all more recent Norwegian speed skating people who have won a bronze medal at the national championships have a Wikipedia page. However, as it's of the pre-internet era, you have to look in newspapers to establish GNG and I added already one good book source that writes about her. The Norwegian newspapers of that era are not online (by my knowledge). And because the most important thing at Wikipeida is Wikipedia:Readers first, this article gives usefull information about a main Norwegian long track speed skater and her background, marriage etc. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Was able to find a Norwegian newspaper that wrote about her. See for instance 22 January 1958 here. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See these norwegian newspapers https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Karin%20Horn%20Evensen%22&mediatype=aviser as Karin Horn Evensen at the National Library of Norway. PS. Not all norwegian newspapers are digitized like this in the searchresult here. Best regards Migrant (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See my reasoning at this similar AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, see also the reply at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Else_Methi#Else_Methi. Also Karin Horn Evensen was one of the main speed skater in her era, winning many competitions and had podium finishes (see newspapers). And also note here that it are not only trivial mentions. And nice, even a short article about her marriage. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SportsOlympic, can you point out which specific articles provide non-routine, non-trivial coverage of her? JoelleJay (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3rd related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisabeth Schjenken. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still not seeing any SIGCOV here. The newspaper hits are all trivial mentions in meet results, and the "short article about her marriage" appears to be a self-submitted wedding announcement (this is the entirety: "Celebrated Saturday by Karin Horn Evensen and Femmo Breuwer, Holland. Adr. for the day: Odd Fellow, Gjovik.") of the type standard in local newspapers. There were a couple newspapers running that word-for-word, and a couple running this version: "Fernmo Brouwer, traveler, Gjovik, and telephone assistant Karin Horn Evensen, Stabekk". Clearly still not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Else Methi

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

A bronze medal on national level is extremely far from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT, and WP:GNG is also failed. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You have to see her in the perspective of that era and that Norwegian secondary sources of that era are not online. In that era there were, for women, no Olympic Games (in women's speed skating from 1960, for men since 1921), no European Championships (from 1970, for men since 1891). And yes, there were world championships but Norway only sent the best women to the World Championships. In that era women's speed skating was popular. Let me show, the Netherlands was in women's long trak speed skating not as good as Norway, but the newspapers of the Netherlands are online. And of all people who were ative at national level in the Netherlands are meeting GNG. I created many of them; see for insntace the list of names at Template:Kortebaan speed skaters (women). To come back to Methi, she finished third at the national championships where at elite level only 5 women started and because she was part of the national team, she was a main women speed skater in that era. You say "bronze medal on national level is extremely far from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT", but note that all more recent Norwegian speed skating people who have won a bronze medal at the national championships have a Wikipedia page. However, as it's of the pre-internet era, you have to look in newspapers to establish GNG. The Norwegian newspapers of that era are not online (by my knowledge). And because the most important thing at Wikipeida is Wikipedia:Readers first, this article gives usefull information about a main Norwegian long track speed skater and her background, marriage etc. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Newspaper wrote about here, see here for example 4 March 1957 here. An article about á Championships she competed in in 1957. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See these norwegian newspapers https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Else%20Methi%22&mediatype=aviser as Else Methi <- this spots also some namesakes at the National Library of Norway. PS. Not all norwegian newspapers are digitized like this in the searchresult here. Best regards Migrant (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources uncovered so far all appear passing; do we have evidence that any Norwegian women skaters of her calibre in the '50s and '60s were profiled in depth? If not, then it doesn't matter if sources mentioning her are likely to exist offline -- we cannot assume any of those actually bring her up to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, and comments @JoelleJay:: Your question: "do we have evidence that any Norwegian women skaters of her calibre in the '50s and '60s were profiled in depth?" --> If we take a look at the medalists at the national championships of the 2nd half of the 1960s, they all participated at the Olympics. An example of a skater in the same era, that didn't go to the Olympics but medallad at the national championships was Gerd Inger De Groot (article I created las October). To illustrate this, there was a reunion of the skaters of that era in 2015 receiving media attention (for instance here), and that says a lot those women receive media attention 60 years later. And see also for instance attention during her 70th birthday here. She also had media attention when she was active. 5 nice examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Note that the uncovered sources are not only passings. She has mentions in about 100 newspapers. She is described in many articles in several sections and sentences, articles like this. You see she had a lot of podium finished and won many competitions. And the basics of WP:GNG states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." (and nice in addition: We can also read that she was a handball player, in the newspapers described as a "dangerous" player. see here.) SportsOlympic (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SportsOlympic, ok so I do agree this article on Gerd Inger de Groot is a bit more than passing mention, although not quite SIGCOV. However, this, this, this, this (all on Gerd) are clearly passing mentions in the equivalent of match reports, as is the article mentioning Else. I can't access the reunion article -- can you say how much detail it gives on the individual women? And the birthday article on Gerd is obviously not independent so irrelevant to notability concerns. I'm still not convinced there is sufficient coverage of these athletes to warrant standalone articles on them, and certainly not enough to presume coverage exists for Else. The evidence I'm looking for is SIGCOV in several papers -- if this can be demonstrated for the large majority of skaters at this level then I'd be much more confident with assuming coverage exists offline for Else. Otherwise we don't have anything to support "a very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available". JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @JoelleJay:, Thanks for your reply. Sorry for my bit of a short reply: Note the above mentioned newspapers were some random picks. See that she has coverage in almost 2000 newspaper articles. Showing Norway had a very good coverage of speed skating already in that era. And note, that when an article has in the title the name of the speed skater, it can't be said it's a trivial mention, and sports is about race reports. See for instance the agreement on that per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy van der Poel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Kantanen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalanbayar Delgermaa. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SportsOlympic, if it's merely a routine results report it is a trivial mention regardless of whether the article title has the subject in it. Appearing in headlines wasn't considered whatsoever in any of the AfDs you linked, so I don't see how those establish any consensus. Kantanen was kept because there were no delete !votes, so it would be very hard for a close to go any other way even if the keeps were weak arguments. Delgermaa was kept because she actually has one in-depth article on her, which for the !voters was enough to suggest offline Mongolian sources existed (and I doubt most of the !voters actually verified with Google translate the level of coverage in the sources you provided, since the first is clearly passing mention and the third is a non-independent interview). This had nothing to do with her being in/reference by a headline. The van der Poel article was kept because delete !voters couldn't point to a specific guideline that excluded local sources from contributing to notability -- again, literally nothing to do with headlines. JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, sorry maybe I was too short, I wanted to point out that coverage of race results counts towards notability. The point that headlines are not trivial mention is a basic thing. It’s (usually) the most important information of that article in one sentence. If that’s not counting to notability the whole article wouldn’t be notable. SportsOlympic (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SportsOlympic, in-depth coverage of race results may count toward notability; match reports are specifically mentioned as non-noteworthy in wp:routine, which is the basis for multiple sections on notability in WP:NSPORT. If being in a headline was enough to count for SIGCOV, winners in individual sports at basically any level would automatically be more notable than winners in team sports. This is obviously not the case, not least because coverage of athletes in routine sports reports is almost always extremely shallow. Playing in many games yields significant breadth in coverage, but does not contribute to the required depth. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:routine are notability guideliness for events. The shown articles indeed are not enough to create an stand alone article of these competitions per wp:routine. The basics for WP:NSPORT is not Wikipedia:Notability (events) but WP:GNG. And besides of that, within a winning team sport team not every individual will be notable. New articles about teams sports have many times a headline about the most important player. Also WP:GNG is about coverage, not specifically about in dept coverage. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and NSPORT specifically links to wp:routine when describing the events during which coverage of an athlete does not contribute to notability. It is linked in this sentence: Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage; defining characteristics of "routine" are outlined further here: College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage and here: High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage... The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. (note that the context is irrelevant as it is "routine" being linked to/described rather than some local or high school-specific criterion), and it is referenced again here: significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. It is basically saying coverage of athletes in non-notable sports events must be very clearly beyond the standard post-match summaries and profiles. SIGCOV uses the term "triviality" when discussing depth, which is explicated in NSPORT here: Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: JoelleJay, be careful not to WP:BADGER the user. Dr. Universe (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3rd related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisabeth Schjenken. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There is an absolute pile of routine coverage in the newspapers linked above. Unfortunately it's only snippets so when her name is mentioned in prose it's tough to determine if there's any actual depth. If sources could be found showing any depth of coverage I would be happy to hop over to keep. Also, I'm not sure about the machine translation of an old scanned newspaper, but it's possible she arrested 40,000 nazis. Else Methi 11. (The last two had a shorter course). 40,000 Nazis have been arrested in Vienna since the liberation. If she did single handedly arrest tens of thousands of nazis, or even did that as part of an elite team of female speed skater secret agent nazi hunters, I would also be firmly on the keep side. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm unsure of whether this helps meet WP:GNG, but I found she was involved in a ~35 minute documentary called Twin Trek going in depth into her family history. Whether it counts as a secondary source entirely depends on the content and presentation of it. Here's the machine translation of article about it (the names match up with her obituary), and the documentary disc is still available on Amazon. It seems to be on Prime Video in some countries. Overall, I'm mixed on notability. Uses x (talk • contribs) 11:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uses x, I feel like that would help, but I googled "twin trek" "else methi" and got eight results, so I don't think it's a big enough documentary to really give much notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ScottishFinnishRadish: I don’t understand how that Google-search determinates the notability of the source. According to GNG a source doesn’t needs to be “big” or “national” for instance, as long the source is independent of the subject and is reliable. If “twin trek” is independent and reliable the source counts for GNG. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really tough to determine if a source is independent or reliable when I can find almost no information on it. Assessing something requires information. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major William Bertram Bell

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

A very nice man by all accounts and a long, rich and varied life, but fails WP:GNG as not notable by WP standards. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG are not met. The specific claims to notability seem include being a Major in the British Army (which falls significantly below the [granted deprecated] WP:NSOLDIER guidelines), being a British peer (which doesn't confer notability per WP:PEER#Notability), being married to someone who owned a big house (which doesn't confer notability and wouldn't be WP:INHERITED anyway), and being involved in some charitable organisations (which also isn't notable). There is no evidence of the level of biographical coverage needed to meet GNG/SIGCOV. Frankly this just stands as yet another on the increasing pile of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTGENEALOGY articles created by this user's cabal of socks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not rise to notability for a stand alone article. It reads like an obituary and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold (video game)

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

This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write a dedicated encyclopedia article on the topic without resorting to original research. Remove the interviews and primary/affiliated sources from the current article and all that's left are passing invocations[23][24]—no extended analysis with which we can write about the game itself.

For additional, uncited coverage: The topic had no substantive analytical coverage either from the decade since our last discussion or those preceding in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. The sourcing questions of 2009 are long resolved now: As a rule, we don't cite WordPress blogs. We don't use expert blogs as indication of wider notability. We use sources that show editorial distance and pedigree. This article is a case study of how an article languishes when we can cite no such source about the actual gameplay, development, reception, or legacy of a topic: Reliable, secondary sources haven't provided enough content with which our encyclopedia can do the topic justice.

For alternatives to deletion: There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as our List of MUDs only lists games with their own articles. czar 06:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 06:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is an Engadget article on the game[25].SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One reliable source is not sufficient coverage. The various blogs and self-published articles currently used in the article are not reliable, for that matter. IceWelder [✉] 00:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Polis Institute. The article history remains in tact if there is anything worth incorporating into the target article, but it appears a consensus has emerged that notability is not well established and that there is not a ton of promise that it will be. Still, if sources do come to light, there is no reason this cannot be re-created in the future. Go Phightins! 22:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Polis Method

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

I took a very deep breath before this nomination. This article is a magnificent feat of prestidigitation, but lacks any single source that refers to 'The Polis Method' outside of the school's own platforms, blogs or articles contributed by the designer of this method. Pretty much every citation doesn't refer to the method, but is used to stand up a concept referred to in the article, so cite 6 for instance talks about the 'full immersion approach' but not the Polis Method as it impacts or utilises that approach. And so on for pretty much every other citation in a very extensive list indeed. When you start to strip out the citations that just prove a mentioned concept exists but has no reference at all to the Polis Method, you are left with very thin beer indeed - and that almost all down to the designer and the Polis School. There is no independent, reliably sourced content here that actually tells us that the Polis Method is recognised as a concept, an academically valid approach or even, indeed, a thing. And so, with a heavy heart, I'm proposing it be deleted as a magnificent monument to Original Research that fails WP:GNG and breaches WP:OR; WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH. Oh, and I agree with the tags too - and think the problem is so deep rooted there that it would be impossible to weed out the promotion and POV without invoking, as I am effectively, WP:TNT. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alexandermcnabb for your comments. Would it help delay blowing up this article if I provided you with a list of "(sources that refer) to 'The Polis Method' outside of the school's own platforms, blogs or articles contributed by the designer of this method"? I would continue editing that article now to still try and save it from obliteration but I need to address very important personal and professional matters within the next 2-3 days that I would have to delay the editing and incorporation of these sources until then? If you think this request is reasonable and would like to see the list of sources I'm referring to, then I can post that here in this conversation. I hope you would consider. Thank you very much. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find some time today to continue addressing the issue. Let me add that I will not contest the comment that I wrote this article more like a research paper than a Wikipedia article. I hope to correct this after the respite of I requested. But I will also add that what I wrote does not really reflect the fact that there are published articles written / made by parties not at all linked to the Polis Institute. For those articles written by the author himself, they're usually together with another, peer reviewed and published by reputable institutions (e.g. universities journals and publishing houses). A couple of these sources were in the References already. The reason I decided not to refer to the others is that most were not in English and may not be appreciated by English readers. But if it helps, I'd like to put them all in here already.

2015, Gala Lopez de Lerma, Análisis comparativo de metodologías para el aprendizaje de la lengua latina, Universitat de Barcelona, soutenue le 18-12-2015, cf https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/393957#page=1, p. 83

2015, Marco Riccuci, “Per una disamina del metodo Polis: un “nuovo” metodo glottodidattico per insegnare il greco antico come L2?” in lucida intervalla Časopis za klasične nauke A Journal of Classical Studies 44 , p. 155-179

2015, Michal Kabat, « Nauka jezyka starogreckiego w sposob czynny - metoda POLIS », pages 134-136, Nowy Filomata XIX 2015 (1)

2016, Marco Ricucci, « Questione di metodo ? Note storico-culturali sulla via carsica del metodo “naturale” (o diretto) per l’insegnamento del greco antico nell’occidente latino(fono), in Thamyris, n. s. 7 (2016), 47-74, https://dialnet.unirioja.es › descarga › articulo

2019, Francesca Dell’Oro, "Plongeon dans le grec ancien : compte-rendu des premiers ateliers de grec ancien oral de l’Université Grenoble Alpes", in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 132-145 (see especially pp. 134-135)

2020, Francesca Dell' Oro, « Le défi des langues anciennes à l’oral dans les écoles de Suisse Romande » in Méthodes et modèles de l'apprentissage des langues anciennes, vivantes et construites, hier et aujourd'hui , édité par Francesca DELL' ORO, Cahiers du CLSL, n° 62, p. 67-100 (cf. https://edipub-unil.ch/index.php/clsl/article/view/947) Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add these:

2019, Christophe Rico, « La méthode Polis » in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 193-216

2021, Christophe Rico and Michael Kopf, “Teaching Ancient Greek by the Polis Method”, in Communicative Approaches for Ancient Languages, edited by Mair E. Lloyd and Steven Hunt, Bloomsbury Academic, London / Oxford / New York/ New Delhi / Sydney, 141-149." Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The easier bit first: I think that at least some of the newly provided sources are effective in showing some baseline notability in the field. The Dell'Oro and Riccuci articles are good that way. The de Lerma ref is a thesis, which puts it at a slightly lower level. The Kabat ref I was unable to pull up, but at least the title looks promising. So I think for a concise and neutrally written article, notability could be signed off on.

The larger problem is that this is not concise or neutral. It's very much a promotional piece in the sense that many scientific journal articles are promotional - the writer showcases a product, argues how necessary the development was, how useful the outcome, and how it matches the requirements of whatever funding body provided the backing. An encyclopedia wants none of that. Along with that comes great over-indulgence in detail - again, fine for a journal article, not for an encyclopedia. And it would be a big job for any editor to cut this text down to suitable dimensions. So: not sure we are in TNT territory, but I think the author would be doing everyone and the topic a favour by moving this back to draft and turning it from an academic argument, into a concise article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this note and to @Elmidae for the constructive criticism. Let me edit this article now and perhaps you can then tell me if I should still move this to draft. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and eventually send through AfC. Sure, there's lots of references in the article. It seems like a miss mosh of random stuff though and therefore isn't very up to snuff as an article. I'm not saying it couldn't be with some work though, just that it's not good enough for main space right now. So, I think draftifying it is perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I introduced some changes to the article. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However the AfD goes, you should declare your pretty obvious (to me at least) COI with the topic of article. I'll leave it up to you to figure out how to do that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to lack of participation I'll probably go with draftify, but, what do others think?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to check the first ref. but was in Spanish. It seems that at p83, there is a paragraph mentioning the Polis Institute. Very hard to interpret, as I can not copy-paste the text and use google translate. Since I want to make sure that there are not only brief mentions of The Polis Method at academic bibliography, could you (@Rzcortes:) be kind enough to point to two sources that discuss The Polis Method in depth? So I will have a look afterward? Gracias (not watching, please ping)Cinadon36 19:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Cinadon36 - thanks for your reply. I have found 5 articles which are whole articles on Polis - unfortunately, only one is in English. This one is published by Bloomsbury Academic, a London-based publishing house that included the Polis Method a very recent book entitled "Communicative Approaches for Ancient Languages." It is written by the author of the method and a collaborator of his. The abstract of the article may be found in this link: doi:10.5040/9781350157378.ch-014 The other 4 are in other European languages:

2 in Spanish: (2012, M. Carmen Encinas Reguero, « Un caso especial en la enseñanza de lenguas: las lenguas clásicas” in El aula como ámbito de investigación sobre la enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua. V Seminario, Uri Ruiz Bikandi – Itziar Plazaola (eds./arg.), Universidad del Pais Vasco, p. 82-93 https://web-argitalpena.adm.ehu.es/pdf/UVWEB127079.pdf ; 2015, Gala Lopez de Lerma, Análisis comparativo de metodologías para el aprendizaje de la lengua latina, Universitat de Barcelona, Ph.D. Dissertation. http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/handle/2445/102093 )

1 in Italian (2015, Marco Riccuci, “Per una disamina del metodo Polis: un “nuovo” metodo glottodidattico per insegnare il freco antico come L2?” in lucida intervalla Časopis za klasične nauke A Journal of Classical Studies 44 , p. 155-179 https://www.academia.edu/23719638/Per_una_disamina_del_metodo_Polis_un_nuovo_metodo_glottodidattico_per_insegnare_il_greco_antico_come_L2?auto=download

1 in Polish (2015, Michal Kabat, «Nauka jezyka starogreckiego w sposob czynny - metoda POLIS», pages 134-136, Nowy Filomata XIX 2015 (1) (Whole article on the Polis method) http://pau.krakow.pl/index.php/pl/wydawnictwo/strony-czasopism/nowy-filomata/archiwum/xix-2015-nr-1)

Except for the Polish article, I have read extensively - not the dissertation, I admit, since it's a comparative study and I simply focused on Polis - the ones is Spanish and Italian in their original languages. They are, in fact whole articles on Polis and not just brief mentions. If you wish, the links to the works of Encinas Reguero and Riccuci could be copy-pasted.

I read all those articles in a rather academic context. I am an assistant professor of communication ethics in the Philippines with a passion for ancient languages and already finished several classes in Latin, Hebrew and Greek in the Polis Institute. I was impressed with the method, thoroughly enjoyed the experience, and am writing this to share what I know. While writing this Wikipedia article, I am also in the process of writing a journal article on this method which I intend to submit it to The Journal of Classics Teaching (UK-based). This is the reason that in the previous versions of this article, there were several references which have been referred to as "trivial" in Wikipedia. What is concerned standard fare in journal articles of citing sources of concepts you mention that need clarification elsewhere (e.g. terms lie "language-based," "whole language approach," etc. is apparently frowned upon in Wikipedia. I stand corrected there since I am new to this platform and still finding my way around in terms of writing style.
As to institutions in Europe and the US that have shown interest in the Polis Method and are using it, there are several cited in the article. Thanks. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the ones IN Spanish and Italian Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to mention that since the author is French, he has another work on this method published by what I judge to be a rather respectable French academic source. The method is also mentioned as an alternative method for learning ancient languages in another article in French. This latter article is not wholly on the Polis method but its mention is certainly not merely in passing. If you are interested in these, here are the bibliographic details.

2019, Christophe Rico, « La méthode Polis » in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 193-216 (Whole article on the Polis method) . https://books.openedition.org/ugaeditions/10289

2019, Francesca Dell’Oro, "Plongeon dans le grec ancien : compte-rendu des premiers ateliers de grec ancien oral de l’Université Grenoble Alpes", in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 132-145 (see pp. 134-135). https://books.openedition.org/ugaeditions/10289

Thanks! Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen this before with an academic topic article, where a bunch of refs are included that discuss topics tangential to the article's subject to give it an air of sophistication. At best, it could be a section of the Polis Institute, but the lack of specific coverage does not constitute enough for its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Polis Institute article is a good example of exactly what your talking about. Six trivial references just for the first sentence, yikes. Not surprising though since like this article it's mostly been edited by Rzcortes. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am not impressed, but it seems there is enough foreign coverage of Polis method. This has been the most convincing publishing [26]. I am a little uneased, since I am unfamiliar with french lang and I do not know the editors. But UGA Editions is the publisher of Université Grenoble Alpes. Cinadon36 06:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs some clean-up but it passes notability criteria. Poorly written article is not a reason to delete if it can be salvaged and improved. If not going to keep, I recommend Redirect or Merge with The Polis Institute main page which already exists. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable given the number of independent citations on the polis method; they may not be Anglo-Saxon, but they are scholarly. Article should echo more these independent citations than the writings of the original creator and institution. Remove all marketing-sounding catch phrases in the lede. Jesuitsj (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify at best. Clearly not ready for mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or redirect to Polis Institute. I am looking at the version that includes the changes "edited for encyclopedic tone" and "more encyclopedic tone editing" (by the likely COI author) and it still reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, possibly selective merge to The Polis Institute. The title already implies that this is a method specific to this institution. The article is full of promotional buzzwords and jargon, making me believe that we won't lose much if we omit this content. Sandstein 08:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Anderson (photographer)

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

Cameraman. Doesn't pass independent GNG. Pipsally (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no inline citations either, which is required for BLPs. --pandakekok9 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here's his website, while it was still up; but its content is not encouraging. I've no enthusiasm for my delete "!vote", because I think that nature photographers get a bum deal; but however unjust the lack of coverage may be, a WP article can't make up for the lack. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus that the article meets the general notability guideline per presented sources. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 01:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MooTools

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. All references are either directly from project's release notes or website or a single self-published book. Note that the previous AfD received no votes and closed with "no consensus". Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are a couple of sources found on Google Scholar. Additional sources are available on Google Scholar as well.

"The Introduction to MooTools Architecture". Applied Mechanics and Materials.
"Interactive Consultation Based on MooTools Long Polling Techniques". Applied Mechanics and Materials.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting this here. (I wanted to reply to your original comment on the first AfD discussion, but it was already closed when I saw it.)

If you look closely, these two articles are from the same authors published on the same day in the same journal in the same volume (just on different pages). Also, the papers seem to be missing some indication of peer-review present in other papers published in this journal. Based on this, I'm not sure think this research was properly peer-reviewed. I'm not familiar with technicalities of what's relable and what's not and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not particularly helpful in this case.

I managed to find some books about on this topic:

- "MooTools Essentials" by Aaron Newton, Apress. (Note that Aaron Newton is member of MooTools organization on GitHub and might not count as a releable independent source.)

- "Pro JavaScript with MooTools" by Mark J. Obcena, Apress. (Also member of MooTools organization on GitHub, etc.)

- "MooTools 1.2" by Jacob Gube and Garrick Cheung, Pack publishing. (Jacob Gube is also member of MooTools organization on GitHub.)

Can any of these sources be considered reliable third-party sources?

Anton.bersh (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources indicated by Northamerica1000 are reliable. And so are the books from Newton, Obcena and Gube & Cheung indicated by the nominator. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSOFT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ASTIG. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 21:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam All

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

Fails WP:GNG lacks sufficient coverage Articuno appears (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Articuno appears (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage by sources already used in article, e.g. [27], [28] and [29]. 15 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now): Don't WP:BITE too quickly. See where it goes and if it remains untouched by the middle of May then I wouldn't be so averse to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plifal (talk • contribs)
Delete No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 22:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the sources are good. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She (Yvonne Ohene Djan)

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines, both the article itself and the links it relies on for sources read like marketing materials Dexxtrall (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Yvonne Ohene Djan is a notable entertainer in Ghana and is quite popular. The sources are not marketing materials Mellowdeaous (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article as it stands is appalling (certainly the current promotional tone of the article does not help its case), but it appears that there may be a salvageable article from previous coverage [30], and [31]. Nevertheless, this would probably be marginal per wp:CELEBRITY. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article stands a chance of being improved based on the few references within the article, from the above comment, she does seem to be a WP:CELEBRITY, the article must be improved. Ampimd (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Notability" seems to be derived from singing some backing vocals but notability cannot be achieved by association. Producing (whayever that actually means) ONE film is not a ground for notability either. Emeraude (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Emeraude From the article the article seeks to highlight on her being the backing vocalist for several hit songs and top Ghanaian international musician, which is relevant to know. The notability is derived from singing backing vocals but not to just some songs, but considering the article and its scope, it seeks to highlight hit songs and top international musicians. That too me seems relevant, unless it isnt Ampimd (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude Just a simple googling of her name will show you that she is a celebrity who has achieved notable success in her field and all the source given are quality sources. Yes she has produced only one but the movie was recognized in Ghana and was one best movies that year Mellowdeaous (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment: After doing an extensive search on the subject, I believe it would be worth keeping the article and getting more reliable sources to back sections of the article, Her notability as stated above is in serving as the vocalist and composer to top Ghanaian musicians and to several hit songs in Ghana which went beyond Ghana, West Africa and even beyond. Considering songs related to Daddy Lumba, there would be a disconnect taking down the article when more sources are being added and drawings a better connection to those songs stated in the article. Ampimd (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from serving as the number one backing vocalist to top musicians in Ghana, SHE (Yvonne Ohene Djan) has a song of her own, titled "Dream Lover" ^[1] ^[2] Mellowdeaous (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. doktorb _words^deeds 19:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the references listed, and the little research done on the article, the subject fits the notability guideline and can be considered as a celebrity. It appears the subject is a famous backing vocalist for many top musicians in Ghana. However, I think the article leaves much to be desired. Applehead1000 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of the sourcing would be valuable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mellowdeaous, have you been WP:PAID to write this article? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle (talk) No, I have not been paid to write. I only wrote the article because her contribution to the Ghana music industry is huge. Thank you.Mellowdeaous (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellowdeaous: I'm curious as to how you got your hands on this photo then and uploaded it as an "own work"? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle (talk) I'm sorry, it is not my own work. The photo is from her Instagram account. Whenever I try to upload photos it doesn't work but when I choose this option it works that is why I did that. Mellowdeaous (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellowdeaous: Please do not do that in the future. That's a copyright violation which is deeply frowned upon. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle (talk) Okay, I hear. I'm relatively new in wikipedia editing. I'm still learning. Won't do that again. Thank you!Mellowdeaous (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not the right place to ask this, but given Mellowdeaous admits that this image is a breach of copyright, is that also the case for this image the uploaded and claimed as their own work? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Akua-serwaa-new.jpg @Indy beetle Dexxtrall (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me to say, but I suspect all of their Commons contributions of Ghanaian musicians are copyvio problems. They should be forgiven for this misstep but the files probably have to go. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the references and simple google searches, the subject easily meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO . Mellowdeaous (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Call Me by Your Name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Perlman

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

The character fails WP:GNG. In reading through sources listed, and searching for new sources, almost none of them address Elio, rather than the film or Chalamet's performance in the film (very few listed sources discuss the book). The few sources that do address the character either aren't independent, or don't meet SIGCOV.

This page should best be merged into the film and book, with some text being most suited to merge into Chalamet's page. (I suspect though, that very little information from this page that is worth keeping will be missing from other articles.) Redirect to the book seems most appropriate, although a case could be made for a redirect to the film, being presumably the more popular of the two. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Call Me by Your Name. Reception looks nice at first glance, but it is made up of mentions in passing and reception for the actor, not character. Does not seem to meet WP:NFICTION. Fancruft... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Piotrus, nothing to disagree with your conclusion, but it seems WP:NFICTION is an essay, and the relevant guideline is WP:GNG? Clearly there are some debates going on about deletion of fictional elements, and I don’t really have a dog in that fight, but it seems a little odd to cite policy that provides no guidance. — HTGS (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HTGS, Right, but NFICTION is a useful reminder that "no, we don't have a special rules giving fictional topics an easier time". Hence, a reminder - and it does clearly direct everyone to GNG anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the character isn't notable independent of the book/film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless more substantial sources can be found. As of now, it should remain part of the parent topic. TTN (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulmajeed Al Abbas

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

Abdulmajeed Al Abbas does not satisfy association football notability guidelines. The subject has not played for a team at the highest level in Saudi Arabia. This draft also does not describe significant coverage that would satisfy general notability. This article was already move from article space to draft space once by User:Spiderone, and has been moved back to article space, so that any further draftification can only be done on the AFD close. Moving this article back to draft space a second time would be edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as does not pass WP:NFOOTY currently; has played for parent club (which is an FPL club) in cup competiton but not against FPL opposition, so could achieve notability in (near) future. No prejudice against draftifying as an alternative, or re-creation as and when appropriate. Eagleash (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is, at best, a massive WP:TOOSOON. His only game for Al-Nassr was against a 3rd tier side so does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. No significant coverage cited and searching his name in Arabic comes up with nothing outside a squad list mention, Kooora, Soccerway and his clubs' own websites. The draft can be retained if people wish for it to be but this doesn't meet our agreed minimum inclusion criteria and I see no reason for us to ignore notability guidelines in this case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone reviewed the Arabic-language sources in the article? SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my assessment of the sources available:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.kooora.com/?player=126372			Kooora is a stats website like Soccerway, no significant coverage	✘ No
https://ar.soccerway.com/matches/2019/11/09/saudi-arabia/champions-cup/afief/al-nasr-riyadh/3178028/			Soccerway match stats report	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200206101732/https://arriyadiyah.com/676957		?	Just a routine announcement about signing a contract. Mentioned once along with seven other players. No actual significant coverage of the player that is the subject of this AfD.	✘ No
https://twitter.com/ALJABALAIN79/status/1318180841227517953	?	?	A one-sentence transfer announcement on Twitter.	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/abdulmajeed-abbas/647448/			A Soccerway profile with barely any info let alone any significant coverage.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist (Smila, Ukraine)

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

Modern church (2008) which does not seem to have anything going for it in terms of historical or cultural significance, or any kind of solid coverage indicative of such. Not seeing a basis for an article here.

(where do we sort buildings / churches? Feel free to move this to a better AfD category)

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NBUILDING. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:NCHURCH. My searches in English and Ukrainian do not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-trivial independent coverage of the church organization, the building, and the monument in its ensemble:
- Священик з Івано-Франківщини вже 7 років будує єдиний у Смілі храм УАПЦ (фото) (Priest from Ivano-Frankivsk region has been building his own UAOC church 7 years [photos]) 2015-07-13
- СМІЛЯНИ ВШАНУВАЛИ ЖЕРТВ ПОЛІТИЧНИХ РЕПРЕСІЙ БІЛЯ УНІКАЛЬНОГО ПАМ’ЯТНОГО ЗНАКА (Smila residents honoured victims of political repressions at a unique commemorative marker) 2018-05-22
- Епіфаній освятив новий храм у Смілі ([Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine] Epifanii christened a new church in Smila) 2019-12-24
—Michael Z. 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second ref is an unadorned press release. Third ref is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL public notice - "a new public building has been opened". Both of these are very much trivial coverage and do nothing for notability. - First ref has more potential as a feature on the origin of the church. So, one good source so far by my count. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough the second and third are not earth-shattering. But they appear to be legitimate local news, produced by real writers and studios. Second one is a video news item at an event. Smila has a church that was built by its priest over many years. An unusual feat of vernacular architecture these days. Is that encyclopedic? —Michael Z. 02:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, IF it receives the requisite amount of coverage. Don't think a single item of usable length would normally be considered sufficient. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does have some significant reliable sources coverage but the main reason is that the remains of a notable holy martyr Vladimir Bogoyavlensky have been interred here which gives the church historic significance in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 25 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) 01:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG as it does have some significant reliable sources as per above. Articuno appears (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two short local pieces and a press release are not significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source here is a full article with significant coverage imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashley yoursmile! 04:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Onel5969. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mittal Steel Company. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ispat International

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

Does not look notable, written like an advertisement. EpicPupper (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mittal Steel Company whose History section includes this predecessor company (although also unreferenced). AllyD (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cheshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nafees Din

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cheshire County Cricket Club List A players 4 LA matches, but only a couple of match reports and not enough for significant coverage. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N. Arun

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

Article about a local politician not meeting the criteria of WP:NPOL as his career consists mostly of student politics or local in a sub-region. His acting career does not meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR the one referenced used to support the actor claim looks to be a press release. The rest either barely mention him or don't at all. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
- - Does not satisfy political notability, acting notability, or general notability.
  - An article should speak for itself, and this article does not indicate notability.
  - Already declined twice in draft space, but then created in article space.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for being active in student politics, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheWikiholic (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds Wayside Campground (neé Reynolds, Mendocino County, California)

Another one where a common last name makes searching difficult, but I got lucky and stumbled across a state senate bill to "acquire the area west of the proposed U.S. 101 highway known as Reynolds Redwood Flat for the state park system." I also found another legislative report stating that "The Public Works Board recently purchased Reynolds Redwood Flat, famed resort in northern Mendocino County." This is consistent with the topos, which show a very tight cluster of buildings which disappears when the highway gets put through. The aerials are largely useless except to show how far out of step the topos are compared to the situation on the ground, but I did also discover that the state park is still there, although reduced in size after the interchange expanded. So, not a settlement, period, and in spite of the legislature I don't see any other evidence for the resort's fame. Mangoe (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that I had seen this before. I was poring over the search function only to find that it was on my own talk page. See User talk:Uncle G#Reynolds, Mendocino County, California where I found the names to look for and some dates. Uncle G (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an updated version of Palmer's History of Mendocino County, California, not out of copyright so you won't find it in the Internet Archive like the others, that has Reynolds and the memorial park up to 1967, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is Reynolds Wayside Campground, a redlink at List of California state parks. This is the second Mendocino County "former settlement" to be a state park site, after this stub at "Lane Redwood Flat, California" that I was able to expand into the current content at Smithe Redwoods State Natural Reserve. I'll see what I can do here. Hog Farm _Talk 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G and Mangoe: - I have completely rewritten this to be about the redwood resort here and the current state park stuff, which has had some interesting stuff. I think this is now solidly at a Keep, but would like permission to move this page to Reynolds Wayside Campground, which is the best title. This place was never known simply as Reynolds that I found, so the currently title should not stand. Hog Farm _Talk 16:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible to do uncontroversial renames of articles being discussed at AFD, as long as one fixes up the discussion page mechanisms at the same time. Of course, that's the tricky part. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank W. Reynolds was a former county assessor and lumberman, you will find, and represented lumber trade interests on the board. Uncle G (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Clearly notable. BD2412 T 03:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after rewritgt, seems a notable place Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Band

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD has a better search link and I found the following: https://www.deadpress.co.uk/album-review-secret-band-lp2/ https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/63672/Secret-Band-Secret-Band/ https://www.billboard.com/music/secret-band/chart-history/VNL/song/1133002 https://www.allmusic.com/artist/secret-band-mn0001780377/biography but no album reviews . Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- The first two links are album reviews. If you read WP:MUSICBIO, you can see that there is a simple criteria for notability of releasing two albums (#5), they also meet requirement #2 as shown in the billboard link — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Hero56 (talk • contribs) 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete: per nom, failing WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, no major record label, no chart CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard shows they did chart, are on a notable label, and there is enough coverage for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Full disclosure, I do love this band, but that might have made it easier for me to find sources. If you don't know Dance Gavin Dance and the related acts, that's a little different. Their first lead singer, Jonny Craig, was kind of a mess, and so the other members started "Secret Band" so that they could continue working together in case DGD exploded. More notably, on the 2012 All Stars Tour, Craig was fired halfway through and DGD was replaced on the lineup with Secret Band, which unclean vocalist Jon Mess talks about here. In addition, there are the links already mentioned, plus this Will Swan interview and this from Kill Your Stereo. Oh, and this interview. It looks a little borderline, only because Swancore-type sound is still a little underground, but I'd say it passes. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Most are passing mentions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is enough coverage for WP:GNG in my view including an AllMusic staff written bio, album reviews by Deadpress and Sputnik Music together with the Billboard entry which shows charting but is unclear as to which Billboard chart, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AllMusic staff bio, Billboard chart placement, and some album reviews add up to enough coverage to satisfy WP:NBAND, at least for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jalaj Srivastava

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

Fails WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage anywhere. JTtheOG (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non of the coverage is substantial enough to show that Srivastava is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I struggled to find how this subject passes WP:GNG. It doesn't help that there are other men who share the same name, one who appears to work in finance. Missvain (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ananya Sen

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players 3 FC matches but all for university sides, not really seeing anything that would constitute significant coverage. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly done to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Happy for a redirect here, though with category retention to aid with a personal project in tallying up how many players have played for each English FC team. StickyWicket (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjib Ahsan Saad

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Fails WP:CRIN, WP:GNG and WP:V. Player has appeared in ICC Trophy but not in final. There are some passing mentions but not enough for him to pass GNG. The articles needs more reliable sources in significant coverage to pass GNG. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 04:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails CRIN as stated by A.A Prinon above, no appearance in a final. In terms of GNG I'm seeing a lot of mentions, but not enough for a GNG. No suitable redirect as he played in two tournaments which could have been suitable redirects. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting two related keep !votes, there is apparent consensus to delete. Lourdes 12:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Knauss

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

The subject has little to no notability. The article has 4 independent sources, and none of them talk about the subject in detail. As far as I can tell, the subject does not meet the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Improve - like many articles about web people, it can be hard to find good details because they do behind the scenes work. I'll give this a shot and see if I can find sources that would support notability and if not I'm happy to change my suggestion. Jessamyn (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jessamyn, you found any yet? Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 23:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet Orcaguy. I did a stylistic re-org of the page to better fit wikistyle and have tossed a few more things in (I think the Romantimatic angle got the most press, but there may be a few other notability angles). I have a Tu/Wed weekend so that was my plan to poke at tomorrow. Jessamyn (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, cheers. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think Knauss meets the criteria of creating a thing (or things) that have received independent coverage (weblog book tours, Romantimatic app) and is regarded as an important figure within his field. I tried to add citations and information to that effect. Early web metadata is terrible which means it's hard to nail down the specifics of his work for Que Publishing but his work writing for MacWorld and early Atari publications is easier to note and track down. Jessamyn (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources and bibliography indicate sufficient notability. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:AUTHOR. App developer, text book contributor (for instance, "Using Netscape 2" authors are Mark Robbin Brown, Steven Forrest Burnett, et al. - I see no Krauss), non notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes this is part of the problem. The metadata for the early books to which he contributed chapters are terrible and the publishers no longer exist. I appreciate that "they were big deals at the time" isn't really a reason to hit GNG, but it falls into the timehole that is before (many) newspapers had content available digitally, but after newspapers would allow scanned content online. I'll see if I can fine better citations about his contributions. Jessamyn (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Jessamyn. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the citations (and there aren't that many) are just in reference to his own work, with him replying to journalist's questions about them, which is routine. There's no profile or reference dedicated to who he is, so it fails WP:GNG. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is tough. Objectively, it doesn't feel like a Wikipedia article, but a resume of (admittedly fun!) personal and work projects. Some items got a little press or are attached to sites or books or people who do meet WP:GNG, but that applies to many people's resumes who don't meet WP:GNG overall. Dgpop (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fox the elder

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. This article is a complete mess, basically entirely comprised of Joseph Fox the elder's family, will, and a journal entry. Penale52 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability, and most of this article is unsourced anyway. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is a mess. It's time to blow it up. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:GNG, appears to lack sustained, independent grounds for a clear claim of notability.Carmelhighlander09 (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fox family of Falmouth

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Fails WP:GNG, most of the sources are Fox family journals or genealogy-type references. Penale52 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources aren't clearly supporting the idea that this family is notable. Rather, someone has cobbled up a bunch of information from both relaible and unreliable sources about various family members and stitched them together here as a probable SYNTH violation. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Waxahachie, Texas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Waxahachie, Texas

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

This doesn't fulfill WP:SPLIT at all. This list can easily be merged into the main Waxahachie, Texas article. Love of Corey (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, but I'm not sure why this was taken to AfD when there's no need or appetite for deletion. Mergers can go to WP:PAM or simply be boldly done. Vaticidalprophet 03:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Waxahachie, Texas article, clearly this article didn't fulfill WP:SPLIT and should not stand as standalone article. SunDawn (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (or question). I had never heard of Waxahachie before this thread, but it seems a remarkably long article for a place with 38000 inhabitants. Is it really so important? Athel cb (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on the city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Sanchez

AfDs for this article:

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

An appearance in one certain documentary film and two failed congressional campaigns do not help this person meet WP:NPOL. Also, it should be noted that this article was created and initially edited by sockpuppet accounts and has an undisclosed payment template tagged to it. Love of Corey (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that her appearance in a docmentary does not make her notable. See Knock Down the House: Amy Vilela isn't notable. Neiher is Jana Sanchez, the WP:CITEBOMB to suggest notability notwithstanding. These references do not cover her in detail. Most of the sources are about the election, not her. WP:GNG is not met. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Twice-unsuccessful congressional candidate fails WP:NPOL. If there is no clear consensus to delete, Redirect to either of the main election pages. KidAd • SPEAK 02:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two time non-winner congressional candidate fails WP:NPOL. If there ain't no clear consensus to delete, Redirect to one of the main election pages.2601:2C6:C080:4070:2D0F:9BBE:55A1:E0E (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC) — 2601:2C6:C080:4070:2D0F:9BBE:55A1:E0E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2601:2C6:C080:4070:2D0F:9BBE:55A1:E0E (UTC).[reply]

I’m sure there’s a way you can put that into your own words. KidAd • SPEAK 14:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KidAd, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I wrote in the previous AFD, the subject passes WP:GNG largely because of the documentary. Being 1/3 of the featured subjects of a documentary on a major network is more coverage than most candidates receive. By being featured in the documentary, the subject is used as an example of other candidates in the 2018 election. If this is not kept, it should be redirected. --Enos733 (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show us where in the notability guidelines it includes "appearing in a documentary". Notability is about sources, not documentary appearances. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When we look at the exception for local politicians in WP:POLOUTCOMES, there is a recognition that "coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized" beyond what is expected of similar officials. The GNG asks whether the subject "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." While I am not one that agrees that if you have X number of reliable sourced coverage, I also not not believe that we ought to completely discount coverage of political candidates in the context of a campaign. So, what we have is a documentary where the subject received significant coverage. We also have profiles of the subject from two campaigns and associated other independent sources. So, while it is not the documentary per se that elevates the subject over the GNG bar, being featured in a significant documentary separates the subject from the hundred of other candidates running for Congress each election cycle. --Enos733 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:GNG, where it says "Sources"[2], footnote 2 says, Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries..., so being featured in the Showtime documentary Surge, and the critical commentary/reviews discussing her appearance, appears to support notability per the guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary counts towards GNG, but it isn't enough with the lack of significant coverage elsewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above delete !voters - a non notable failed candidate, however, we could redirect to the documentary. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and nothing is available to pass WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, including due to the 2020 documentary and reviews highlighting her role, as noted above, (that had previously been in the article before the Surge article was created) and the national news coverage she has received in The Guardian (2018), The Hill (2018), and The Washington Post (2021). 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, and all three of the national news sources are more than a trivial mention. Also, 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 she also received coverage independent of her political campaigns in the Dallas Morning News (2020), and in an article about the same issue, was described by the Fort-Worth Star Telegram (2020) as "Polk’s friend and fellow politician who first drew national attention to Polk’s story" in more than trivial coverage of her role. And there are a few post-election instances where her commentary has been included in news articles: Fort-Worth Star Telegram (2018), San Antonio Current (2019), Independent (2020). I have also made some fairly substantial revisions to clean up the article after a close review of the sources, so it is less WP:CITEBOMBed. Beccaynr (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts to improve the page are admirable, but that coverage looks to me to be about the elections she's run in, not the candidate herself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it has been on my to-do list to clean up the article after the SPI referenced on the Talk page, and this AfD helped prioritize the task. Both the Guardian and Hill articles include biographical information, so they appear to be about her in addition to her campaign, and reviews of the documentary now added back into the article include secondary commentary about her campaign (Baltimore Sun), and context that seems to be about more than her campaign, e.g. "In the end, Sanchez loses but comes closer than any Democrat in 36 years in her Texas district" (New York Daily News), so these sources at minimum seem to support WP:BASIC notability due the depth of biographical and WP:SECONDARY coverage. There are also other sources I identified in my comment above that are independent of her campaigns, when her role is an activist or commentator. I think with the 2020 documentary that includes a major focus on her campaign and appears to be WP:SECONDARY coverage, the reviews of the documentary that include a focus on her, two in-depth international/national 2018 news articles that include biographical coverage, 2021 national news coverage, and some additional news coverage outside of her political campaigns, it appears that WP:GNG can be satisfied by the most in-depth sources and notability can be further supported by WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are really terrible references you have posted up. They are rank. One is up as it has a Twitter link to here name,, one because she had her covid injection first, several are notes of possible election success, which didn't come to pass. They are all non-rs effectively. None of the are in-depth. Posting random links for a set agenda, is not the way to do it. scope_creep^Talk 21:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WP:SIGCOV just isnt there. All of the articles mention her as an aspect of the main subject of the article (not her). Nweil (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Vives Casas

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

Ana Vives Casas. This article is headed by a tag saying this person may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I get the impression that some one read a report of this journalist's death in a Spanish newspaper, and then put in the article. Just because some one's death is mentioned in a newspaper does not, ipso facto, make the article notable. The article is only two sentences long and does not say much, other than that this person was a Spanish journalist and her dates. Rollo August (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rollo August, have you gone through the process in WP:BEFORE, e.g. check to see whether the subject passes WP:GNG, check the Spanish article, consider allowing more time to develop the article as it is only two days old? TSventon (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have checked all six reports, and they all say much the same thing. (My Spanish is adequate for reading, not so much for writing.) There is absolutely nothing to suggest notability. Athel cb (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award winning journalist. Meeting GNG per multiple independent secondary sources writing about her. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is the Premio Huelva de Periodismo itself notable? OK, it's worth 3000€, so it's not trivial, but Huelva itself is not a big city (No. 28 in Spain). It's only natural that the editor who posts an article will vote to Keep it, but that effectively guarantees one vote for Keep if the author looks at this discussion. Athel cb (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Fox of St Germans

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Fails WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, Friend Fox, but I don't think of thee as meeting our standards of notability. This article contains a lot of stuff from a self-published genealogy, and even gossip from a descendant of the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was bot notified about this but my involvement was only administrative; it was created as the result of a CFD eleven years ago. The creator of that category, HaWe (talk · contribs), is inactive; the nominator should review the edit history of this page to see if there is anyone who may actually have an interest in it. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am an interested descendant, and found this to be a helpful summary of information I hadn't managed to find elsewhere, but I can see it probably doesn't meet usual standards of notability Cesyavon (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to the lack of participation. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Mirabal Reyes

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

The sisters, as a group are notable, but individually there is not enough in-depth coverage on this particular sister for her to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used establish notability for the individual sister. As well, there is another article for a lesser-known sister already. It does not make sense to delete this one. Respectfully, --Liliput000 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant View, Wood County, West Virginia

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

This one is very difficult to search for, because there are many Pleasant View, West Virginias. (I found the most for Pleasant View, Jackson County, West Virginia). Topos originally show a school named "Pleasant View School" here, which later becomes just Pleasant View with a church and not much else. I found a few passing mentions to the school and a cemetery here during my search, but most of the rest was for either Pleasant Hill, Wood County, West Virginia or for other Pleasant Views. I don't think this is notable, but if I missed something, please be understanding, as searching is really noisy. If I missed something that demonstrates notability here, I will withdraw. Hog Farm _Talk 18:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does appear on the USGS topo map on the South Parkersburg quadrangle. That seems to me to qualify it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Orangemike: - WP:NGEO states This guideline specifically excludes maps, tables, lists, databases, etc., from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. We need more than just maps to indicate that this site is notable. Hog Farm _Talk 18:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any of the Pleasant Views in Lippincott's Gazetteer. The cemeteries all appear to be somewhere else. And I cannot confirm that the Pleasant View farm in an obituary matches this. This seems to be practically unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete The show a common metamorphosis of an isolated school into a town, which consists (until suburbia reaches it) of an equally isolated church which could well be the old school building repurposed. No sign over the years of a "settlement". Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Farzaneh Hemmasi (2020). Tehrangeles Dreaming, Intimacy and Imagination in Southern California's Iranian Pop Music. Duke University Press. pp. 55–57. ISBN 9781478012009.

[2] Pardis Mahdavi (2009). Passionate Uprisings, Iran's Sexual Revolution. Stanford University Press. pp. 11–13. ISBN 9780804758567.

[3] GJ Breyley; Sasan Fatemi (2015). Iranian Music and Popular Entertainment, From Motrebi to Losanjelesi and Beyond. Taylor & Francis. p. 151. ISBN 9781317336808.

[4] ttps://www.modernghana.com/music/17707/1/female-singer-she-donates-to-a-hole-in-heart-patie.html

[5] ttp://nanayaw18.blogspot.com/2012/07/female-singer-she-dedicates-song-drop.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freak (Lana Del Rey song)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. K. Sekhar}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Philippines}}