Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 05	April 07 >

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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Junaid

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

Non-Notable Politician. Fails WP:NPOL, According to WP:POLITICIAN, politicians are notable if they held international, national or state/province post. Also somehow looks promotional to me. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject has never been elected into any legislative bodies thus failing NPOL. In that case he must pass general GNG criteria. As I can see, there are no sources giving him enough significant coverage. I dont know whether there are any sources in local language. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person fails WP:NPOL but has been covered in mainstream media as social activist. Riteboke (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion needed on notability based on other notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Riteboke, Not significantly tho, Passing mentions don't demonstrate notability. He Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 20:39, 2 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 King's Theatre, Glasgow. MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King's Theatre Pantomime

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

Lacks reliable sources, according to WP:BEFORE JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 15:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference section in fact gives four sources, one of which is dead and apparently primary but the other three would appear to be perfectly reliable. The details of how these sources support the article are unclear because of the lack of inline citations but this is not valid grounds for deletion. If your BEFORE included checking the sources and confirming that they do not support the article text, that would be a different matter. I'd suggest withdrawing the nomination unless and until. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with King's Theatre, Glasgow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are readily available in newspaper and arts review magazine archives. For example, I found the 1989 production of Mother Goose in 24 Nov 1989 The List. The List archive goes back to 1985, and I expect all the pantomimes since then would be found in a late November issue of the magazine. AlasdairW (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with King's Theatre, Glasgow - agree with Ssilvers Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed above. It is certainly a well known event in Scotland with a fair amount of coverage, but I think it could easily and most appropriately be covered in the King's Theatre 's own article. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 23:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eligio Vecchi

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

Does not cite any sources, and on top of that, WP:BEFORE search found very little reliable sources, meaning that this person is not WP:WELLKNOWN. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 15:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable per WP:NFOOTBALL, and sources out there easy enough to find - 1, 2. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Very easily passes WP:NFOOTY, just needs to be sourced and expanded. There is also this website, in addition to the sources GS reported above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Barnes (artist)

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

Per WP:NOTINHERIT. This person only appears to have a page based upon work with his more famous brother. Before isn't returning anything to indicate notability and the refs in the article are either dead or relate to the brother. Not to be confused with the British artist of the same name (born 1944 and painting Welsh mountains). Tagged advert since 2011. Desertarun (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this all seems to hinge on his brother's band. Interestingly, there is another David Barnes (artist) who ,actually meets WP:NARTIST by being in several museum collections.--- Possibly (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Possibly. Riteboke (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patria case

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

The article largely reflects the personal view of the Wikipedia editor "Claudi8". A "Patria case" is neither discussed, nor described in any reliable sources; therefore, it is safe to assume that a "Patria case" as described by the article does not exist, and that the main purpose of the article is to spread original research and personal points of view. The article fails to comply with all Wikipedia core content policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER) as well as WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTNEWS. Therefore, I believe that the article should be deleted. -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People certainly seem to think that it exists and has this name, although it is saddening to see an article talk about 2008 in the present tense, and people's announced intentions to do things in the future in 2008. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not an alternative to cleanup. Though, admittedly, the article needs lots of work. --Tone 08:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree.Trimton (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable since there's lots of coverage in good press, e.g. Austrian Kurier has an article here, Reuters here, Finland's national broadcaster Yle here Trimton (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These articles mention corruption within Patria, but they do not describe what the article considers to be a "Patria case". The Kurier article is about SSF; the Reuters article is about Janez Jansa being convicted in a bribery case; the Yle article describes that two former Patria executives accuse Yle of libel. Stitching pieces of information together so that a "Patria case" is formed, is not what Wikipedia is for. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurier article is not only about SSF. It mentions Patria throughout, with seven mentions of the name. You're right that none of the articles I linked calls the corruption investigation of Patria the "Patria case" but the absence of a unified name does not mean that the affair isn't notable. Otherwise, we would have to delete Bárcenas affair just because the majority of the press don't use that name (e.g. BBC calls it Bárcenas scandal]. Kurier calls the Patria case "die Affäre um den Steyr-Konkurrenten Patria aus Finnland" ('the affair around Patria, a Finnish competitor of Steyr'). So a) there is an affair, b) perhaps we should rename the article to "Patria affair". Perhaps, it would be even better to specify that the affair was about corruption (not, say, about adultery or bullying). So we could rename it "Patria corruption affair", in line with the practice of specifying the affair content, e.g. in Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations.Trimton (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurier article does mention the Patria case, but it doesn't describe it in great detail; in fact, it doesn't describe it at all, it assumes that the reader knows the Patria case. I. e. that the article is on a completely different topic. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid topic that meets WP:GNG and was certainly not construed by WP:OR. English-language sources call it e.g. "Patria scandal". Finnish-language sources tended to use names that reflected different stages of the process e.g. "Patria-tutkinta" [Patria investigation], "Patria-syytteet" [Patria charges], and Patria-oikeudenkäynti" [Patria trial]. A better name/classification is used by many sources: "Patrian Slovenian-kaupat" [Patria Slovenia deal]. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but should be rewritten, like, a lot. AdoTang (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Finnusertop. Riteboke (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 17:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jigar Saraswat

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

Article appears to be a self-promotional BLP of a social media/SEO writer. However, two seemingly reliable source references are provided. But... those profiles are written in an oddly promotional tone too, making outlandish claims like "India’s Best Freelance Content Writer" - which makes it look like paid advertising. I note the article was originally rejected at AfC ([talkpage notice here]). Furthermore, I note that the talkpage of the user who published the article consists entirely of speedy delete notices (and a warning for potential sockpuppetry). Witty lama 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two references are not sufficient. Also, the references though seems reliable, but they don't seem independent. Chirota (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Riteboke (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person!. TheChronium (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Log entry:

2021-04-06T15:04:29 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Mobin Ojaghloo (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page, see WP:YFA WP:RS WP:COI WP:Notability (people))

(non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobin Ojaghloo

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

The topic of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:Musicbio or notability criteria for musicians or singers. The singer has no notable works or awards. And he is also too young for having those. The article do not show significant coverage and the topic of the article is not significant. And this biographic article has no references or sources for verification. As this article fails notability criteria and don't have reliable sources, it should be deleted. A.A Prinon (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:A7. Article makes no assertion of notability. I did a search of his Persian name and it's only coming back with his own self-published stuff. Nothing independent or reliable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11 CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, no chance of WP:Musicbio. Chirota (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - peer A7 because doesn't meet notability and don't have sources. Cambria Math 14:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Dingman

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

fails WP:GNG, did nothing of note, and there's no sources for what info there is ItsKesha (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article has lack of references but there are sources like [1], [2], [3]. Also, it needs copyedit to reduce unimportant details about the person. Chirota (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - that third source is definitely not about her. The Wiki wrestling project deems The Sportster to be unreliable. ItsKesha (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only sources even mentioning her are unreliable, she is clearly not the subject of GNG-meeting SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I’ve added her IMDB page showing her RAW appearances, still wish there were more reliable articles. Copper1993 (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IMDB it is considered a generally unreliable source and while it can be acceptable as an external link it can’t be used to establish notability due to the source not being generally reliable. The notability standards call for reliable sources. --67.70.101.238 (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to pass the WP:GNG, and more specialized notability criteria don't apply given the sparseness of any sources, reliable or otherwise, even mentioning the subject. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it fails SIGCOV.LM2000 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The concerns about copyright violations are the biggest concern, so I have no concern about re-creating (possibly in draft space) if the next revision is free of copyvio. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Hot Rod Association

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

Close paraphrase from https://ahraonline.com/about/, doesn't seem notable at all and is basically a magazine article. Noah ^💬 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep Better wp:before expected to decide notability. copyrighted materials should be removed on site. But the organization seems notable, some silent films in 1960 and these references [4], [5], [6], [7] are enough to establish notability of a 70 years old organization. Chirota (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page only has one source included and it is a primary source. agree this is non notable. Redoryxx (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References appear to be primary or from closely-related sources (including a Facebook page, absolutely amazing). AdoTang (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable for inclusion. Riteboke (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe this should be deleted as a copyvio, or per TNT, but there's no way this isn't notable, and the lack of WP:BEFORE in many of the above arguments is appalling. The amount of material available to build an article is staggering, just from Google Books and newspapers.com. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SD International Public School

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

Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Chirota (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This school is clearly not notable due to the non-existent references (both in the article or anywhere else from what I can tell). Plus, the article is highly promotional and seems to been created/mainly edited by SPAs. So, there's zero policy based reason to keep it. Unless someone can come up with WP:THREE in-depth, reliable, secondary sources. Which, at this point, I highly doubt will happen. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Joseph Doellefeld

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator based on a claim that the NPSL is fully pro. This is not supported by WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that Doellefeld is a notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Chirota (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torus Tammer

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

Notability questionable. Acous mana 12:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Mostly known for only a single non-notable film Lone Greasers. Chirota (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBIO Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The majority's arguments that there is no coverage of this group in the required depth are persuasive. Sandstein 14:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McMahon–Helmsley Faction

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

fails WP:GNG, has been tagged as lacking sources for 13 YEARS with none added, because there simply aren't any sources to add. ItsKesha (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ItsKesha (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ItsKesha (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly no attempt at WP:BEFORE. Reliable sources found within seconds on Google Books for McMahon-Helmsley Faction, as well as the two variants bolded in the lead: McMahon-Helmsley Regime, and McMahon-Helmsley Era. Making such a bold and easily disproven claim of no sources being available makes it hard to assume good faith. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I looked for all three names. Nothing. So which book is the reliable source that covers this topic in depth? ItsKesha (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete if appropriate. This is more of a plotline than a faction, they didn't wrestle as a group (well, not much), so pretty much all of this can be placed into the corresponding articles (I'd assume it already is). You could probably thoroughly source this, and it still not be notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: Maybe a Merge with The Authority (professional wrestling). Both are stables led by HHH and Stephanie, controlling WWF/E. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i am inclined to support keep but fact that the article has existed without any WP:RS for a decade is baffling. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They are quite hard to find. I didn't search as deeply as I usually do, but I couldn't turn up anything that actually documented this in a quick search when it first came around. The individual people were documented, but an "Era" or a "Faction" is quite hard to find. ItsKesha has asked a valid question, and I'd like to know the answer, too. Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hadn't responded to the question above because I don't respond to ItsKesha's questions. With that said, a very quick search shows that the faction is discussed on page 132 in [8], 161 in [9], 141 of [10], 172 of [11], 124 in [12], 270 in [13], and within [14], [15], [16]. That's just Google Books. A web search would turn up even more. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Literally all of those are single sentence mentions. The group is not discussed in any depth, there is no significant coverage in any of those books. ItsKesha (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment ItsKesha Yeah i agree with you on this, gonna vote delete. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - From the Baltimore Sun: "The McMahon-Helmsley Era was a glorious one indeed. The couple's reign in the WWF, which spanned the latter part of 1999 through 2000, was the main story line during a time when the WWF was at its peak both creatively and in popularity." Pretty hard to make a claim that what a major independent reliable sources claims was the top story at the height of the biggest promotion's peak of popularity doesn't meet Wikipedia notability requirements. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment One paragraph in an article entitled "Valentine's Day special: Top 10 wrestling couples". Again, where's the significant coverage - "more than a trivial mention". Can you please take the time to double-check the GNG? ItsKesha (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POTENTIAL. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per my above discussion with ItsKesha . Dilbaggg (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, I dunno. First of all there's a possible procedural objection here, in that the proposer put forth about a dozen articles that look very similar. This should be done thru the multiple-article deletion method, right?

On the merits... yeah it's not really necessary to delete it. It's a decent article, it's not hurting anyone. It was probably made by a soccer-completionist, which is fine with me. We're not running out of paper. The Italian Wikipedia has an article on this entity, and just because we're the English Wikipedia we don't have to be all anglo-centric. The Italian article is pretty long, and has meat we could probably translate over to this article. So we slap a {{Expand Italian|Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania|date=April 2021}} tag on it. That's preferable to throwing the article away. (Granted, the Italian article doesn't provide any more refs tho.)

And I don't know as it can't be improved, more refs added. Yeah I get that the one ref 404's, but the "External link" is really a ref and can be moved there. Here is a page with some images; there's a whole page there of an Italian newspaper which I think has stuff about the entity (I can't read Italian) and other stuff.

Somebody went to the trouble of making the article, it looks nice, it has potential for improvement, and what's the upside to deleting it? It's not like Category:1934–35 in Italian football etc. is overflowing, why pare it down more? Herostratus (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm convinced by the arguments made by Herostratus and the possibility of expansion from Italian Wikipedia article, slim on sources but then it was a 1930's event JW 1961^Talk 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any good sources from the Italian page, but it doesn't seem insignificant as an early historical international club tournament. Interestingly, an image search of Italian newspapers came up with contemporary sources showing the tournament likely passes WP:GNG. Probably needs improving, not deleting. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure there is any weight behind the keep votes here. Herostratus' comments just seem to be more along the lines of "it's useful and doing no harm" rather than it being notable. JW's comments add little beyond the acknowledgement that sources might be hard to come by. SportingFlyer suggests there are ,pre sources out there but doesn't add any. I'm seeing nothing here other than speculation, but not a clear consensus to delete. Am extending for a week for these sources editors claim to be out there to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one's speculating. An image search for "Trofeo Cappelli" brings up a number of 1930s newspaper clippings. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So where are they and what do they say that indicates GNG. You can't just say you have done a search and there are sources, you actually need to present them ad indicate how they satisfy GNG. At the moment no one can tell what you are talking about, whether they are articles providing an overview of the competition, or simply routine match reporting / results listing. Yes, you've done a search, great, but it means as much as the next person coming in and saying there aren't sources that satisfy GNG. Until you can present your sources properly and an argument you are simply speculating that GNG is met. Fenix down (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there's no evidence the delete voters did any sort of before search on this article, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact there are sources. You don't WP:OWN this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If editors have done a search and feel there is nothing what evidence can they provide? We don't need some boiler plate statement whereby they attest they have done a full and detailed search. You need to assume good faith in that instance. How about you stop trying to have a discussion with me, I'm not sure where your nonsensical comments about ownership have come from for example, and start addressing concerns noted below about the sources currently raised, that would be a much better way of trying to gain consensus as to whether this subject is notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a number of screenshots of newspapers about the tournament here. I'm not great with Italian but the coverage appears to be fairly strong. Someone more familiar with Italian sources might be able to help here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - piling on a bit now but the sources linked in the discussion below and in the link that I posted above clearly show that the matches of this tournament received a good amount of coverage and interest Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the arguments and references of Herostratus and Spiderone. Chirota (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment - As I have already commented after the relist I feel I can properly vote on this with reasons, as it would not be proper to close this myself now. You don't need to be an expert in Italian to see the worth of most of the sources in the link SportingFlyer has produced. Working across from left to right in the two rows:

A photo - no significant coverage
A very brief, entirely routine match report, no significant coverage beyond routine news reporting - no indication of the provenance of the source and its reliability even if it was significant in length
Another photo - no text whatsoever
Another routine match report - covering exactly the same match as reported in number 2 above
A significant piece of news coverage. Again seems to cover the same final being discussed in 2 and 4, but at least of length that it is conceivable without knowledge of Italian that this discusses the tournament itself in some detail
A continuation of 4 - clear from the repetition of the headline. Comments above apply but still the same source

So basically this site has one significant match report that might go into detail about the tournament itself. Even if it does there is not enough here for GNG. This also isn't a review of newspapers as you said you did above, it is a link to a Roma fan site. Not that that necessarily affects the notability of the articles present, but can you provide further sources SportingFlyer from your Newspaper search? Fenix down (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This is from the Roma fan site you mentioned, I am not familiar with Il Littoriale but it's front page coverage. I'm not sure what this article is from but it's clearly significant coverage previewing the matches. This is a match report but shows the tournament received comprehensive coverage, and this is short but directly on the tournament. This book thinks the tournament important enough to include in a year in review, since international club tournaments were more notable back then. An historical Italian newspaper search - which I cannot do - would put this beyond doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 11:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned with your confidence in leaning towards keep despite your self-admitted inability to tell us what the sources actually say about the tournament. Im also slightly concerned that there is potentially a synthesis of routine match reporting that is being construed as discussion of the tournament, but at least this is substantially better than your previous attempts. I would strongly advise you to continue with this level of discussion rather than more nebulous comments about where sources may or may not exist. However, I'm happy to move from delete to a comment, but not entirely convinced of keep. Fenix down (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do a great job with articles at AfD where sources aren't in English, and we don't do a good job with articles where sources are pre-internet - they require more than a cursory BEFORE search, and searching for sources for these sorts of articles can take time (as I've noted, it'd be a lot easier if I spoke Italian and had access to Italian archival databases.) I still don't see why providing guideposts as to where sources might be found in these situations could possibly be considered problematic - they're not WP:NEXIST arguments, but rather trying to help the discussion by pointing out good places to look in circumstances when searching's difficult, especially when previous discussion has been lacking. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Herostratus.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Herostratus. Riteboke (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Revival (Selena Gomez album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revival (Selena Gomez song)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. The only coverage the song has is under the formats of Gomez's interviews, and album reviews. Moreover, it never charted, never won any award, it wasn't covered by any significant artists. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, fails WP:NSINGLE.Chirota (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Revival (Selena Gomez album). Seems better than deletion. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all above Mcguy15 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Revival (Selena Gomez album) per nom. Not enough independent sources to meet WP:NSONG. SBKSPP (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sources appear to be for the album, not the song. As per WP:NSONG, coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 06:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dallas Stars. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Stars Ice Girls

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "Failing of notability per WP:GNG" nominated by CommanderWaterford (ping as a courtesy) I concur with their PROD, and am nominating it here for the same reason Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, WP:FANPOV clearly failing WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the Dallas Stars page where it can have a line or two. I tried to do the gentle thing first by removing the promotional content from the page and tagging it for notability, but this wasn't successful. Fram (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if its put onto the respective parent pages and this is used as a redirect to that page, then I'll be fine. I just think that i sourced it enough that it could remain its own page because of the reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentheswimmer11 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Fram. A neutral sentence or two on the Dallas Stars article is fine. This article, which is written in a style clearly not suited for an encyclopedia, is not. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, as there's zero significant coverage. All the sources used in the article are either non-independent sources or trivial coverage (a listicle, audition information and a Q&A). Ytoyoda (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a similar article by the same user with the same problems (sketchy sourcing, WP:GNG, promotional tone) was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolina Hurricanes Storm Squad. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fram. Riteboke (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea at the 2020 Summer Olympics

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

Announced by North Korean media that it will not participate in the 2020 Summer Olympics against over COVID-19 concerns. As there are no qualified athletes in the upcoming Olympics that it will suggest either redirect to parent Olympics article or delete. Announcement source ApprenticeFan work 08:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 08:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 08:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 08:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the only important information is that they won't compete- and that's already noted in the North Korea at the Olympics section, and can be expanded there. No need for a separate article just so say that North Korea withdrew from this event. If multiple countries withdraw, it may warrant an article on withdrawals, but this article is definitely now surplus to requirements. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per below. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North Korea at the Olympics - seems to be a plausible search term but not enough potential for this to be a worthwhile stand-alone article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Korea at the Olympics per Spiderone. Since the very subject of the article won't be taking place, there is no need for the article. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not accurate that "there are no qualified athletes in the upcoming Olympics." They had qualified competitors in at least archery and wrestling. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics as a plausible search term where the covid concerns and withdrawal are mentioned, which we've done in similar cases of withdrawal in the past - Brunei at the 2008 Summer Olympics redirects to 2008 Summer Olympics, not Brunei at the Olympics. So I think that's a better target than North Korea at the Olympics, though redirecting there would be preferable to outright deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article. Makes sense that a genuine search takes a user to the main 2020 Olympics article where an explanation of the withdrawal is found, than the page just being the Wiki equivalent of a 404 doktorb _words^deeds 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now as they either changed their minds in the future or have Chongryon (which is a Japan-based North Korean organization) as a substitute for their domestic athletes since they had their own sports teams. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the N/K article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a nominator, that all of the voters have unanimously redirected to the North Korea at the Olympics article that is a plausible target. ApprenticeFan work 08:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not technically correct, there was an editor who stated the precedent and their preference for linking to 2020 Summer Olympics. So far it's unanimous for redirecting, just not "where". Primefac (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two users actually, assuming I'm interpreting Doktorbuk's !vote correctly, plus two who said redirect but didn't explicitly specify where. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To where I don't really know but preferably I think it should be redirected to the 2020 Summer Olympics instead of the North Korea at the Olympics. We just need to make a references to why North Korea did withdrew. HawkAussie (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As of now DPR Korea has not officially notified the IOC of a withdrawal from Tokyo. It's probable that will do so - but right now it's too soon to make any decisions about this article. Topcardi (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Upper Changi Road

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

Non-notable road in Singapore. A quick search only turns up news articles regarding incidents that occur along the road, and property listings along the road, while a search on NewspaperSG only turned up two articles from the 1970s about the road's opening. R22-3877 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, no notability, no reason to have this article. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sauda Nabawesi

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS nor WP:GNG. For NSPORTS badminton criteria, she should have reached the quarterfinals at the Commonwealth Games (she participated, but lost all her games), or reached the quarterfinals in one of the main badminton tournaments (tier one or two, basically). The Kenya International is a tier four tournament. Fram (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of the convoluted NSPORTS-Badminton criteria (that per Fram she doesn't meet), she doesn't meet WP:GNG. In searching for sources very little comes up.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ATD is policy. TNT isn't. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase-to-pay

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

Old article, without any reliable source, and written mostly by two companies. I did a recent trim of the article, so you might want to check the previous version for the removed text and the two non-reliable sources that were present. I think WP:TNT really applies here. MarioGom (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the nominator has already improved the article, per WP:ATD-E, deletion should be avoided as p2p is a well known mode of operation. Chiro725 (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleBig

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

Company page boasting numbers with not even minimal standard sourcing. Fails WP:ORG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:BEFORE search revealed the following sources: [17], [18], [19], [20], the last 3 are about their opening times and feel like promo pieces. Leaning on Delete as of now. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is a short article^[1] in Romanian from Ziarul Financiar announcing the opening of a new LittleBig store and giving some details about the history and production of the company good enough to include in the article? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cotu, Laurentiu (12 October 2011). "Primul magazin de jeans Little Big din Transilvania s-a deschis în Iulius Mall Cluj". Ziarul Financiar. Retrieved 6 April 2021.

Weak Delete There should have been a lot of references for a notable brand established in 1994. We only have a few and most of these are passing mentions or not strong enough as reliable sources except WWD. Chirota (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cunico Resources

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search linked me to unreliable sources such as this, this, & this. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: I've updated the article in question so as to relieve your concerns, now with over 10 external sources it should satisfy the most uptight administrator. Magnovvig (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beny Steinmetz is notable. Everything he does is notable. I grant you that source 2 is ridiculous and 3 is weak, 1 is an industry newsletter as far as I can tell. Whether these particular shell companies are notable enough for their own article is another question. If not a summary of this should be merged into the article for the parent company.Elinruby (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG as some good old references are seen [21], [22], [23] etc. Chirota (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Riteboke (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Additional cites provided above do not establish notability (first one doesn't even mention the company) and at most give incidental mention of it, not a focus on it. Therefore fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge with Beny Steinmetz. Sources cited in the article (and brought up by Chirota) are either unreliable or are not providing significant coverage of this particular company. However, a few sentences about Cunico could possibly be added to Beny Steinmetz. JBchrch (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unlike Chirota I'm of an opinion that the subject would have to meet the criteria of NCORP (which it clearly doesn't), not merely GNG. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Would have been a keep anyway (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Arul Mohan

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

~~No indication of Notability. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NACTRESS~~ DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR ("significant roles in multiple notable films")—Lead roles in Nani's Gang Leader (2019), Sreekaram (2021) and the upcoming film Doctor (2021). -- Ab207 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there was an issue with notability in the past, but with the recently released Sreekaram, it does appear that they now pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per onel5969, i withdrawal my nomination. DMySon 14:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of freedom indices. There seems to be consensus against a stand-alone article, but less than solid support for outright deletion. I am therefore redirecting this, with any content possibly worth merging still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MaxRange

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

The MaxRange data set was created by Max Rånge and Mikael Sandberg. All literature available about the dataset was created by one or both of these contributors. There does not appear to be any evidence that third parties have evaluated or made any significant use of this data. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Scholar shows that some other researchers have cited this work, although not in large numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to have received the required secondary coverage, possibly (likely?) promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freedom indexes are a thing, and MaxRange is one of them. It is not as well-known as some of the others, but it has been cited in studies published in peer-reviewed journals. I created the article a few years back, when I was reading about freedom and democracy, and looking at indexes, out of personal interest -- I have no affiliation with the project, and no interest in how it fares. --Tsavage (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Dunny29 (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck comment from confirmed sock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or selectively Merge) to List of freedom indices, where this is included. Of course, this presumes the inclusion criteria for that page would allow this to remain without a stand-alone article. Certainly we need independent sourcing for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not a !vote, but if the entire contents of this article were merged into the listing for this subject at List of freedom indices (the possible merge target proposed by Rhododendrites above), that would not be particularly out of line with the existing contents of that article. BD2412 T 05:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS found for this one. Riteboke (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus against a standalone article. however, discussion about whether content should be kept in some way (redirect/merge) seems more open and so relisting a third time to see if consensus on that question can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added content with reliable secondary source citations (peer-reviewed academic journals). --Tsavage (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This seems to border on WP:OR but looks like a useful article to have for people interested in quantitative political science. Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have many indices such as the Human Development Index (HDI), among others, but would MaxRange count as a WP:NEOLOGISM? Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samanea Yangon

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

Non-notable real estate development, which seems to be the penchant of this editor (two other Samanea properties in AfD, and another one soon heading that way). Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editor, do note that I've disclose my relationship with the company, and it is alright to contribute to articles once I have disclosed the relationship i suppose? Also, my article was presented in a neutral way and citations from secondary sources were made. I am new to Wikipedia, please let me know if there is anything else I can do to not get the page deleted. Thank you for your help. Kinemas123 (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I mean, yeah, it's a random new market or something, but I've seen pages about North American malls frequently here, and this seems like the same thing, just in Myanmar. I'm conflicted, but I'm leaning towards this not being notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so yeah, weak delete. But if it stays up, it needs some work: no one cares about what streets its on or what its opening hours are. AdoTang (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Myanmar's No 1 newspaper The Myanmar Times, It states [sig]: The Samanea Market, one of Yangon's largest wholesale markets, The markets have been built with a planned capacity for 730 shops and will provide jobs for up to 2000 local workers., and The market represents phase 1 of Myanmar's largest trading center project, with phase 2 being implemented on a nearby 300,000 square meter plot of land. There is enough to meet WP:GNG and one of the biggest markets in Myanmar's main city Yangon....looks notable to me. Btw, due to the current situations in Myanmar, no longer Burmese language editors active on En-Wikipedia. We should be slow to delete any of it. VocalIndia (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG from the significant coverage in an article from the The Myanmar Times, an article in Myanmore Magazine, and an article in Myanmar Business Today. I imagine there may be more coverage in Burmese-language sources (I think this might be one?), but these three English-language sources already provide significant coverage. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after a WP:BADNAC to see if consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Barkeep49 Clearly non-consensus, relisted again again for what???? VocalIndia (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thalolam (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE . Kolma8 (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since this is an old movie, its hard to find sources. So WP:NFO need to be considered here. I had found source from Indian express,[24] which proves the movie had theatrical release hence passing the special inclusionary criterias of WP:NFO, in which one criteria is that The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. In this case, the important role is M. J. Radhakrishnan, the cinematographer. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kashmorwiki: - Hey, Kashmorwiki/Kichu, if that would be "the important role" for M.J. Radhakrishnan it would be at least listed on his selected filmography, right? But it does not. Can you please reference something to prove that this film in fact played an important role in his career? Kolma8 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the argument that sources must exist for an old film isn't a convincing argument to keep an article. Sources must be cited regardless of the film's age. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been an argument repeatedly from this contributor lamentably. Kolma8 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per explaination by Kichu. As this is an old movie, its hard to find sources but there are definitely reliable sources to make it pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide those "reliable sources" you mentioned? Kolma8 (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it being old is smaller problem than it being from one specific state in another country that speaks its own language. A state award was given to an actor for his role in the film[25], so I'm sure there is some coverage somewhere in local papers from back then, are we able to find them is another question. I will try and find more coverage but unable to find any online with standard searches. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on above. Forgot about this and I never got around to my foreign language deep search. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kolma8, this source from Indian Express [26] says actor Murali, one of the veteran actors in Malayalam cinema won the Kerala state award for his performance in this film. Hence my previous argument ''The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career becomes relevant here. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 19:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Its hard to find reviews of the film, may be Kichu's arguments hold here. Chirota (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be so, that is why we are having this discussion. I still don't see any mentioning of this movie in Murali's high achievements. So, it is a stretch to say itr is one of his most important roles. This needs to be supported by something, not just assumed. Kolma8 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that a movie in which the actor got a state award is not a major part of his career? I dont know what logic you are applying here. There is no need of special statements to prove this thing as it is clear from the fact that he had won a state award for the movie itself. The subject has acted in more than 200 movies or more if Im right and had won 7 state awards. That is just 3.5 percent of movies he was involved in and this movie comes under this 3.5 percent. So how can you say this is just an assumption. And for what reason are we giving awards for an actor? Its for their best acting performance right? With a commonsense, anyone can easily assume that this movie is a major part of their career. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems a notable Indian film. Riteboke (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A third relist to give extra chances for finding sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFO #3 (The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking). Based on the fact that Murali received Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor for the film. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Ab207's comment. Imfarhad7 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of anything resembling a consensus. BD2412 T 00:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonita Lontoh

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

Not notable under WP:NBIO.

Some limited coverage of this person but no in-depth media coverage. Of the meaningful coverge of Sonita Lontoh, it's almost all from questionable sources like alumni blogs, conference speaker bios, and "news sites" that don't appear to have true editorial oversight.

The sources from CNN, Bloomberg, Forbes, and BBC are hardly meaningful and notible coverage. For example: the Bloomberg artcle is titled "Five Executives on How They Unplug", the CNN article is titled "avoid money talks", and the BBC article is titled "the lifestyles of the young and ultra-rich". The Forbes article is titled "Here's How To Avoid An Impersonal Hiring Process" and is the not reliable "Forbes contributor" type of article. None of these articles establish this person as a notible contributor in their field and just include a quick snippet/quote from this person off topic from their professional contributions.

It's hard to find any reliable sources to support the claims in this article. Google search mostly returns results for their speaking events at conferences. Ew3234 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable tech executive with significant participation in White House activities, and had notable positions in Fortune 500 companies. There is a lot of mainstream news coverage by major media outlets. Clearly not a NBIO fail. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DmitriRomanovJr, do you have an example of coverage by major media outlets? I looked through the sources and Google searched but wasn't able to find any reliable mainstream sources that cover this person in any sort of depth. The BBC, Bloomberg, etc articles do not cover this person in any detail (most don't even confirm their title). Ew3234 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable under NBIO due to long history of significant recognitions from respectable institutions such as the White House, the US State Department, the World Economic Forum, MIT, and others. Notable coverage from mainstream media such as the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the BBC, NBC and others.Yozora1 (talk) 02:37, 02 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor is a WP:SPA, who only to vote in this Afd. scope_creep^Talk 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is certainly coverage but most is not-in-depth nor independent. We can go through the references to examine them. scope_creep^Talk 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HP Inc., since in depth coverages are required which solely discuss the subject. Chirota (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to HP Inc.. I checked some of the high-quality sources (BBC, NBC, WSJ) and they only mention the subject off-hand. No substantive in-depth coverage as far as I can see. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search resulted in several detailed, meaningful coverage of her and her work from reliable, reputable secondary sources such as Tatler magazine's articles on her work in artificial intelligence [[27]] and IoT [[28]], CNN Indonesia's article on her work connecting Silicon Valley and Indonesia [[29]], CBS San Francisco's interview commentary on technology & business [[30]], Tech_in_Asia's article on her work in technology ecosystem [[31]], The Jakarta_Globe's article on her work on technology entrepreneurship [[32]] and Tempo_(Indonesian_magazine) English article on her work [[33]]. Believe subject satisfies WP:SIGCOV which states "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, subject is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Thank you.

user:Roulisegee 02:50, 10 April 2021 SIG Added. ‎Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 10:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above user's account is 5 days old. Their edit history suggest a SPA in disguise. Lots of small edits but only four major ones. Of their four significant edits (above 500+ characters), three are on the Sonita Lontoh (one on this Afd, two on the article). Ew3234 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, but these are really decent references. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are they though? Tatler Indonesia covers "Luxury Lifestyle in Indonesia" (their words, not mine) and not a source for quality technology coverage. Just look at their top stories: https://indonesiatatler.com/. They might be a reliable source but not for this subject matter. The CBS is a local piece titled "Career Path Based On Three Things, Says San Francisco Marketing Executive" which speaks volumes to the shallow depth covered in the article. The article is pretty weak as a source that establishes notability.

The CNN Indonesia article and Tech in Asia are good sources but that doesn't equal inclusion to wikipedia on its own. Both articles cover the Silicon Valley Asia Technology Alliance, which presumes notablity of Lontoh as is one of the org's co-founders. Being a tech/marketing exec who co-founded a non-profit does not equal notability, even if they do get a few articles written. Many non-profit organizations can get some coverage but it's doesn't mean one of the cofounders meets WP:BIO. It's also worth noting that the non-profit itself isn't very notable. The top google results for the org are their press releases hosted on pr web, one of the articles mentioned here, her wikipedia page, and then her linkedin. That doesn't make strong case for notability. Also notability is not temporary and I don't see much recent coverage of this org. It doesn't even seem to still be around. The website is broken: http://www.svatechnology.com/

I cannot get the tempo article to load for me. I had that problem earlier as well so I cannot speak to it at the moment. The Jakarta Globe article is a solid source but is this enough to establish this person as a notable with significant and reliable coverage of their professional contributions over the millions of other executives that have similar merits and coverage but do not meet WP:BIO? Ew3234 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails to show WP:SIGCOV. Riteboke (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ - this WEF page looks like one suitable independent source to me - not very long but has some career content. There's a 1300 word interview with Lontoh (titled "Green Hero: Sonita Lontoh") in the January 11, 2014 issue of Asian Fortune. For the article that she wrote for the San Francisco Examiner in June 2012 her mini-bio states "She is a clean technology expert recognized on Wikipedia and is a frequent speaker/contributor to publications such as FORBES, FORTUNE, CNN, etc.". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of articles found on PressReader (Butuh Ekosistem Kuat, Jawa Pos, 2 September 2017; and Champion of Change, Prestige Indonesia, 1 Feb 2014) tip the balance just in favour of keep for me. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing the WEF link. It looks like thats an author's bio (as the links below are articles written by Lontoh). It looks like the WEF aggregates (and does not vet) content from Medium: See this disclosure on the one of Lontah's WEF article: "This post first appeared on Medium. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum". So this bio is likely not WP:IS. I agree that the "recognized on Wikipedia" is an odd WP:CIRC. I found the Jawa Pos article but it doesn't seem to establish notability (the title translates to "These are Indonesian Executives in Silicon Valley"). Do you have links to the Prestige Indonesia articles? Ew3234 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ew3234 The link I have for the Prestige Indonesia article is this. There are around 400 words covering Lontoh's education, family background, and career - all very positively expressed. The Jawa Pos article has a couple of paragraphs of biography - I thought this would help towards establishing notability. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rico (Ajax) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pandur II#Portuguese variants. The merge has already been done with Special:Diff/1015044401/1015066390 and Special:Diff/1017179990/1017738985. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Pandur

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

The article does not describe its subject, instead, it seems to justify Portugal's purchase of the Pandur II. The Portuguese version of the Pandur II does not justify such an article, it is not different enough from the base model. In addition to that, the base article already describes the subject – in its current state, this article is nothing but opinion promotion and fails to comply with Wikipedia's point-of-view forks policy. Therefore, I propose "Portuguese Pandur" for deletion; improving this article is not possible. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Pandur II - Portuguese variants. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted content that violates Wikipedia's No Original Research policy ([34]), and put the most important aspects of the Portuguese Pandur's problems into the Pandur II article ([35]). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pandur II#Portuguese variants: there is significant WP:OVERLAP as this is essentially a slight variant of the base. Only the essential details need to be merged (e.g. not the lengthy and only partially-referenced timeline). — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pandur II#Portuguese variants per MarkH21. Riteboke (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While not intensely strong, overall consensus is for the article to be retained, relative to the the weight of the various !votes in relation to notability guidelines and deletion policy. Here's a synopsis:

Part of the rationale in the nomination that there is "simply no RS coverage of this person" has been adequately countered in the disucssion. The notion in the nomination of there being "nothing to indicate notability" appears to possibly be in reference to the state of sourcing at the time the article was nominated for deletion (diff), when it only had two sources (one inline citation and one external link). The nominator did not state whether or not they performed additional source searches to better determine notability or lack thereof.
The first delete !vote following the nomination is basing notability entirely upon the state of sourcing in the article. However, per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles themselves. Rather, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources"; "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." As such, this !vote carries no weight, because it is based upon personal opinion, rather than notability guidelines.
The redirect !vote states that in-depth coverage in reliable sources is lacking. However, a significant majority of users that provided guideline-based rationales disagree with this notion.
The delete !vote below this states that none of the sources are "independent and some of it is paid and none of it is in-depth", but no evidence is provided to qualify these claims. Furthermore, a significant majority of users that provided guideline-based rationales appear to disagree with some or all of this.
Most of the keep !votes for the article to be retained are rather generic, and the discussion would have benefitted from more in-depth source analysis from all participants. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Habiba Al Marashi

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

There is simply no RS coverage of this person. There is nothing to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve linked to the ar.wiki article. There are some Arabic sources coming up on Google, but I haven’t been through them yet to see if they amount to a good case for notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles need 3rd party indepdent coverage, which is entrirely lacking in the article. Unless someone shows the willingness to actually add such sources to the article there is no reason to deem the person is notable enough to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added two sources in two minutes - if you Google her, you get the media coverage. Come on, folks, do at least a basic BEFORE before nominating for deletion!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emirates Environmental Group, The article is short, the coverages are not in-depth or when it is, it is not from reliable source (Khaleej times article seems not independent). Chirota (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. The Khaleej Times is a national daily newspaper, one of three in the Emirates. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Khaleej times is RS but the article here seems from a contributor and not from a staff, so the it must follow SPS and seems not independent. Chirota (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The writer's email is nivriti@khaleejtimes.com, given in the header of the article. She's KT staff. I added a couple more sources - there are very, very many out there. She's a prominent and highly notable lady. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search resulted in enough media coverage from reliable sources to support WP:NBIO. Roulisegee (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Roulisegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The nominator needs to do a WP:BEFORE. Riteboke (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. None of it is independent and some of it is paid and none of it is in-depth. scope_creep^Talk 10:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding me. Have you CLICKED on the Google News link given in the nomination? Seriously? There are years and years of coverage of this clearly notable person. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, based on what I'm seeing from news sources. The subject is included in this book but I don't know whether that's a reliable source. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is sufficient coverage in RIS to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Chiongbian

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

A non-notable business person and political candidate. 2 of the 3 links in the article are dead. The only other source is a blog post claiming that he ran against Manny Pacquiao (the boxer) in 2010 for Congress, and lost. I did not see his name mentioned on Manny Pacquiao's Wikipedia article and have not found any verifiable information that that claim is even true. Regardless, there doesn't seem to be any sources to constitute inclusion to Wikipedia. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete honorary consulates are not notable and nothing else here shows notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Chirota (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. Relisting appears to be of no value, as the discussion has been almost dormant for over a week, despite a second relisting (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Köerner

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

Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificBoy (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks to level of multiple sources that would be needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect. A WP:BEFORE search shows that Gabriel Köerner as a collector get's one page in Cult Collectors, and several appearances in secondary sources which are probably shorter but which I cannot see in full, including the New York Times already in the article: "Confessions of an anti-Fan", Seeing Fans: Representations of Fandom in Media and Popular Culture, Leisure activities in context: A micro-macro/agency-structure interpretation of leisure, Screen World 2000 and Magill's Cinema Annual 2000. I think collectively that may be enough for a stand-alone article (the goal of the notability requirement is have a verifyable article of more "than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" after all), but even if it is not, there is content here that should be WP:PRESERVED rather than deleted. The question in case of a merge would be where: Trekkies (film), Trekkies 2, Trekkie, distribute among those, or somewhere else? Daranios (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion, particularly around the new sources brough up in the discussion, may help generate consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The appearances appear to meet the GNG in an arena (fandom) where non-RS coverage far outstrips RS coverage. That is, primarily fans write about fans so the fact that there is multiple RS coverage is itself evidence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fresnillo plc. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Octavio Alvídrez

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

Topic is president and CEO of... a metropolitan city in Mexico, per line 1 of the article. It's obviously a typo as he looks to be the CEO of Fresnillo PLC, but who can say for certain since there's hardly any independent verifiable sources covering the subject making him notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the company page. Riteboke (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" !votes have, by the by, the stronger policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of Beyoncé

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)

Beyoncé is one of the most acclaimed musicians of her generation, but there's not enough content for a standalone article of her "cultural impact" (at least for now), unlike Cultural impact of the Beatles, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, or Cultural impact of Madonna. Commentary of her influence on music can be easily covered on List of artists influenced by Beyoncé and Beyoncé#Legacy. Most of the content on this page (race, feminism, academic study) is also a WP:UNDUE of Lemonade, which should be included on that album's article. Bluesatellite (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Massive portions of this article have been plagiarized directly from Beyoncé (album) and Lemonade (Beyoncé album) (the latter of which StatsFreak, this article's creator, was involved in an edit war over after creating this article). In fact, I'm struggling to find any content within this article that hasn't been ripped wholesale from another article. Even if this weren't the case, I would still have voted Merge, as other articles such as the ones listed above have clearly proven themselves more than capable of documenting the cultural impact of Beyoncé's work compared to this nightmarish Frankenstein of plagiarism.TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nitpicking. It's not plagiarism to copy parts of other Wikipedia articles as it doesn't qualify as or purport to be original work. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nitpicking the nitpick: Unless otherwise noted, content submitted to Wikipedia does both qualify as and purport to be original work which is then licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. This is why, for example, I can choose to release my work into the public domain. In the case of this article's prose, neither the original articles nor their authors are given credit anywhere in the article, the edit summaries, or the talk page. As mentioned before, unless otherwise stated, Wikipedia's content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, therefore not only making it plagiarism, but actually copyright infringement (albeit easily resolved copyright infringement) of those authors' work as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:Copying within Wikipedia does indeed say it must be attributed. Not sure if I always followed this the fortunately rare times I did copy text. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and move some info to Beyoncé#Legacy, if it should be moved at all (the section is already quite large, imo). AdoTang (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Almost all of the material is taken from Impact/Legacy sections of other Beyonce-related articles. However, I would support keeping the article if StatsFreak and/or other editors plan to expand it beyond that copied material Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Agree with Bettydaisies. It cannot be said that there is not enough material for an article; there is enough material but it hasn't all been added to the article, so I support keeping the article as editors are planning to expand it. I'm happy to help with it as well. Bgkc4444 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd be up to help to expand the article beyond the existing attributed content. As previously pointed out, bloating the already lengthy "Legacy" section on her own page might be detrimental to the biography.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Bettydaisies, literally this entire article is copied wholesale from other articles. There is simply nothing here that other articles don't do better (well, technically the exact same). Lemonade (Beyoncé album)#Impact_and_legacy and Beyoncé (album)#Legacy are prime examples of this because, again, that's where most of this information was lazily copy-pasted from. I furthermore don't understand how the 'Legacy' section in her biography is considered "lengthy" when compared to any other section there; if anything, it's far shorter than the vast majority of sections in that article. Moreover, you argue that deleting this article would "bloat" Beyoncé#Legacy, but literally nothing in the article 'Cultural impact of Beyoncé' is original material except for one relatively insubstantial edit by Nguyen0409; nothing would need to be migrated out to other articles, as it already exists there. By deleting this article, nothing would change in any other Beyoncé-related article, full stop. If you don't believe me that nothing here isn't already in just a handful of other articles (give or take three of them), copy-paste any sentence into Wikipedia's search bar, and it'll return this and one other article. Understand, Bettydaisies, Bgkc4444, and Jimoincolor, that this entire article is a redundant fork and would need to be rewritten entirely, not just "expanded" to fill in some gaps. Even if that were done, however, it would likely end up being an inferior version of the legacy sections in Good Articles that we already have. Nothing that anybody wants to add here couldn't realistically go in another Beyoncé article such as Beyoncé#Legacy (which isn't "lengthy" by any means), Lemonade (Beyoncé album)#Impact_and_legacy, and Beyoncé (album)#Legacy, because that's where this material already exists. Not to mention that the material there is much better-curated as well. As an example, Beyoncé (album) and Beyoncé are both Good Articles. Meanwhile, this one has yet to even be given any categories besides "Beyoncé" (and even that was only done by DoubleGrazing, who happened to be passing by, to make it not {{uncategorized}}), assessed by anybody, or even have the relevant WikiProjects attached to it. Letting such an obvious redundant fork like this remain and inevitably decay into an inferior version of those other articles will only harm the project. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As previously stated, I'd be willing to help rewrite the article because I believe that there is enough substantial sources and material to do so.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – TheTechnician27, I understand where you're coming from, however I still disagree. Yes, the article as it stands is unsatisfactory, but editors are planning on working on it. It is unfair to say that "Nothing that anybody wants to add here couldn't realistically go in another Beyoncé article" since you cannot know what I and other editors aim to add to the article. I personally aim to add material in the same vein as the other "cultural impact of..." articles that Bluesatellite brought above, which go into detail about the various manifestations of the respective artists' cultural impact. There's plenty of reliable sources which can be used for this, and this topic can certainly be made into an encyclopedic, full-length article. I also don't believe it is just to say that the article should be deleted because StatsFreak didn't add categories and it hasn't received much attention. Bgkc4444 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bgkc4444: You state: "I also don't believe it is just to say that the article should be deleted because StatsFreak didn't add categories and it hasn't received much attention." However, this is not at all representative of my broader point, which is that not only is this article wholly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which would need to be rewritten essentially from scratch to actually make itself not categorically redundant to existing material (and to make it so 50% of this slapdash colossus of copyvio isn't just about the album Lemonade), but as an exacerbating factor, it's a carbon copy of articles which are clearly well-maintained (Good Articles) and widely watched, as opposed to this one which, over the course of six months to the date, hasn't received even the most shallow level of basic editorial oversight that would take literal minutes to perform. The two most liable outcomes for this article were we to keep it is that it languishes in complete redundancy for years, or it deteriorates into an inferior version of what it was originally copy-pasted from because of the lack of oversight. If there's a future where this becomes a decent article on its own merits, it's one where it's WP:TNTd and created anew as a WP:RELAR by someone who's willing to actually put in effort to do so – provided the material they create can't reasonably fit into an existing article (as much of her cultural impact already has). For example, the article "Cultural impact of The Colbert Report" has shown itself more than capable of differentiating itself from other Colbert-related Wikipedia content, while using the content from The Colbert Report as a jumping-off point for its lead section. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TheTechnician27, to clarify, is your argument that (a) the article should be deleted because currently the material in it is unsatisfactory, or (b) the article should be deleted because there isn't enough material on this topic to write an article as opposed to the other "Cultural impact of..." articles ("there's not enough content for a standalone article of her "cultural impact"" in the words of the nomination, or your suggestions that "much of her cultural impact" is already in other articles)? If (a), then no-one has denied that the article is unsatisfactory, but we have editors here who have explicitly said that they will help expand the article, so one can't say that it should be deleted for that reason. If (b), then that is demonstrably false. As Andrew indicated below, there are many books, academic papers and articles that provide widespread coverage of this topic. The nomination's claim that Beyonce's cultural impact can "easily" be covered in existing articles is false, and if one was to make the current legacy section of Beyonce's main article actually encyclopedic (which it is currently far from) it would be much too long. That is why a separate article is necessary, just like it is for Elvis, Madonna and Michael Jackson. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with keeping the article with the condition of expanding it, adding important information that it severely lacks. Jimoincolor (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and redirect title to the main art.) — At least by now, keeping the article requires attention and a lot of time to verify quality of sources among many other things which could lead to create WP:FANCRUFT. In addition, WP:CONTENTFORK is the most important (and worried) point here and that's technically a problem with the whole text of this entry. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Beyonce)--this is undue and can be reasonably incorporated into the Beyonce article without straying into excessive details. I even think "Cultural impact of [artist]" articles should not exist in the first place. HĐ (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – HĐ, Why, really? So you don't want some big icons to be acknowledged more widely by their impact on others? Sometimes, articles about cultural impact of an artist is necessary. Just look at Madonna, Michael Jackson, the Beatles,... because if their impact is so immense that the main article cannot contain everything, it's important to make a separate article. We also have articles like "List of artists influenced by (an artist)" if that artist influences more than 100 artists and even non-celebrities that we cannot include all of them in the main articles of those artists (for example, Taylor Swift, Mariah Carey, Madonna,...) so these types of articles sometimes still important. Why do we have to oppose all of them? ADTN1210 (talk) 09:38 April 5 2021 (UTC)
  - @ADTN1210: You state: "because if their impact is so immense that the main article cannot contain everything, it's important to make a separate article". However, the contradiction in your point should be fairly obvious: as every single word of this article – bar maybe a dozen – was ripped straight from three(?) articles, two of which have been reviewed as Good Articles, this information is not "so immense that the article cannot contain" the relevant material. To the contrary, those articles do an excellent job of this, and this is clearly not a case of WP:SPINOFF. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:UNDUE and TheTechnician27 DMT biscuit (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with all the Delete arguments above, as well as the nominator. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 03:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps merging small parts of the content into other articles if needed - however, if most of the content has been copied from other articles in the "Beyonce-sphere" it's unlikely this will be necessary. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim of the nomination that there's not much to say is false. Here's a stack of books and papers about the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson's references

*# The Beyoncé effect : essays on sexuality, race and feminism. Adrienne M. Trier-Bieniek. Jefferson, North Carolina. 2016. ISBN 978-1-4766-2558-4. OCLC 953458547.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)

1. Tinsley, Omise'eke Natasha (2018). Beyoncé in formation : remixing Black feminism. Austin, TX. ISBN 978-1-4773-1770-9. OCLC 1031054824.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
2. The Lemonade reader. Kinitra Dechaun Brooks, Kameelah L. Martin. London. 2019. ISBN 978-0-429-48745-3. OCLC 1195818139.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
3. Allred, Kevin (2019). Ain't I a diva? : Beyoncé and the power of pop culture pedagogy. New York, NY. ISBN 978-1-936932-61-0. OCLC 1080251528.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
4. Queen Bey : a celebration of the power and creativity of Beyoncé Knowles-Carter. Veronica Chambers. New York, N.Y. 2019. ISBN 978-1-250-20052-5. OCLC 1061865331.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
5. Beyoncé in the world : finding art, activism, and community with Queen Bey in troubled times. Christina L. Baade, Kristin A. McGee. Middletown. 2021. ISBN 978-0-8195-7993-5. OCLC 1232014867.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
6. Weidhase, Nathalie (2015-01-02). "'Beyoncé feminism' and the contestation of the black feminist body". Celebrity Studies. 6 (1): 128–131. doi:10.1080/19392397.2015.1005389. ISSN 1939-2397.
7. Durham, Aisha (March 2012). ""Check On It": Beyoncé, Southern booty, and Black femininities in music video". Feminist Media Studies. 12 (1): 35–49. doi:10.1080/14680777.2011.558346. ISSN 1468-0777.
8. Chatman, Dayna (2015-11-02). "Pregnancy, Then It's "Back To Business": Beyoncé, black femininity, and the politics of a post-feminist gender regime". Feminist Media Studies. 15 (6): 926–941. doi:10.1080/14680777.2015.1036901. ISSN 1468-0777.
9. Jones, Bethan (2016-09-01). "'I hate Beyoncé and I don't care who knows it': Towards an ethics of studying anti-fandom". The Journal of Fandom Studies. 4 (3): 283–299. doi:10.1386/jfs.4.3.283_1. ISSN 2046-6692.

Delete: per nom, WP:UNDUE of Lemonade, should be cutted and merged into Beyoncé Legacy CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the information used in the article is redundant. The important information can be added in the 'Legacy' section on her bio page. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article is currently under development, and since the discussion above, I have added and removed a lot of material to address the concerns that were raised. It is still a work-in-progress (as any article is), but I encourage any past contributor to this discussion who voted to delete the article, or any future contributor, to review the article again, as it has changed significantly since the nomination. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has now been expanded beyond the content copied from Good articles, and will continue to be developed, so that concern no longer applies. I disagree with the nominator's and some "delete" voters' assertions that Beyoncé's cultural impact is insignificant compared to Elvis or Madonna's and so there wouldn't be enough material to fill an article or such an article should never be made. As Andrew said, there is a large amount of reliable sources in this area, and the content in the under-development article already would not fit into Beyoncé's "Legacy" section. As Bgkc4444 said, in order for coverage of Beyoncé's cultural impact to be encyclopedic, it would definitely need this full article. Timeheist (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale provided in other delete !votes. Riteboke (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: None of the reasons given for the article to be deleted apply anymore since it has been changed so that there is no longer any violation of UNDUE or COPYVIO, and it is clear that there is enough content for a standalone article of her cultural impact. Beyhiveboys (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reasons stated above. I don't see any reason for it to be deleted because the problems with the article have been solved since. Rhual Andrew (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC) — Rhual Andrew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for creative essays. Save it for your Culture/Media/Pop Music 101 class. KidAd • SPEAK 18:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page isn't a "creative essay" it's a page to celebrate and congratulate a black woman who has and continues to influence everyone in her artistic view of the world and none of the reasons of deleting still apply since there is no longer violation of UNDUE or COPYVIO Diol250 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC) — Diol250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to celebrate and congratulate a black woman who has and continues to influence everyone in her artistic view of the world. If you want to do that, start a blog or write a tweet. KidAd • SPEAK 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the person who put this page up for deletion gave the reason that wikipedia IS the place to do that for Madonna, the beatles and Elvis, but not Beyoncé because "there's not enough content for a standalone article of her "cultural impact"" and the content can "easily" be covered in other pages, but that is not true especially as the page has been almost rewritten into a much larger article since he made those comments Diol250 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diol250: As KidAd rightfully noted, Wikipedia's mainspace is not the place to celebrate or congratulate anybody for anything. Using it as such would fall both under WP:FORUM and WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not the place to do that for Madonna, the Beatles, or Elvis either, and no such similar article is used to that end. They exist solely because it was decided that reliable coverage of their impact on culture was too broad and extensive to be encompassed within other articles. That is unless, of course, you would contend that the article Adolf Hitler in popular culture is Wikipedia's way of "celebrating and congratulating an Austrian man who has and continues to influence everyone in his National Socialist view of the world". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. I agree with the nomination, except for the line starting with unlike and ending with Madonna. This page is an WP:UNDUE WP:FANCRUFT that would be better suited for a pop culture or critical media class, but WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments – both for and against – are not useful for evaluating page notability. KidAd • SPEAK 04:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful for me if you could clarify how the article violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT instead of just quoting the policies/essays. Regarding undue weight, I'm not sure what points of view the article could be disproportionately presenting. Regarding fancruft, I think it's clear that the article isn't pertinent only to fans of the subject because there is extensive and significant treatment of this topic in reliable independent sources, indicating that it is notable and that it would "attract or pique the interest of readers outside of the small population of enthusiastic fans of the topic". TheTechnician27's main arguments was that the article had been neglected and (as also asserted by the nominator) they believe that Beyoncé's cultural impact is insignificant compared to Elvis or Madonna's (or it isn't as significant yet). The other delete arguments were that the creator of the article was in an edit war on a different but related article two years ago, it would take time to improve and it could lead to policy violations. All of these arguments should be avoided in an AfD. I feel that some people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and trying to get the article deleted for easily surmountable problems, especially since voters gave copyvio, lack of content and undue weight for Lemonade as reasons for deletion but those problems were easily surmountable and have been solved. The article has essentially been rewritten since the nomination [36] so that delete voters' concerns have been taken into account and used to improve the article, and the article will continue to be dramatically improved, so I believe that the legitimate concerns of the delete voters no longer apply. I sincerely hope we can reach a consensus on this and develop the article into one that everyone can agree should be kept. Bgkc4444 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been refactored. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS

*Keep this page — Pc9801 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2021-04-15T01:56:43 (UTC).

Keep it — Johnwayne0921 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2021-04-15T02:12:47 (UTC).
KEEP IT — 173.217.196.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2021-04-15T02:15:35‎ (UTC).
KEEP IT — BLACKPEARLESCENCE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2021-04-15T03:29:43 (UTC).
Keep it beyone has influenced so many of the new artist today and has paved the way for many female artsit
I would like you to keep this page of beyonce cultural impact because they do add value and importance to beyonce fan base. When we need inspiration we go to her Wikipedia page to check her list of her achievement and cultural impact.She is the music industry and deserves all the praise. She is the legend of the legends.
KEEP IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneetah200 (talk • contribs)
This page is so important and it holds value, if this page is deleted, Wikipedia will no longer be a place that I visit. Beyoncé is an cultural icon and deserves to be posted up in this site. All the information in this particular page is important and is used as reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiveonamission (talk • contribs)
KEEP"- For reasons stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c0:467f:3c0:604a:ae40:bec3:fe65 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After post-comments/expansion: True, since early opposite arguments the article has been substantial improved which is appreciated for her literature. "But" at least for me what I understand also applies how a main article has been written to justify the creation of a separate content like this. Largely attached with this sub-article, her biography needs a major clean up in which many of new content added here, could be distributed to the main space, singles or albums without having by now this (see counter-justification below). That's could be possible, of course, with trimming excessive unnecesary details in "public image" and subsequent sections. I curiously recommended last year to re-verify in her main article the problems of overly detailed sections but I was overlooked by then active members (I later noticed that this concern was pointed out in the past before me by other users). While this could be a point to expand a separate article, there is additional points giving me more questions than answer. Let's review a couple of them:

1) Concerns from her main article: Details such as being part of celebrity lists like her case: "100 Sexiest Artists list" by VH1 or "Hottest Female Singer of All Time" by Complex etc are really unnecesary (I think its reduce the quality of an entry). The mention of wax figures when are common for a celebrity like her, would deserve a mention unless there is a record for "having the most wax figures" or something better like the summary of an academic/critic. Unnecessary obscure details in "Achievements" section related to her awards for examples, even if she has "the most nominations", was "the first recipient" or "most awarded" are excessive. Why? of course, her records in major ceremonies such as the Grammy or MTV deserves a mention and give a general print for those who don't know her career as a fan, but if we have her "List of awards" which is the main space for I don't see what's the point keep adding more examples. The same feelings came from decennial mentions from publication such as Billboard when they compil all-time lists. "Decade" lists could be sumarized along with her discography or distributed with an era in the rest of her body article for example since list of lists are hard to read.

2) Concerns from her main article: Philantrophy section could be fine if she led a charity organization e,g, givin a couple of prose and mainly if there is not a separete article for that. But immediate help for some catastrophes are obscure as WP:Recentism. Many super-stars have been involved in humanitary causes since 20th century, and can we image a mention of each decade of those who still active? Literature in this context for celebrities such as Angelina Jolie I guess could apply in a good portion of her BLP or those with historical causes like AID pandemic rather than obscure events. The same goes to activism. Legacy section in a general sense, have parts from her singles/albums such as the exhibition of "Legends of Rock" discussing her "Single Ladies" outfit. A celebrity like Beyoncé have been a subject of auctions/exhibitions and I'm not sure what's the point having this, at least in a BLP. I know, we've lines that are part of her own literature (reviews that are compared with the perspective of Carey, Houson or Dion with their voices or now Swift with her "songwriter skills"). That's applies with descriptions such as "Bootylicious" or being part of several Forbes/Time lists that at the same time could be summarized instead give a great treatment of those lists. But in a general sense, many of those sections looks like a fanzine.

3.1) KidAd pointed out the nature of an article like this. For me, we have good points and half-truths. In addition that her main biography looks like a fanzine discussing and celebrating how sexy/hot, generous she has been etc, keep in mind comments even among academic/intellectual responses are largely part of the cultural studies. Cultural studies has been the subject of criticism among even academics, mainly American cultural studies, which is a bit different of the British cultural studies. Of course, intellectual responses are more appreciated than other reviews such as alternative journalism/gossip comments. The criticism on "popular culture" topics could apply to articles such as "Public image of (Barack Obama, Putin etc)" that all looks like a celebrity-style articles and largely apply for a couple of years alone in the perspective of Zeitgeist. Ancient practices were also part of then "popular culture" of that time, religious treatments could be viewed exaggerated to many non-christian/religious readers ("the divinity" etc), celebrating "historic" figures ("the most" etc) and we can continue. All are "comments" of an author/a group of authors and subject of being "subjective" and many examples doesn't universal apply either in text books/liberal arts education worldwide. At least, a quote attribution helps, I guess even for a "celebrity".

3.2) Related with the concern of both KidAd or TheTechnician27 of the nature of an article like this and per nominator, I agree that there is a bit of recentism for having a whole entry. Beyoncé is approching a solo career of 20-year (2 decades), or almost half-century overall with her group. For a pop star, that's a long-time career. Is like seeing in timelapse Michael Jackson- transition as a solo-performer in 1983 and then back in 2001/2003. But in her case, mostly came from sources in the 2010s despite she has relevance works such as "Single Ladies" in the late-2000s. Social/cultural comments are subject of changes and like in other areas such as psychology giving dates/quote attributions are a must or appreciated. It's not chronocentrism and I'm from Gaga or Beyonce generation, but the transition of past artists with same entries such as the Beatles, Presley or Madonna been favored with the transition of several academics trends/waves, music concepts for both centuries. And in their time, a career of 20-year or more was viewed as triumph in any terms. Times of course, changes, but in their cases restrospectively intellectual comments are common, and no matters the decade (so "digital era" applies). That's culturally/socially is a key factor and more than 90% sure Beyoncé fails. I also think not all is "celebratory", because a "contradictory perspective" always apply even for a perspective of our policies of WP:NPOV and keeping the tone.

Arguments to avoid such as WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:ITSTOONEW have had less concern IHMO than a serious matters such as WP:CFORK in which nominator was right. An article is supposed to be for any kind of readers and not for a selected group. And a whole entry for a subseptible topic (or less obvios topic) is not a minor deal. Then, expansion have been made, ofc, but there is more questions than answers for having a whole entry in her case. Many points can be applied to a large list of GA/FA articles, but with the tendency of her contribuitors with arguments like since "X" or "Y" artist have this article, why Beyoncé not? is the point here. Her main article largely discuss how sexy/hot she has been, "innovator" or with addition of every power list etc. Maybe, that's the key factor here: clean up her main article, distribuiting relevant info instead a new entry. Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the public image and philanthropy sections of the Beyoncé article have to do with this article. Thinking Beyoncé isn't special in her public image and philanthropy is your pregorative and you can start a separate discussion on those topics on the Beyoncé talk page if you want, but I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion. Similarly, it's your prerogative to believe that Beyoncé actually doesn't have a notable impact as well as that this is just recency bias, and it's your pregorative to believe that "cultural studies" isn't a serious topic, but we need to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy here. An editor personally believing that Beyoncé doesn't have enough cultural impact for an article or that Beyoncé's cultural impact is too new or that reliable sources shouldn't be used aren't good reasons to delete the article. As WP:AADD says, "Notability is not established by how long a thing has existed, or how far back in time a tradition may go, or how venerable the people are who are involved in it, or how yellowed the pages that once mentioned it. Neither can notability be denied based on the subject's newness, inexperience, or youth. The criteria for notability include evidence of the non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable verifiable independent secondary sources. Assertions based on age or evidence of age are, by themselves, as meaningless as those based on personal knowledge or on dislike of the subject matter." In this case, there is non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable verifiable independent secondary sources, and therefore the article should be kept. Let me know if I have not responded to a relevant argument as it was quite a long piece of text and I may have missed a point. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I must have looked at this article 18 times. I explain. Any article that examines the cultural or ethnographic effect of a single person on a particular culture and in a particular environment, needs to be an academic article, that examines the assertions in the detail and provide them with academic sources. So the whole article is WP:NPOV. Let's examine a couple of single instances.

Beyoncé "is almost singlehandedly keeping the art of the music video alive", according to Daniel Kreps of Rolling Stone.<ref>{{Cite web|no-tracking=yes|last=Kreps|first=Daniel|date=August 25, 2014|title=Watch Beyonce Sing Every Song on New Album at VMAs|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/beyonce-rips-through-album-medley-at-vmas-2014-53785/|access-date=April 9, 2021|website=Rolling Stone|language=en-US}}</ref> How is it provable by a staff writer at Rolling Stone magazine? It is entirely subjective. Also, almost all the references are American sources. Did she tour? What about the dynamic video culture in South Korea. There are reams of these assertions. Here is another one, Beyoncé is widely credited with the invention of the surprise album. Apart from being untrue, it like it's inside its own bubble, that only came into existence in the '90s. It is junk and completely unbalanced. It doesn't recognize the cognizance of other culture, is unbalanced, lots of it is untrue, and probably subjective. Here is another statement:Beyoncé is credited that is repeated several times in the article. The reference says, in a decent paper by the way, He and Beyonce were later credited with helping to mobilise the black vote in the election of the first African-American president. The way to measure and examine how people are swayed by the pop-cultural icons is is detailed, ultra-complex and intricate. All sorts of factors come into play and very very rarely does ut involve cultural icons telling them to do. Almost always, it is the basics, health, a roof over your head and taxes. So to say that in an encyclopedia which represents the truth, for a one-line sentence is decent paper, to build a section, is beyond a joke. It is meaningless and subjective and it needs to be deleted. scope_creep^Talk 18:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, and no other substantive comments about the article were made, so this falls under WP:CSK#4. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angels Arc Senior Secondary School, Kayamkulam

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

~~Non-notable school, nothing notable found with a WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - nominator is a sockpuppet, now blocked indefinitely. This AfD was created in violation of the master's block and therefore the article should be kept on procedural grounds. If a good faith editor wants to nominate this for deletion, then they should be able to do so but I'd rather Phoenix Man didn't get his way here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole M. Christie

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

Not a single source found anywhere to establish notability, including the sole source in the article. This is a resume piece and nothing more. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post resumes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no way to save this article, lacks WP:BASIC. Chirota (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nicole is THE spokesperson for H&M and is in almost every article about H&M recently, but there aren't articles about her specifically. My inclination is a delete based on this, but I wanted to check with more experienced voters. Are there any guidelines specifically for household names that might not have a ton of independent coverage? Redoryxx (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO is the standard for living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megtetg34 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devoke water 08:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the subject is notable, even though the article requires significant clean-up. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The State of the Union (European University Institute)

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

Pure PR. The article has only extensive promotional sections of buzz-words on the importance off the problems it deal with, and very extensive name dropping. There are almost no third party sources. If there should be sources for notability , it would need to be done over from scratch. It was just as bad when it was accepted from AfC. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be one of the areas where "notability" and "importance" diverge. This event is likely highly important, at least to high level policy people in Europe (I am a policy analyst in the USA, but I have no connection to this event or anyone associated with it, else I wouldn't be commenting at all). The problem is that these sorts of events tend to produce a lot of useful and important discussions, but they are rarely covered in the popular press. These discussions are usually in policyspeak, a creole of the local language, high academia, and legalese. Possible reliable sources might be found in various think tanks, academic journals, and possibly intellectual political periodicals. As it currently stands, the article appears to be sourced entirely from documents produced at or for the event.

That being said, I did a quick Google Scholar search and found at least a few external sources reporting on the event. I found a keynote address at the event published in the International Journal of Constitutional Law ^[1], for example. There is also this article from the College of William and Mary Law School ^[2]. I also found local coverage in the Florence Daily News ^[3]. Honestly, there's plenty of search engine hits in both Google and Google Scholar, the real difficulty is distinguishing between the many many many documents that are just the texts of speeches and pressntations to find second-party sources like newspapers and such. It's a tricky situation, because this event has almost certainly...well, depending on your viewpoint either greatly affected stakeholder decisions in the EU that have affected hundreds of millions of people, or created excellent employment opportunities for policy analysts in the EU. The news article from William and Mary definitely lays out the importance, it's just the difficulty of finding more sources like it. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 18:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hyperion35, while the article is very promotional, that's not the criteria for deletion, because it can be fixed. Shushugah (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it may need a rewrite or something for that promotional junk. AdoTang (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep, definitely delete is not an option here to fix the issues raised. The article needs heavy cleanup but can be kept. Chirota (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability as per WP:EVENT, criterion WP:GEOSCOPE:"However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." The event has long-term impact on the EU member states since it is a major political forum. Long-term impact includes the following events: (1) in 2017 Jean-Claude Juncker, then European Commission president (the top job of the whole EU), sparked outrage from the UK when speaking French, not English, and stating that the English language is becoming less important, at the State of the Union conference. (2) Weeks before the 2019 European elections, the four top candidates to follow Juncker as Commission president had an election debate at the State of the Union event and proposed a European army from there.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Edward Massey

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

I Merged all the information on this page into the namesake section of USS Massey per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability and blanked and Redirected this page on 23 February. The Redirect was undone on 24 February with the comment "midway squadron commander played an important role in a major battle and covered in all histories of it". I have searched for information about Massey and other than passing mentions largely around the WP:1E of his role in the Battle of Midway I'm not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Many of the details on the page are actually unverified due to a lack of inline sources. Accordingly the Redirect should be restored. Mztourist (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is the 2nd nomination for this article. The first was on 23 January 2021 - " Closed as procedural Keep". ~~(Technically the third 3rd if you count the blanking by the nominator which Kges1901 then restored).~~ FYI - wolf 15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

off topic

:*So? It was never discussed in any detail as part of the mass nom and procedural keep. My Redirect was clearly not an AFD nomination. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a note, no need to start badgering. - wolf 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your comments, the "technically the third 3rd" was clearly incorrect, so don't accuse me of badgering. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3 attempts to get rid of this article, all in a matter of weeks. The second attempt was noted as a blanking. !Voters should be aware all previous attempts to delete or otherwise remove this content. That was the point. - wolf 19:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So? I'm sure that everyone participating in this AFD is perfectly capable of forming their own view of the relative merits of the page irrespective of earlier history which I acknowledged above. 03:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely. You didn't mark this as the 2nd nom, hence the reason I added the note. Again, that's all it was- a note, not an invite to a debate. Let it go already. - wolf 15:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The note which also incorrectly stated that my Redirect was an AFD. If you want to stop debating stop trying to justify your misleading comment. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I was referring to your blanking as another attempt to delete. I don't really see the need to be hypertechnical, as it was just a note. But, you stated your objection with correction and I've struck the comment, so I think we're done here. (I know I am). - wolf 16:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

KeepCommanding officer of one of the torpedo wings at Midway, depicted by Steve Kanaly in Midway. Added refs that describe Midway record. Needs a rewrite with refs inclined not a delete, as notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Thach coverage re Midway is thin, the article is about Thach and his squadron rather than VT-3. Hard to verify the extent of the other coverage without page numbers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - especially in light of the work that's been going into it since the nom. - wolf 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 12:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His actions in Midway is notable. USN awarded his action in Midway by a posthumous Navy Cross. thus his actions must be important and notable. He also have DFC, which is also a highly prestigious award. SunDawn (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back with his namesake ship. The new sources can't be verified without page numbers, and just because someone's written into a movie doesn't mean they're automatically notable. I just don't see enough RS concerning Massey in particular for this to pass for me as a standalone article. Intothat darkness 21:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness - "sources can't be verified without page numbers"
Per WP:V: "Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)". Page numbers, while "ideal" are not mandatory for content to be properly sourced, as the source can still be verified. - wolf 23:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's sloppy. You can't determine if it was just a namecheck or if there was actual content. Still a merge for me. Intothat darkness 02:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very sloppy. If Users are determined to rescue pages then they should make the effort to add properly referenced cites rather than just saying stuff exists or providing incomplete cites. Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And much of the life and career content of the article at the moment doesn't even have a general cite to a source let alone one with a page number. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just addressing the comment by Intothatdarkness, that while they seem to find it frustrating (and therefore very frustrating for Mztourist) that a page number wasn't added, it is still sourced. - wolf 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewolfchild Take a look at Paul Teitgen for an example of what should be done when you !vote Keep at AFD and say other sources are available. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist; Take a look at how often you reply to !voters you don't like to argue about their !votes or comments. If you don't want to be accused of badgering, them don't badger. (And the always-must-have-the-last-word bit doesn't help either.) - wolf 07:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild you decided to comment specifically about me so I commented back at you. If you keep commenting on other Users then you don't get to decide that the conversation is over. Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QED - wolf 19:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ward book is 174 pages, the Smith one is 350 pages so without page numbers verification is going to be slow. Fortunately google books gave me a sneak of the latter's index and Massey is mentioned on pages 77, and 98-99 but going by the preview it's passing mentions. The snippet view on the Ward book shows me three mentions but seems thin as in "Yorktown had launched her VT-3 squadron, twelve torpedo planes under command of Lietuentant Commander Lance E Massey, first because of their slow speed". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like namechecks on the whole, then. And in response to one of the comments above (@Thewolfchild), please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say frustrating, I said sloppy. And citing without page numbers is, at the end of the day, sloppy. Verification of sources is an important part of building credibility, and not including page numbers makes that difficult. More so than it needs to be. Intothat darkness 16:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one must be notable unless its clearly shown there is a policy that support that. The keep votes are arguing by assertion and not putting forward a strong policy case. Relisted to allow participants to cover the actual policy
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, y ^Humbug! 16:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have yet to see anything convincing enough to change my opinion from Merge to the named ship. Passing mention and namechecks don't create notability. Having this information with his namesake ship preserves it without giving undue weight to the subject. Intothat darkness 20:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article now has twice as many refs as it did when this nom was posted, along with other improvements. (fyi) - wolf 07:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the expansion between nomination (2nd March) and last edit to date (5 March) - 3 refs added to the same paragraph about the award of the DFC. DANFS, Ward Smith and Smith (which as I said above look thin) but no additional text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please discuss sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources that can be verified are mostly namechecks (the Thach article along with the information provided by GraemeLeggett). Not enough to justify, in my view, a standalone article. As noted previously, the information won't disappear, but rather be folded back into the namesake ship article. I haven't seen any standalone articles about him, or substantial mentions in RS concerning the Midway Campaign.Intothat darkness 20:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not seeing much on this guy outside of namedrops, the DANFS bio (which ties him to the ship), and WP:1E instances. The article for the USS Massey has plenty of room for the bio of this guy. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added four additional sources today, along with some copyediting. (fyi) - wolf 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Coronado Times source looks to be a reprint of the original Wiki article (and is courtesy of the USS Massey Association). The National Interest is a one paragraph namecheck recycling the Navy Cross information. And the last is an extensive history of the ship, with a short paragraph about its namesake. Just pointing out that two of the three point directly to the ship and don't add anything to what's already in the article. Which, to me, makes a stronger argument for merging him back with the namesake ship. Intothatdarkness 02:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The National Interest also has a quote from a pilot that witnessed Massey's death, and there's a fourth source, a bio from Navy's Heritage Command that was added to 'external links'. (fyi) - wolf 03:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does US Navy Heritage Command count as 'independent of subject' per SigCov requirements? The National Interest is quoting text from Moore's Pacific Payback - it isn't a quote from another pilot. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only stated that additional sources were added. The US Navy is a source, a reliable one that is used regularly and often, especially in these types of articles. And the quote begins with; "[Another U.S. pilot] ... saw", which certainly seems to indicate the quote came from another pilot. (Besides, who else would've been in a position to see that?). - wolf 02:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SigCov asks for sources that are not "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - wolf 14:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the National Interest article isn't about Massey (I'm not sure having read it what the article is about... musings on how China shouldn't start trouble at sea because America won the Pacific War I possibly). GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there is content about Massey in the article, including the quote about his final moments, which is why is was added. - wolf 02:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 16:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Bulthaup

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

Non-notable "American engineer and inventor". His claim to fame is that he received inventor of the week at MIT in 2007. Sources 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are unavailable. Source 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, makes no mention of him whatsoever. Source 7 is his bio for a company he works at. Source 11 is a press release where he makes 1 comment. Source 12 and 16 is a trivial mention. Article reads like a resume and puff piece. No sources found to suggest otherwise. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very clearly does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG and coverage fails WP:SIGCOV. Page also is an obvious case of WP:TOOMANYREFS. Redoryxx (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm going with the keeps on this one. Feel free to improve the article with the many sources presented. (And you can use primary sources - but sparingly, of course!) Missvain (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rock

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

This BLP has been sitting at the back of the NPP queue for many weeks. The subject might be notable but it looks pretty doubtful to me and I think we’re in BLPIE territory. Bringing it here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can’t find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:BLP1E as described bu User:NZFC below. The sound of the bottom of the notability barrel being scraped is clear. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rationale is basically "because I don't like it" 98.42.61.224 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have any COI on this topic? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not affiliated with this person in any way. Do you have a personal vendetta against him?98.42.61.224 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Try-hard social media wannabes don't deserve to be considered notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, so you do have a personal vendetta against him. Got it. Try giving actual reasons instead of using personal attacks against him. 98.42.61.224 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually come across the YouTube channel, and wanting to know more, found nothing. People doing this tend to avoid having information about them known, and even the YouTube personae are not independently documented. These people aren't known in the form of biographies at all. Uncle G (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://boingboing.net/2021/03/25/karl-rock-goes-to-dubai-to-chat-with-low-level-scammers.html https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/nz-youtuber-karl-rock-reveals-the-trick-he-used-to-impress-his-haryanvi-jat-girlfriends-parents-2918405.html 98.42.61.224 (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those is a biography, and they are almost devoid of any biographical detail. Indeed, the sum total of the informational content of the first is in the URL. Where is a biography of this person, documenting xyr life/work? Failing that, where is a detailed independent source documenting the YouTube persona in detail? Uncle G (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly relies on primary sources. Next to no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Throast (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article did not help his case with primary sources, trivial mentions, unreliable sources, and many links which don't work, but Google News appears to have a lot of significant coverage on him. Given how small New Zealand is, it is almost inevitable that anyone with 1.42 millions subscribers who is a New Zealander in India will get coverage by New Zealand's local news outlets and India's outlets because of the novelty.

Nexus000 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Nexus000. smileguy91^{talk x my huckleberrying} 02:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion is needed to gather consensus on whether the links given by Nexus000 show notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mccapra and Devokewater—do your comments still stand in light of the links given by Nexus000? Are any of those sources reliable, independent and in-depth? — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This really is unusual. The sources highlighted by Nexus000 probably aren’t all reliable but most of them are. The thing is they all say what is already in the article. There’s a guy from NZ living in India who has Youtube channel who gave blood once, and some other pretty insignificant things. I suggested BLP1E would apply in this case because there is so little substance to the topic, but the number of sources all saying the same few things may mean that’s not valid. Mccapra (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a popular YouTube channel; and, as I noted above, would that someone had written about xem in depth! But no-one seems to have put in the effort of doing so. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Bilorv (talk) I will take a look at these. Regards --Devoke water 08:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it satisfies both WP:BASIC and WP:GNG as per the existence of reliable secondary sources. Roulisegee (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Roulisegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete This is WP:BLP1E, while I commend Nexus000 for finding all those links they all just relate back to one real event. Looking at BLP1E criteria, the person is only covered in context of a single event, is likely to remain a low-profile individual and the event isn't substantial or well documented (as pointed out, some even just reference what is on Wikipedia now itself). Then even the creator of the page hasn't made a comment since it was nominated for deletion. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC with the sources indicated by Nexus000. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Including the one, as I had pointed out before that list was compiled, had no content beyond what was in its URL? How many others are like that, do you think? I picked the stuff.co.nz one at random and it contained no factual information about Karl Rock whatsoever. It was written by Karl Rock and about something else. That list was created by search engine phrase matching, not reading. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G, of course, including the ones indicated below. So, don't bother arguing with me. My keep stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a WP:BLP1E known for some insignificant events. The problem is that now a days every viral YouTube video is covered by the media to fill their digits pages, that why there is a rise in YouTuber biographies. defcon5 (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that WP:GNG is met. However, consensus has yet to develop as to whether the topic surpasses WP:BLP1E
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepHe's covered by multiple reliable sources in India. As for BLP1E, I understand that reasoning, but believe there is lasting coverage, he continues to have stories written about him more than 6 months later.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non notable youtuber from India who fails GNG. This comes under BLPE1. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this a third relist in hopes that the BLP1E element will receive more discussion and thus a clear consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has been mentioned a few times for a few different things when you break down all the links, I still feel however it is very artifical in that its just taken to write a story about whatever his video was about. Nothing in depth of Karl himself. All I've learnt is he used to work in IT, he had a india girlfriend and learnt hindi and then moved to India. So now makes videos about it. If that is enough with these stories that are just about his videos, then fine but I don't think it meets WP:GNG myself and still vote delete.NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the article with the most about Karl, telling how he speaks hindi and is travelling/living in India
- https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/kiwi-traveller/101432684/kiwi-tourist-charms-locals-in-india-by-speaking-hindi
Next best article introducting him after plasma went viral, again doens't say a lot of indepth about Karl still
- https://www.hindustantimes.com/brunch/social-media-star-meet-karl-rock-the-kiwi-youtuber-who-was-praised-by-the-delhi-chief-minister/story-UCBVnLO4NTbWnTtotvHLKO.html
Just a bit about him travelling and why he is in India
- https://www.mumbailive.com/en/culture/youtuber-karl-rock-traveller-who-has-explored-33-locations-across-states-in-india-33441
Story about donating plasma
Racist attack and blurb about donating plasma
Mentions the Humans of Delhi story about trying to impress girlfriends parents and blurb about the plasma
- https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/nz-youtuber-karl-rock-reveals-the-trick-he-used-to-impress-his-haryanvi-jat-girlfriends-parents-2918405.html
A paragrath saying he lives in India but went to Dubai to confront scammers then a link to his video
- https://boingboing.net/2021/03/25/karl-rock-goes-to-dubai-to-chat-with-low-level-scammers.html
Karl is in Pakistan and talks to a young boy
What happens next will surprise you.... title and its a nothing story. He was riding where he shouldn't by mistake but left off with a warning
- https://www.cartoq.com/indian-cop-busts-foreign-biker-on-royal-enfield/
Only brief mentions by name in articles
His own first person account of how to travel in india
- https://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/17725545/Top-10-travel-tips-How-to-stay-safe-in-India
More to check out still but seems to be more of the same, more on his moving on to busting scams

Keep - while I might think it mildly depressing that this person has so much coverage, since the primary dispute point is on whether the article avoids failing BLP1E. I have to say it does. That's on three main points: the coverage is on a couple of different things; the coverage is over a reasonable length of time; and the coverage is somewhat about his youtube channel, which is inherently not really an "event". Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Crabtree

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPROF. No credible citations/h-index or no fellowship. Being a journalist, you do get quoted often but the entity clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV. He does qualify for WP:TOOSOON. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment this clearly wont pass WP:NPROF but I am more optimistic about WP:NAUTHOR. He has published a widely discussed book that has been discussed in many major outlets, shortlisted for a major award etc. --hroest 21:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 01:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Both this and the book's page appear to have been created by SPAs but WP:NAUTHOR would appear to apply. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's ignore the WP:SPA-thing for a moment. Getting a coverage at Financial Times- "2018 Business Book of the Year Award" is highly absurd because he had been a former bureau chief of the same newspaper. Ok let's ignore the FT Awards... except his book and interviews... there is no such information exist about him as a "person". This clearly shows that the entity lacks independent significant coverage... It's not what he said or wrote. It's about who he is. If not AfD, the page should/must be draftified. [This opinion should be considered as an extended part of my nomination statement]. -Hatchens (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the draftify option outlined by Hatchens. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At best, WP:TOOSOON. There is no WP:SIGCOV of him as a journalist - the bulk of the citations are just his professional resume, i.e. his work as a journalist. Above that, there are a few book reviews, but insufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. M00thu2 (talk) 01:18,21 April 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Four Seasons (band)#Band members as it is much more well-known than The Happenings, and so would probably be a more appropriate target. (non-admin closure) Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Paiva (musician)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. While having been part of two notable bands, there does not seem to be enough to establish Paiva's individual notability. No reliable sources providing significant coverage are cited (current sources consist of a blog, user-based databases like discogs and last.fm, and Apple music listings) and I can't find any such coverage elsewhere; the German Wikipedia's article on him lists one source, which doesn't seem like a reliable one either. His solo albums haven't gotten any attention, and his other exploits in Germany, currently unsourced, don't establish notability either as far as I can tell.

Per WP:BANDMEMBER, Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. As Paiva was a member of two notable bands, I'm not sure if the article should be redirected to one of them or deleted; I had previously boldly redirected the article to The Four Seasons (band), as the article on The Happenings didn't mention him back then, but it now does. Lennart97 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although redirect would not be the end of the world. I only found https://robcale.de/2013/01/john-paiva-70-years/, but there may be more in print. A database entry with no author that looks a lot like the article here, peoplepill.com/people/john-paiva, also exists, but without an author, I can't claim it's reliable, and it sets off our spam filter. I don't think either band article would be improved with the unsupported details provided in the article, and the supported details are likely already there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue to retain as a redirection to a band would lose the larger musical history of his life. Both bands he was noted as being in, The Four Seasons and The Happenings, are notable because of their chart success, though obviously the former is more notable that the latter. John Paiva was a member of both when they were successful and a simple redirection to one would lose that fact. Further, one would not know of his notability in Germany. His page has been retained on the German Wikipedia because to a German-speaking audience he is worthy of a page. This cross-reference to the next stage in his personal, musical history - a history worthy of noting to the German editors- would be largely lost to a non-German-speaking audience, and so we would lose a small insight to how individual notability in one region of the world can go unnoticed in another part of the world. dnd25 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC+1)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, unequivocally fails WP:MUSICBIO. The German page should be deleted, too, IMHO - it's totally unsourced content. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Four Seasons (band). This may not help with building a consensus, but it is possible that someone will search for his name, as he is documented as a member of the Four Seasons, though he was certainly a minor member well after their glory years. He has little independent and reliable notice for any of his other works, and I'm not convinced that his behind-the-scenes work in the German entertainment industry achieves notability even in that country, unless German media covered it in-depth. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Antúnez Mejía

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

Non-notable businessman in charge of non-notable organizations. No legitimate sources found to suggest the contrary. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is barely covered by references fails WP:GNG. Purosinaloense (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not sure why this was relisted a third time, consensus clearly is against deletion. Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asid bin Kurz al-Bajali

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’d argue that as a Companion of the Prophet he’s inherently notable, and from memory we’ve kept articles about Companions previously at AfD. Companions are the most important source of hadith in Islam, and this one has eight sources. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this individual is mentioned in the Haditha then he should be treated as any other religious figure. It appears that the individual is documented in Muslim religious sources. Are we going to start removing the names of minor Catholic saints next? Hyperion35 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure that simply being a companion of the prophet is automatic grounds for notability, neither is being mentioned in the Hadith. There are plenty of characters mentioned in the canonical books of the Bible which are not considered notable enough to have their own article. Similarly, there are folks who met Jesus (which is the qualification for being considered a companion of the prophet), who do not have their own article (e.g. Bartimaeus, Jairus, although both of those figures are covered in articles about the major events they play in the NT).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not suggesting that being mentioned in Hadith is the basis of notability, but that being the source of the Hadith is. This guarantees ‘sustained coverage’ in works discussing the importance of the Hadith one has transmitted. I agree not automatic notability, but I’d be generally wary of deleting a companion. Mccapra (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mccapra, hi - my Hadith comment above was directed at the second keep !vote. I appreciate your view on companion status, simply do not agree with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are sources at least mentioning him, I'd argue that redirect to List of Sahabah is more appropriate than outright deletion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Companions of Prophet are considered notable, and since Mccapra has pointed out, "there'd be plethora of coverage" in the Hadīth literature. I tried searching online but Google gave me just multitudes of snippets from various books that I am not able to access. There is much more classical coverage offline. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonanza Springs, California

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

According to Durham it was "was founded as a resort; it became a camping place after the hotel burned down" (article text). I find no reference to it other than as a set of three springs, so I'm going to say this fails validation as a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waring 1915, p. 190 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWaring1915 (help) has it.
- Waring, Gerald Ashley (1915). Springs of California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper. Vol. 338. U.S. Government Printing Office. doi:10.3133/wsp338.
Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Waring 1915 has a lot of the other ones such as Bartlett Springs, California (p.200), Howard Springs, California (p.95), and Hough Springs, California (p.197) too, so a quick first correction for all of these would be to just change "unincorporated community" to "set of springs". Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources here: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] and [47] from 1882. However, only a couple of those discuss it as a community, and even then only in the sense of water rates. SportingFlyer T·C 11:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG and "named natural features" of WP:GEOLAND, sustained coverage in independent reliable sources over a period of years. This well-known Mojave Desert oasis is an important source of water source for the Southern California arid lands. It is a Mojave Trails National Monument (California Landmark). While it may not be an important settlement, it definitely is an important spring (geographic/hydrological feature). There are many full articles on Newspapers.com on more historical info here: [48] – I haven’t yet searched on JSTOR. Below is what I’ve found on Google. I’ll add a few of the best sources to the article today or tomorrow.

News articles: Washington Post [49]; Los Angeles Times[50]; ~~Press Democrat[51]; Press Democrat (diff article[52]; Ukiah News[53]~~; Route 66 News[54]; California Water News Daily[55]; USA Today[56]; Highland News[57]; KCET[58]; Lake County News[59]; Three Valleys Water District[60]; Victor Valley Daily Press[61]; Bonanza Spring Study[62]

Academic Journal articles: (Journal of) Environmental Forensics[63]; (Journal of) Biodiversity and Conservation[64]

Government reports: USGS/US Dept. of Interior Report on watering places in the Mojave Desert[65]; BLM Report on Mojave Springs and Waterholes[66]; BLM[67]; National Park Service[68]; National Parks Conservation Association[69] - Netherzone (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of those are about a different Bonanza Springs, this is about the place in Lake County. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SportingFlyer, this is my mistake - I had it the other way around! I will strike my !vote, as I was searching for the Bonanza Springs in the Mojave Desert. I had struck the sources above for the Lake County Bonanza Springs, which is NOT notable. I'll also remove the sources I added to the article. Thank you for pointing out this error on my part. Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean, it is possible you've stumbled upon a yet to be created article! Also a couple of your sources posted here were about Lake County. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: I stumbled across the Lake County place when checking this one out but forgot to mention it here. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Trivial coverage as a resort. This non-WP:RS blog mentions Bonanza, Howard and other resorts (apparently Bonanza had a liquor license, which made up for Bonanza's lack of facilities compared to other nearby resorts). I checked out some of SportingFlyer's newspaper.com links and while there are many trivial mentions of Bonanza, I'm not seeing non-notable coverage. To me, non-trivial coverage would be a non-promotional article that is solely about Bonanza in a WP:RS source. Passing articles about water rates don't meet my definition of non-notable. As there is no legal recognition and the coverage is trivial, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. Cxbrx (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Cotu, Laurentiu (12 October 2011). "Primul magazin de jeans Little Big din Transilvania s-a deschis în Iulius Mall Cluj". Ziarul Financiar. Retrieved 6 April 2021.

[2] ttps://academic.oup.com/icon/article/13/3/559/2450817?login=true

[3] ttps://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=popular_media

[4] ttps://www.florencedailynews.com/2016/05/04/state-union-conference-sixth-edition

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]