Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 29	May 31 >

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. ✗plicit 00:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Commonwealth of Independent States Cup squads

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

A list of squads for a FIFA sanctioned U-21 tournament sourced only to the competition website. I don't mind squad lists for major sanctioned tournaments, but this is too specific/fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the other squad articles for youth tournaments that we've deleted recently, this isn't needed, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Maybe the names of the players could be merged into 2013 Commonwealth of Independent States Cup#Squads, but not this level of detail. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Capgemini#History. Redirecting as an WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LiquidHub

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

Non notable business. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Spam for just another corporation. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches find announcement-based coverage of financial deals, culminating in the February 2018 takeover of the firm, but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am seeing brief quotes from individuals associated with this company, but neither these nor the inclusion of their products in a couple of Forrester reports is sufficient to demonstrate attained notability. The Capgemini page does not mention this acquisition; a partial merge and redirect may be undue attention to this particular takeover and rebrand. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capgemini#History. I've added and sourced a reference there. Otherwise agree that standalone sourcing is insufficient. czar 21:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Middleton Fox

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

And yet another one of several pages concerning the now-deleted Fox family of Falmouth, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, and most of the sources are Fox genealogy references or broken links. Non-notable author, fails WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG after my research and delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Missvain (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Privateering (album). Going with a redirect as suggested by User:Schazjmd as an WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Privateering Tour

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NTOUR. Contested redirect. – bradv🍁 14:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I object to the deletion of the article since it can be improved by editors. I also believe the concert is notable according to community standards. - 83.85.103.18 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also object, for the reasons already stated. Let's find some more sources. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, undersourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as needing additional references for six years. I was the one who added the additional sources template six years ago and the one who redirected the article to the singer two months ago. In that six year span, the article had seven edits, all of which were copy editing and no additional sources were added. Per WP:BEFORE, I found no additional references and redirected the article to the singer. In the article there is one note, four citations and four external links. The note references one of the citations that is the singer's website. The four citations include two links to the singer's website, a lot of references to setlist.fm, which does not prove notability, and one review from Financial Times about the London show, but is behind a paywall. The four external links include the singer's website, one of the musician's website, and two Youtube videos. In total, there is possibly one good source in the bunch and a lot of first party sources. With edit summaries of "Tour is notable", "too valuable to delete", and "citations are possible, please do not delete the information this article contains, but edit it appropriately instead" and the Keep vote above, the IP address has added no additional references or describes how the article passes any notability standards. Aspects (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ I can understand how this tour might seem not noteworthy to an American, for the same reason other articles regarding Mark Knopfler (and Dire Straits) tours have been redirected, among which the one about his first (definitely noteworthy) and the second (the most successful one) solo tour, other than one about a tour in 2012 with Bob Dylan and the article about his most recent one (if the latter were more noteworthy than the other tours is at the least debatable, the 'Tracker Tour' lemma and the one about the 2011 tour with Dylan regrettably have been deleted already, again for the same reason), but I can assure you that this tour is a lot more noteworthy for a lot of Europeans than for instance Michael Jackson's 'Bad Tour', the example given as 'noteworthy' according to community standards. The references you are looking for (news articles, announcements, reviews, recordings, sufficiently verified setlists) are probably available on websites (and in print, other than recordings) in languages you don't understand. This is no reason to delete the valuable information the article contains. Other editors should be given a sustained opportunity to improve the article if necessary. 83.85.103.18 (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because you think something is notable, does not mean it is. On Wikipedia, articles have to have reliable sources to verify notability. Editors have had six years with the article being tagged as needing additional sources and even you have provided no additional sources. Nothing in your vote or comment shows how the article passes WP:GNG or WP:CONCERT TOUR. Aspects (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly as redirect): I would like to add that the previous situation was that the article was redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Knopfler; this seems less harmful as completely deleting it, as it does give future editors the sought for sustained opportunity to improve it, if necessary. 83.85.103.18 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Mark Knopfler is a perfectly reasonable solution, imo. – bradv🍁 14:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Striking out third attempt by IP address to vote. Aspects (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

~~Restore~~ Redirect to ~~artist~~Privateering (album). Although I personally think anything Knopfler does is notable, I failed at finding any reliable sources to show that the tour meets WP:CONCERT TOUR or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Donington Run

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

One-off 10k run which fails WP:NEVENT. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:10YT. Geschichte (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t actually think it was one off as I can find references to events in 2016 and 2017, but there’s only scant coverage in the local press and the fact that three events rather than June attracted so little attention confirms to me that the event wasn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Being bold and closing this one early based on WP:SNOW. Missvain (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soludo Marcel

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

Blatant UPE article on a very non notable actor and model who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR. A before search literally turns up nothing of substance. Furthermore, they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a major GNG fail as well. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does not fail WP:NACTOR especially because the subject is majorly a model. And I have given reliable sources, including Vogue. Horizonlove (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Horizonlove (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@Horizonlove, please see WP:NMODEL and show us how they satisfy it. Furthermore you are welcome to bring to this AFD, reliable sources that show the subject of the article satisfies our general notability criteria for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been unable to locate any reliable sources to support notability. Of the four sources listed in the article:

The first source is a model agency which brings back a 404 error. The main website does not even mention Soludo Marcel.
The second source is a commercial perfume sales site with no mention of Soludo Marcel.
The third source for Vogue Italy does not even mention him.
The last source is a commercial wedding directory site which does not mention him.

This article has not established notability. Moreover, the article's creator added a personal photo of Soludo Marcel. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Bias "Delete" comment made another user - Magnolia677 is a user that keeps hounding and his comment should not count to this vote. There have been too many incidents in the past where this user involved himself/herself in my edits without providing explanations of how they landed on pages I've edited, other than looking my edit history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horizonlove (talk • contribs)

Horizonlove and I have not edited the same article in over a year, and the last time we communicated on a talk page was in 2017. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did not find this page other than looking my edit history as you have always done in the past. And it is easy for our last interaction to have been a year (if it has been a year) as I stopped editing for a period of months. But I have no doubt that you have been keeping an eye on edit history since I last encounter. So again, the votes of other participating users should be accepted, but Magnolia677 should not count. He is too obsessed with me for whatever reason. Horizonlove (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first link is now a dead link but the website does mention him on their roster. The second site provides proof the model was part of that campaign (in this case "Essenza"). The third site [again] provided proof that this model walked in that fashion show and for the brand designer. The last site names models at the bottom of the page. Horizonlove (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I very carefully checked the four sources that Magnolia677 mentioned. The name "Soludo Marcel" is not mentioned in any of these sources. Not once.--- Possibly (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Possibly. Worse, the male model in the Love Weddings NG shoot is named as Marc Steel, a different person, as far as I can tell. Laplorfill (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail. This also appears to be possible promotion; the photo description given by Horizonlove is "A photo taken during a photoshoot session with Soludo Marcel in which the photographer licensed the photo to me.".--- Possibly (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete completely fails WP:GNG the sources are some unknown websites and as per comment by User:Magnolia677,many of these sources dont make even a passing reference to the subject.Ratnahastin (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Even if the sources supported that claim that they show Marcel (which they do not, see comments above) they would not be the substantial coverage required to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The photo is inappropriately "licensed" and I have tagged it on Commons as such. Laplorfill (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a BEFORE search, there is no indication that this person meets our notability requirements for WP:GNG nor WP:MODEL, and the article sourcing also does not support notability. Maybe in a few more years, but definitely not now. Netherzone (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete All we have is a couple of images of the person. No reference that appears to mention his name (can't read Italian, sorry) and not even trivial mentions elsewhere. Delete, speedily. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - there are no sources in this article to indicate that this person has any kind of notability - "This person is a model and they do modelling" is not a credible claim of significance. The only source currently in the article is his own modelling agency's website, and a search hasn't turned anything better up. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam article on a completely non-notable person; fails WP:GNG by a long, long way Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. -Xclusivzik (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff piece. scope_creep^Talk 19:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a close call. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While some sources on the current article are problematic, and the article requires clean-up, there do appear to be a number of Arabic language sources available, as Uses x notes. In fact, there is also a more developed biography on Arabic Wikipedia for review. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hanadi Alkandari

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
a Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the face of some epic overlinking, she has had multiple significant roles in Gulf TV shows and the Arabic coverage is significant, with supporting English coverage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appreciate, if someone can share best 3 sources, show name & role, instead of just false and random claims. Also, I can see that the page is been spammed by blogs links, a perfect example of Citation Overkill to confuse editors. Sonofstar (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She doesn't seem notable in the Anglosphere, but visiting the references on Google Translate or just doing a simple search of her name shows she's notable in Arabic speaking countries, with in-depth articles about her on major news sites (not just blogs). Citation overkill isn't a reason to delete the page, as the article isn't defamatory - either ignore it and leave it to someone else, or check the references and remove the irrelevant ones. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find the sources on the link you share. Having sources at some corner of the world will not help. Please share here. Sonofstar (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Uses x. Make sure you ping folks Sonofstar - not everyone watches pages or checks up on AfDs after they comment. Missvain (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonofstar Apologies, I didn't see your comment until the ping. The main citations showing she meets WP:GNG (from putting the citations through Google Translate) are from aljarida.com ([7] has an in depth interview). At a glance [25] and [26] (which appears to be a TV interview as well) also establish that as they go in detail about her. From checking the social media accounts linked on the page they seem to be notable news sites in Arabic speaking countries. That's as of this revision for if those change. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain I will keep this in mind. Uses x, I am wondering initally you told sources are not available here and shared duckduckgo. Anyways, 7 is Covid death related Interview in which she is talking about her realatives. This gossip is not considered as an indepth, independent source about her.This unreliable link is again a casual interview about her operation and then how she lose 22 Kg weight with Keto Diet. Nothing Serious now the last one, again unrealiable blogging site with no author name [1] this is about Hijab and relationship with God in her views. I don't consider them as a good source. Please share movies in which she had a lead role and or any independent source which is much more about her instead of opinion, thoughts. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Sonofstar (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[2] read this also if you think this is reliable. Sonofstar (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vlastimil Beránek

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. non notable artist Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read 'Fails WP:NARTIST' - I would have thought the artist qualifies at least under criteria #4 based on the citations contained in the original article, but I guess questions of significance and notability are extremely subjective. I can only hope the entry is not deleted, and will work on the suggestions made in the Teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackpebblemedia (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are three sources one of which is his own website, which criteria do you think he passes (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I'm not seeing it? Theroadislong (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Blackpebblemedia, I have a long-time interest in glass art, and altho I very seldom edit in that area, this might help explain why Baránek is not notable by encyclopedia standards. To clarify: if you look at the collections in which Baránek's work is included you will find that his are very minor and non-notable in comparison with his teacher-mentor Stanislav Libenský whose collections include the Metropolitan Museum of Art and many other notable museums. Therefore, it's WP:TOOSOON for Baránek, whereas Libenský and his wife, Brychtová clearly meet WP:NARTIST. Does that help to clear things up why criteria #4 of NARTIST does not apply? Netherzone (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned your long-time interest in glass art, perhaps you would be interested in improving commenting on AfD for Jan Frydrych? Anton.bersh (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After doing a BEFORE search, I was unable to find anything to substantiate the notability of this artist. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Blackpebblemedia has been blocked until doing a name change. Even after that remedied, prohibited from editing the draft directly, for COI, but may be able to identify refs on the Talk page of the article that establish notability. Or not. David notMD (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the coverage mentioned is from Yachting magazines. At first I assumed it is because he was selling work to people with superyachts. While this seems to be true, the art, or commissioned work, is flowing through a company called Crystal Caviar, as described here. We don't have any categories in WP:ARTIST that cover art produced by companies. Moreover, the art being made there is not generating reviews, collections or exhibitions, it would seem, as it is outside of the traditional gallery and museum structure. As their website says, "Every piece of crystal is made by our craftsmen. We produce art Bohemian crystal chandeliers, glass walls, mirrors for private yachts, residences, 5* hotels and spas." Now look at the shows mentioned in the article: he has "exhibited" at a half dozen yacht shows. Most of the current article is really about a company producing commissioned artworks. it might be possible to consider that for NCORP, but it's pretty clear that the types of articles they are getting are on the level of paid coverage. Overall, I would call this WP:SPAM: an advertisement for the Crystal Caviar company masquerading as an article. "--- Possibly (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- For the record, it wasn't masquerading as anything - it was always transparent, factual, accurate - and completely open to being edited in an open forum, exactly as described by Anton down below. More of that kind of altruistic approach wouldn't be too much to ask, surely.

The user blackpebblemedia has also declared on their talk page that they were editing this page as a favor to the artist. A few months before that another PR-sounding account was at it: Paulbarronmedia. I don't think I have ever seen two PR companies editing an article on an artist.--- Possibly (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- paulbarronmedia is neither a PR company, nor a company of any kind whatsoever. It's an email address for one of the operators of Black Pebble Media. The comment above is false and misleading. No need for it, Poss. Peace out.

And just to nail down the idea that his is a purely promotional article, the editor who created it Kristýna WIKI also created Jaroslav Prošek (since deleted) and Jan Frydrych. Along with Vlastimil Beránek, they are all artists represented by "Crystal Caviar".--- Possibly (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned Jan Frydrych, please note that it was recently nominated for deletion. Please take a second to comment there if you are interested. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over. As is, this article fails to establish notability, reads as a promotional piece and obviously is riddled with WP:COI problems. I think it's better to just delete it and start with a clean draft in draft space, so it's a case of WP:TNT. @Blackpebblemedia: if you are interested, I can help out with a draft by reviewing it and fixing the writing style (but not finding sources because I do not have access to offline media which could contain relevant sources). But you would need to find sources first because currently there is simply not enough to build an article with. Anton.bersh (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anton - that would be really appreciated. This is exactly the type of guidance we were first hoping for / expecting when originally submitting. What's the next step?— 2603:8001:a400:4b:f5ae:d2d6:d406:e8d6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

Please identify yourself. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 23:51, 31 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 Brecknell Willis. Missvain (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph

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

Fails GNG and does not cite any reliable sources dudhhr_Contribs 22:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 22:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are created by the same company and also fail GNG:

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

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

dudhhr_Contribs 22:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The external link actually verifies much of the high speed pantograph article so it's not accurate to say it's unsourced, just lacking in inline references. There is a lot of information out there about the topic of pantographs, and this is one of, if not the, most notable at least in the UK (my knowledge on the subject doesn't extend further afield), but most of it is in offline sources AFAIK. Google books has lots of hits but as they're all snippet view I can't use them to reference the article. It's not surprising to me that a simple web-search for a very specialised subject that was developed in the pre-internet era and is essentially little-changed since then would appear to not be notable, but google hits are not the whole story. The other two are not as notable as the high speed panto but are nonetheless encyclopaedic. At least until someone with access to the sources significantly expands the articles they would be best covered together, hence my recommending a merge. Either a single article about Brecknell Willis's pantographs, the Brecknell Willis company (although I've not looked into how notable they are outside of this topic) or types of pantographs more generally. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. How can something that "is the mainstay within the UK railway system" and has "been exported across the world" fail GNG?!? As Thryduulf noted, it merely needs better referencing (likely to be found in old, obscure speciality trade magazines). AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all with Brecknell Willis and then create a short section on said pantographs. Nightfury 08:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Anyone is free to create a redirect to Erfan (rapper) and request it for semi-protection. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angizeh (album)

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

Non notable recording failing WP:NALBUM. Sources are just download/purchase links Xclusivzik (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Supplied sources are simply track listings and likely not independent of the subject. I can't find any in my search, but that could be because they do not appear in my English-language search. No claim to notability and it's unclear if the work is remarkable in its genre as the Persian-language article appears to be virtually identical to this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect the page to the artist's article. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Erfan (rapper). Someone is bound to bring up alternatives to deletion and the primary rapper on this album does have his own article. (Which by the way raises a lot of its own notability issues, but that's another process.) Otherwise everyone above is correct about how this album received none of the notice necessary for an article of its own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by someone else. Geschichte (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naveed Ahamad Mir

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

Completely non-notable. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and appears to be written by the subject himself. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, no information. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of notability whatsoever. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that the subject is just a candidate for a local office which obviously doesn't pass WP:NPOL. There doesn't seem to be any press coverage either. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 23:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Being WP:BOLD and closing this per WP:SNOW. Missvain (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Bangwal

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

Non notable social media digital marketer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No SIGCOV, fails the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promo content only. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those “sources” are hilarious. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned by others No SIGCOV, fails the GNG. defcon5 (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deffinitelly not notable, at least not in English. (I have no idea how a 21 year old digital marketer can be notable.) Page creator, User:Wanderer kanishk, also contributed to a number of other articles which seem promotional. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, could have been speedy too! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Has been speedied previously. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatantly and utterly non-notable vanity piece. Probably needs salting, too, as it keeps cropping up. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 15:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1978–79 London Spartan League

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

Article does not pass WP:BASIC WP:GNG, I fail to see how these can ever pass GNG. The level of football was so low, there maybe one or two routine citations around. But there is nothing in-depth to support articles of this nature. Govvy (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also felt that 1985–86 South Midlands League failed GNG, and still does fail GNG was kept on a whim, individual season pages for these lower leagues are not notable. Govvy (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would the league have received newspaper coverage that year? That's the real question here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largely on a procedural basis. Two of the three AfDs started by the nominator for leagues at the same level were kept following discussions in March (1, 2). As pointed out last time (and not just by me), a better approach would be to have a centralised discussion on whether league season articles at this level are wanted or not. AfDing individual seasons is a seriously unhelpful approach that creates inconsistency on what we have and do not have articles on (as there are hundreds of articles on league seasons at this level), and I would ask the nominator to stop doing this. Also, I don't have access to newspaper archives for this era, but modern coverage of leagues at this level does pass GNG so I would be surprised if it didn't 40-50 years ago. Number 5 7 09:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this. SportingFlyer T·C 10:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improving, but I can easily find weekly results (for both divisions!) in national publications such as The Observer for 1978/1979 and fixture lists in The Guardian, along with dozens of hits from a half-dozen papers in the British Newspaper Archive from August 1977 to June 1978 (mostly articles than results). I expect searching for the 32 individual teams, would yield some decent articles as well. I can see that it's unlikely that any of the individual teams are worthy of seasons articles, but there's more than enough information out there decades later to write seasons articles for the entire league structure. And how can we have no problems with articles like 2019–20 Spartan South Midlands Football League and not with this? Or are only 21st century league seasons notable at this level? Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Nfitz: How are results in-depth? I can find results for multiple different football online, from under-16s locally to my playing days as a non-league amateur. You haven't provided an sources to your conclusion for keeping. A football result or a group of them is not grounds to keep an article or contribute towards GNG. You really would have to have something far more. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure as to whether the more recent seasons at this level are notable enough to pass GNG. There needs to be a wider discussion, though. Either they all go or they all stay. It wouldn't make sense to delete some but then let others be kept. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: The results alone don't quite establish notability, even if they are in a national (if not international, easy enough to find The Observer on a good newsstand here on the other side of the ocean, to this day on a Sunday afternoon ... well, to a day in March 2020, which is the last time I went in a newsagent). I don't currently have access to the British Newspaper Archive so I can't provide, and can only see snippets, that anyone can see in a search. This shouldn't be a surprise - we can find the occasional good article about a team's season for teams currently playing at that level, and seasons articles for those leagues are ubiquitous. Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search on a couple of the teams in the league for recent results and many of their games do get covered, it's not an every game has a journo type situation but a journo might cover one of the local teams on a given weekend and list results for the remainder. I'd assume Step 9 would be okay for a tables article based on that. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and I am not impressed by the WP:MUSTBESOURCES arguments. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here has looked yet. SportingFlyer T·C 18:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still frustrated nobody's going to the newspapers to actually check to see if this passes GNG or not. Nfitz Any examples of actual articles? SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The best place for such references is the British Newspaper Archive - and my preliminary search looked positive, but I don't have access. Perhaps someone with access can look? I'll try and dig in other sources. Nfitz (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a BNA search myself and there certainly looks to be coverage, if not of the league, of teams in the league. A newspapers.com search, which only has a few English newspapers, brought up mostly lists of results in agate, but also small blurbs of team news. It looks like the league's coverage was mostly fixture lists and results in larger papers and tabloids, and was covered significantly by papers in Harrow and Buckinghamshire. But I also can't tell because I also don't have BNA access, but it's clear from just the results there's a decent chance there is in depth reporting of the league. SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more to allow for examination in BNA or Newspapers.com archives. Perhaps someone who has access through WP:TWL or the shared resources portal could assist?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 20:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Sporting Flyer - I took a deep dive in several databases, but nothing seems to have the same newspaper coverage as the BNA, other than newspaper archive in Find My Past (which as far as I can see is just a copy of BNA) - but perhaps there's someone around who has access to that. I don't think that either are available through WP:TWL, User:Go Phightins! - just Newspapers.com, which I can access through TWL - but that seems to have little in-depth British coverage from that time period, other than 1 or 2 of the big national papers - it's great for 1940s USA soccer - less so for 1970s UK soccer. Nfitz (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The limited access I have all I see are results, which is what I saw last time I checked, I still don't see how you can in-depth season pages. I can see a page on the league passing GNG, but not season pages. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: What sort of coverage do you think is required for a season page? SportingFlyer T·C 16:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More than just results, actual match reports, it could have been covered quite well, but I don't know that, from what I've seen is why I have nominated. I don't really see the depth needed for these articles. You could also argue that a lot of these season articles at this lower level is just a load of WP:NOSTATS articles that should be deleted! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly newspaper coverage for at least two teams in the league including Bracknell Town, though the year search doesn't line up precisely with the season. I still think the WP:NOTSTATS argument needs to be made centrally before being taken to AfD. I agree the pure stats dump from nonleaguematters isn't excellent, but we've also kept really dumb US College team seasons sourced only to a reference website before since those seasons were and/or may have been covered in local papers. Considering the consensus for these has been on the side of keeping in the past such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1984–85 South Midlands League and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985–86 South Midlands League, I'd prefer if there was a broader consensus before these start getting deleted piecemeal. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per N57. I don't see what Govvy is trying to achieve by sporadically nominating individual season articles when previous AfDs of this kind have consistently resulted in keeping the articles. There is a need for a centralised discussion on these, rather than what seems to be waiting for a delete consensus on one AfD and then applying that to all other articles of the kind, so this is a procedural keep as much as anything else. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. We can’t evaluate sources that are not produced, and lack of evidence is simply that, lack of evidence. It’s on the onus of the keep voters to provide evidence of significant coverage, and speculations on existing sources is not convincing.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles just because we can't access the sources we've identified. SportingFlyer T·C 10:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s ridiculous. You are claiming sources hypothetically exist but you don’t know they exist or you would produce them here. How can we argue for or against evidence we can’t see. This is a logical fallacy. You must produce them, or in AFD terms they aren’t real.4meter4 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We know sources exist from at least a few papers from a search from the British newspaper archive. We just can't access those articles directly. SportingFlyer T·C 13:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that anyone can see the long list of articles, without seeing the contents, in the BNA - calling them "hypothetical" is surely disingenuous! It's not their existence that are hypothetical, it's the full contents, other than a handful of words in a preview, that is the issue. It's clear from what you can see, that these are written articles, rather than just league tables. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT (in reply to the above discussion about inaccessible texts, I think that's it's more likely than not that they are based on not more than routine coverage of each game; I disagree that there's a general onus on the keep !voters to produce evidence of significant coverage, but there as onus on the side that claims a concrete example of coverage is significant, to back that assertion up with something, so that it isn't completely speculative). I disagree with the procedural critique outlined by Number 57. When there is a lack of a specific procedure, the more general procedure that is in effect needs to be used, it's a robust, transparent, and inclusive way of doing things. And if the results are a little unsatisfactory for the time being, that just means that we know why a new tool of process needs to be made, but discussions can't be based on this speculative future tool, in anticipation. Individual AfDs are more than fine. Edit: those who !vote delete based on their perceived need for a centralized discussion simply need to start that centralized discussion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herve Damas

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Never played in an NFL game, according to NFL.com and Pro-Football Reference. Penale52 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in an NFL game). There's a few articles for his work with medical cannabis [3][4] but these sources don't seem independent or reliable enough to satisfy GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miami New Times is both independent and reliable. Accordingly, this feature story does constitute WP:SIGCOV IMO. That said, GNG requires such coverage in multiple reliable sources. Unless additional sources are brought forward, this does still appear to be a GNG fail. Cbl62 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the author of the article. I believe him making the NFL, as well as going to medical school, also earning his MBA, and being a drug reform advocate and medical marijuana doctor push him over the edge of notability. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned, there are a few articles on his work with medical cannabis but they are interviews and therefore WP:PRIMARY. I am not finding enough significant coverage in independent, secondary sources to meet GNG.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment Yes There are some primary sources. [5], [6], [7], but some are not such as [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14] BlackAmerican (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian J Smith

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

The "yahoo" reference is a paid advertisement placed by VIP Media Group as can be seen at the bottom. The IMDB link is empty. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG. Possible case of WP:UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somewhat sad page. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slayy Point

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

Non notable Youtube channel, Just having coverage of one event related to fund raise. Fails WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For Your kind information, he is the creator of an India wide meme trend Binod. Moreover, they also have hosted the red carpet event at YouTube fanfest and also participated in Youtube fanfest 2020. Jogesh 69 (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The more 'improvements' have been made to the page, the more I have become convinced of its lack of fundamental notability. Being the source of a 'meme' that trended for two days is not the stuff of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the verge of Speedy Delete as unambiguous promotion. Clearly not notable and fails WP:GNG. Laplorfill (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – neither WP:GNG nor WP:ENT is met. --bonadea contributions talk 09:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico Cup

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

A completely unreferenced article about a youth tournament. Fails WP:GNG, cannot even confirm it's real. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. With no sources provided and none I can find, this tournament isn't even verifiable as existing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't need season articles on youth cups, even if it does happen. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable and extremely unlikely to pass WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas La Monaca

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

Non-notable lower league Italian goalkeeper, fails WP:GNG, possibly an autobio or written by someone close to the subject. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dr Salvus 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Labour Party (UK). Missvain (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire and the Humber Labour Party

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

Non-notable regional branch of the Labour Party. No independent source coverage exists, and it is unclear what the article is for, except to list some unsourced election results. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Labour Party (UK) as ATD, otherwise delete. Mccapra (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - seems fair. I do not think it is notable enough to have an article in itself as generally regional organisations of national parties in non-devolved areas are not notable. Dunarc (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Surveys of scientists' views on climate change. Missvain (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

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

This article does not seem to meet the WP:GNG. The scientific article did stir up a lot of attention on the climate denial blogosphere and some routine response within the scientific literature (f.i. a one-paragraph commentary, as cited, and a commentary by Richard Tol), but has minimal coverage outside of that (opinion pieces Tol is all I could find). The article mostly duplicates information from Surveys of scientists' views on climate change, so could be merged there, but I don't think it has much use as a redirect, considering the length of the title. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the "Surveys" article Scientific papers are relatively high result on google and other sites, and more than 200 pageviews in the last month seem to suggest its marginally useful. Sadads (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 days ago this article was rubbish. Now one could keep it. But it was quite some work. --Hg6996 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above as Surveys of scientists' views on climate change is not very long. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: good idea! --Hg6996 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect as above (depending on whether the additional material is considered worth adding). I actually think that this topic has received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and that a standalone would thus be okay by the letter of the law, but I can't see any benefit for the reader from having it spun off like that. The paper is much better treated in context, as a subsection. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be the best idea, as other authors have already stated. Andol (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Kudusay

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

Contested prod. Prod was contested, incorrectly, because editor thought I prodded it due to the fact the subject was from South Sudan. In fact, the only thing I stated in the prod was notability was not established. The same editor removed a speedy because he says touring in another country indicates notability. I see nothing in this article to show he toured in another country and I would argue that if a musician lives within a short distance of another country, say in Seattle, it would be easier for him to perform in Vancouver than Miami as far as travel time and so on. So the unreferenced comment about touring in other countries, IMHO, means nothing. As the article is written right now, the subject is not notable. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference that was in the article before I had even seen it was about him touring Australia, many thousands of miles from South Sudan, so the Seattle/Vancouver analogy is irrelevant and the word "unreferenced" in the nomination statement is untrue. The reference that I added identified the subject as one of the top 12 all-time artists from South Sudan. As I said when I contested the WP:PROD tag, would we not accept as obvious notability being identified as one of the top 12 artists from a smaller country such as Belgium or Sweden? ThurstonMitchell, can you really, hand on heart, say that you would have nominated this for deletion if the subject had been from a Western country? And, anyway, isn't it demonstrated that the subject passes the general notability guideline? And am I asking too many questions here? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep poor written article are Not a reason for Deletion , the musician seems to be Notable , after my google search verification i found some sources about him wish i have added to the article . this article need a lot of improvement ... Samat lib (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In conducting a WP:BEFORE search, the subject does not receive significant coverage in multiple reliably and independently secondary sources which indicates they fail WP:GNG. One can question the reason for the nomination if they want but I focused on the subject of the article which is really what is important. It does not matter how many countries the subject toured in. It does not matter how the article is written either. AfD is not article clean-up. It really doesn't matter what sources are or are not provided in the article so long as they exist but they have to exist and must be verifiable. If someone can provide three independent and reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage then I will re-evaluate my assessment. --ARose Wolf 17:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Can be found at Draft:List of best-selling Latin albums. Missvain (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling Latin albums

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

I am proposing that these article be deleted for several reasons:

1) As mentioned in the maintenance tag, there are questionable sources being used. More importantly, there's the lack of sources from certification authorities which brings up my next point...

2) The lack of online certification databases in Latin America. The only countries with certification databases are Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico and even then they are incomplete. Mexico's certification database only goes back to 1999 while Argentina's certification database stops at 2011. At one point, Uruguay had an online database, but only really briefly (from 1999-2002). Without a comprehensive database from Latin America, there's not much to go on sales from Spanish-speaking countries. The only realistic way of getting sales from Latin America is by IFPI Latin America, which is far as I can tell, do not provide it.

3) Then there's the question what qualifies as a "Latin album" on this list. There isn't an international organization that defines makes an album "Latin" for album sales. Contrast that with the list that I worked on List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States in which Billboard and the RIAA define Latin music anything sung predominately sung in Spanish since both organizations track sales of Latin albums in the US. There's the Latin Recording Academy which is an international organization that defines Latin music as music sung in Spanish and Portuguese, but they do not deal with album sales. Which leads to another problem I have this article...

4) It also happens to lists albums by artists who happened to be of Hispanic/Latine heritage. This goes in tangent with my third point, but without a reliable source on whether these should also qualify as Latin albums, it completely goes against original research. Otherwise, are we also going to list albums by artists who also happen to be of Hispanic/Latine heritage like Christina Aguilera, Cardi B, and Melanie Martinez? Granted, Aguilera did release one Latin album (Mi Reflejo), but that's just one album and it would be odd to include her other albums since she happens of Ecuadorian on her father's side.

These points are also why I support deleting list of best-selling Latin music artists as well since that list doesn't source what makes an artist "Latin". Unless IFPI Latin America suddenly lists the best-selling albums, I can't support this article's existence like with the Latin albums in the US since the article only lists one source for album and none from certifying bodies. Erick (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You make really good points across this. However, I have to point out that most of the sources are reliable. For the second point, I'm on board with you, but there are other sources like the ones in the articles, you don't need online certifications databases if you have Billboard, Antena 3, MTV ad various Spanish outlets claiming the sales. I think the biggest issue here is point 4. There are artists like Enrique Iglesias and Shakira that have released albums in both languages and even in "spanglish". The examples you pointed out are not the best, Cardi B and Melanie Martinez, despite their heritage don't sing in Spanish besides a few words in a couple of songs. I guess the point made for Christina Aguilera is better, but I would be looking for artists like the ones I previously mentioned. Nevertheless, if we include these artists the sales of those "English" albums are also going to be included. Unless those artists are removed, but if they are removed then it would be an inaccurate list. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify both lists. Per WP:LSC, lists need to have a selection criteria which is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. These lists do not have such criteria, so I propose to take them offline, discuss the criteria and after consensus is achieved, put them back online. At the same time, address the lack or unreliability of sources, specifically the "music genre" column should be removed.--Muhandes (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Muhandes, MarioSoulTruthFan You both bring up good points. In the event the article gets draftify, I some ideas on how to incorporate a complete inclusiveness of Latin albums by noting how sources differ on their definition of Latin music by either language or genre (which I can back up with a source). The ideal list would Latin albums that include both by language (Spanish or Portuguese) and/or genre (Latin or one of its subgenres). I have sources that can back up Portuguese-language albums to be included in addition to Spanish-language albums. For the genre, the sources should explicitly say that the album is Latin or any of its subgenres like Latin pop, tropical urban, or Regional Mexican, but not "Latin-influenced". This would include not only English-language albums that explicitly stated to be "Latin" by music journalists, but also instrumental Latin albums as well. Basically the list will have sources that several organizations use language while music journalists use genres so that Latin albums can be included in either criteria. I also want to base it on List of best-selling albums (with a lower threshold of course) and using the certified copies part (the RIAA's Latin certifications would come really handy in this). What do you two think of this proposal? Erick (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Muhandes, MarioSoulTruthFan, I have made an example of the list on my sandbox combining both this list and List of best-selling albums. I tried to be as inclusive as possible on the criteria for inclusion on the prose. Tagging Brankestein, AJona1992, FanDePopLatino, Jaespinoza, آرمین هویدایی, Mauri96, 88marcus, Apoxyomenus, Richard3120 as they usually involved in Latin music articles for their thoughts. Feel free to edit my sandbox! Erick (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: Looks fine. BTW, Ibero-America also applies as a term for music, culture or politics with both Spanish and Portuguese sphere if "Latin" word is such a problematic one. Perhaps those bilingual (English/Spanish) releases such as Sale el Sol or Jon Secada need to be lumped in another section within the list. I also agreed with you about issues with sources because many of them are just questionable. There is even a source from a forum (Foro Univisión) and some or all releases have inflated sales as well. Using certifications column will be helpful but we could also have two figures such as List of best-selling music artists. And finally (isn't a big deal for me), we can have another section with releases recorded in Spanish/Portuguese by non-"Latinos" such as many releases that fit the figure for inclusion such as many by Laura Pausini, Mi Reflejo by Christina Aguilera etc because among other things, they (those releases) have also received the tag "Latin music". Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apoxyomenus, Thanks for your input. Since the article is called "best-selling Latin albums", not "best-selling albums by Latin artists", I don't think a separate section is needed for nationality for non Latine artists and it's fine to include "Mi Reflejo". In fact, I am against including a nationality section at all. I was just going to mention Laura Pausini as well because a lot of Italian pop artists in the 90s and 00s released Spanish-language versions of their hits which became a success in Spanish-speaking markets. That's why I think only the Spanish/Portuguese versions of those albums should count. I mention "predominately" in the sandbox, because music industry tends to use "51% or more" in Spanish/Portuguese as a threshold, meaning the whole album doesn't have to be entirely sung in either language. In the case of Sale el Sol, it is mostly sung in Spanish which is why it ranked on Billboard's Latin Albums chart, whereas Jon Secada's self-titled mostly sung in English and is why it didn't rank on the same chart. EDIT: Changed "predominantly" to"mostly", what do you think? Also the list would also include instrumental Latin albums as well like a Latin jazz album.. Erick (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magiciandude I like what you did with your sandbox. Don't include artists' columns as that gets back to the same problem I pointed out. Once you get all the sources you ned. You can replaced it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- MarioSoulTruthFan, Thanks! For the artists part, my proposal is that the album, not the artist, should be considered "Latin" either by language (Spanish or Portuguese per sources) or genre-wise (considered to be "Latin" by music journalists for non Spanish/Portuguese albums). That way, an album can be listed for either reason. I want to be as inclusive as I can for the list within reason. Erick (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erick I agree that combining both articles together will make it better instead of just deleting them both. I also think that using your sandbox will make it easier for us and give enough time to find reliable sources to properly make edits. I will contribute to the article when I have time. Thanks! FanDePopLatino (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as proposed by Muhandes. Azuredivay (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Muhandes. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sripada Ramachandra Rao

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

The subject is a filmmaker. However, only one of their work, Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Charitra (2014) has an article but no are reviews cited. The sources in the article are either unreliable or WP:ROUTINE film coverage, which do not talk about the subject in depth. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NDIRECTOR.

WP:BEFORE did not help much. The author of the article may have a WP:COI but they removed the tag without any explanation. Ab207 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following is the source assessment of all the 13 citations in the article. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Ab207
TOI		~ WP:TOI; Major newspaper	Only name and image	✘ No
Bookmyshow		Online ticket booking site	Brief profile	✘ No
Moviebuff	? User generated	Date basesite	Passing mention	✘ No
Ragalahari	Press release	Self published website	Passing mention	✘ No
Sakshi	Press release	Major newspaper	Passing mention	✘ No
Filmibeat		Database site	Passing mention	✘ No
Sulekha	? User generated	Database site	Passing mention	✘ No
Filmibeat		Database site	Passing mention	✘ No
TOI	Press release	~ WP:TOI	Passing mention	✘ No
Indiancinemagallery	?	Self published website	Passing mention	✘ No
Ragalahari	?	Self published website	Passing mention	✘ No
Youtube	?	Making video	Making video	✘ No
Subject's website	Paper clippings of press releases; published around the same date (1 April 2018)	All are major newspapers	Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per the excellent work of Ab207. Fails WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone us able to find RIS in Telugu that I can’t identify. Mccapra (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've ran a Telugu-language search but found nothing substantial. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per User:Superastig. Missvain (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DWHQ

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hypersonic Broadcasting Center#FM stations; WP:CHEAP Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The station is licensed per last year's NTC listing as it indicates an operator having a station. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BCAST per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Astig. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Superastig.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Rationale of nominator is without basis in policy. Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geliyoo

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

The page is already live on Turkish Wikipedia and the links are in Turkish on English Wikipedia. It does not match the notability criteria. Yucksy (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Wikipedia is not a site for conflict of interest. Yucksy asked for the page to be deleted. However, you cannot delete a company, institution or organization that has been the subject of many independent sources. I think there is a conflict of interest in this work. The page must remain. It does not violate the Wikipedia rules. It seems that the Turkish page has remained stable since 2013. Considering that a Turkish company has an English page and has a stable version, THE PAGE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY STAY. Do not delete the page.[15] [16] It also reinforces the notion that Yucksy is doing this job for profit, right after the news of the company executive comes out. The page has existed for years, and a few days after the news came out, Yucksy requested to be deleted. CyberBlockchain (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the reason given to delete is vague at best, the nominator doesn't really say why it doesn't meet the criteria. I think the company has been the subject of enough independent and reliable sources to warrant notability. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my very own findings and outcome, I will totally disagree to the article deletion suggestion, as the topic is notable enough and adequately cited to fit in English Wikipedia standardDaxhton (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Artus

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

Massively over the top promotional lovefest for non notable actor. None of his roles appear good for WP:NACTOR. He lacks independent coverage about him in reliable sources. Best sourcing I found was about a restraining order given to him [17] but that was removed from the article over BLP concerns. Otherwise the sourcing is passing mentions and primary. Nothing good for gng. Even if there is some notability here this promo should go and allow someone independent to start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like pretty blatant paid or COI editing, fails WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having grown up in Watford and lived for the past 27 years overseas, it was a delight to see the good old Watford Observer being quoted as a source. Not sure that confers notability, though... Other sources are barely better. Personally, I preferred the story about the lizard rescued after getting stuck under pub decking but that's probably another Ashley Artus... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Nagar

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

Failing the notability criteria. No reliable refrences. PangolinPedia 11:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of playing significant roles (other than a single episode on a TV show) to meet WP:NACTOR. Not enough coverage for WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:06, 31 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 procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KiwiMan) and no !votes for deletion are otherwise present, so procedurally closing at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion by a user in good standing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Gillespie

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

~~This article is just all gossip and promotion. Come on Wikipedia. Check the sources.~~ KiwiMan (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede 66 17:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and improve obvious bad-faith nomination by blocked sockpuppet, already passes WP:BASIC and plenty of WP:RS for her in GNews. Wikishovel (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Gillespie

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

So I wasnt able to create the 2nd AfD link here - but these pieces that this article is sourced too are all written by the company she works for. Please check but I dont believe this radio host is notable. All paid for press releases and articles. DominikRuben (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heaps of articles on her. https://www.google.com/search?q=Pauline+Gillespie&client=ms-android-huawei&prmd=inv&sxsrf=ALeKk00f9Pa4gaHLkT4pCzO4aylXTGQBhg:1622377459371&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjD36CBs_HwAhV2zTgGHbw2BNsQ_AUoAnoECAIQAg&biw=360&bih=630&dpr=2 Nexus000 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Previous AfD is in this page's history, Special:PermaLink/758592538. In my opinion the nominator is a sock of the same nominator. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:BASIC and the multiple independent and reliable sources added to the article; she was one of "New Zealand's highest-profile broadcasters" and one of the "household names on New Zealand radio for decades" (New Zealand Herald), and a magazine columnist (Newshub) and has recently released an autobiography (Seven Sharp, Otago Daily Times). Biographical information is also available: (New Zealand Herald, New Zealand Herald). Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad faith nomination made by sock. dudhhr_Contribs 22:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per above as maybe a bad faith nomination made by sock. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Someone that knows how, close this as keep and WP:SNOW. Nominator has since been banned. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) dudhhr_Contribs 19:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay-Jay Feeney

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

I am sorry but I do believe that sources here are just puff pieces. Should be relooked at. Looks like it is written by the subject themselves.

Update - I am looking through this article. The previous sources are from the subjects twitter and published book. They are not reliable sources. The rest of the sources that are still there are just from news outlets, similar to a tabloid. So where does all the rest of the information come from. It seems to be written by the subject themselves or an agent. But it's not a notable article unless someone can prove me wrong. DominikRuben (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. https://www.google.com/search?q=jay-jay+feeney&sxsrf=ALeKk01xm6z-lRPlTrOTq4PtY-9Y3bWOeg:1622408923474&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjgl8GcqPLwAhXa4jgGHVxyDmgQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1280&bih=633&dpr=1 Nexus000 (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable figure in NZ radio and media. The article has been reworked since nomination to provide evidence of this. Ajf773 (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's poor form to nominate an article for deletion and simultaneously remove 25% of the content. pburka (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, based on the sources in and added to the article, and other sources that appear to WP:NEXIST; Feeney is a high profile radio star for over two decades and has authored two books. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Also, multiple wins at the New Zealand Radio Awards. Beccaynr (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Someone that knows how, close this as keep and WP:SNOW. Nominator has since been banned. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. Closed without action because the nominator and sole participant has been blocked as a sock. Can be renominated by good-faith editors. Sandstein 06:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jessop

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

Non Notable YouTuber. Puff pieces. Maybe it needs to be rewritten. DominikRuben (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rizayev Jasur Alimdjanovich

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

Previously deleted and declined multiple times. Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russian-related deletion discussions. Dr. Universe (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prior deletion was purely procedural, but he fails WP:NACADEMIC and a rector is not a notable function. AND he fails WP:ANYBIO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now recognise rector position argument and as head of the Samarkand State Medical Institute he would be notable. Egg/face occlusion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'rector' can mean different things in different countires. If in this case it's the highest position in the university, then he passes NPROF 6 and should be kept. Eccekevin (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: I'm curious how you see that it's been deleted in the past? Do you just remember the AfD discussion? Or is there a way to see that it was deleted in the past? Dr. Universe (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Universe, jumping in here... it was deleted through Prod, not AfD, and was purely procedural since it was a redirect to a non-existent page. You can check that on the article where it says "prev dels" at the top next to the page title. Here's the link. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:onel5969. The link to the deletion log was useful. I cannot see where it says "prev dels" on the article next to the page title though. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Universe, hmmm... I think that might be something you need to "turn on". Not sure which of the java scripts on my preferences does it. Or it might be one of the other boxes you check off. Not sure, and just browsed through to see if anything popped out at me. It didn't unfortunately. You might ask over at the Teahouse if you're interested in it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for dropping in, Onel5969! Dr. Universe it's a doohickey called XFD Closer, which you can find in your Preferences under 'gadgets'. It adds a bunch of useful thingies, including 'logs', which lets you see previous deletions and other page actions. It also lets you close AfDs etc, but needs to be used with caution/within guidelines for closing. Like Twinkle, it's actually easy to access for such a powerful red button!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Alexandermcnabb: I think it would be a very bad idea to encourage someone starting out in this area to try closing XFDs. Closing XFDs needs experience and we don't have a huge shortage of people willing to do it. (Wikimedia commons, on the other hand...) Anyway, you should also be able to see what happened to the page if you go to the page history and click on the "View logs for this page" link, just under the page title. In this case, I think onel5969 is incorrect about it being deleted by prod. It was not deleted at all. It was moved to another variation of the same name, draftified, and that draft still exists at Draft:Jasur Alimdjanovich Rizayev. The redirects left over from the move were deleted but that's just a technical speedy deletion, not even a prod. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @David Eppstein: I agree and hope my comments weren't construed as encouragement for anyone to start closing things - "but needs to be used with caution/within guidelines for closing" wasn't meant to be construed as 'fill your boots and close stuff'. However, the tool IS in default preferences. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @David Eppstein: - hi. I only have access to the deletion log, which is what I was basing my comments on. Without admin tools I do not think it is possible to ascertain the process you describe above. If it is possible, I'd love to know how. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as doesn't seem to pass WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seemingly like some others, I misunderstood what rector meant. :( -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: does the rectorship meet WP:NPROF C6? I know that in many central-european institutions, that is the highest administrative position. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I agree with Russ about the rectorship, and even without that, the 29 books is to me impressive for someone in a region where we typically don't see a lot of notable academics having Wikipedia articles. Keep in mind WP:SYSTEMIC and the lack of coverage (and lack of Wikipedians) we have from Uzbekhistan. I agree the article would benefit from a lot of improvement, but calls for this can be done with the template (which is already at the top of the article) rather than entirely deleting the article. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is the chief editor of several scientific journals, the author of many books and the rector of one of the largest universities in his country. That's more than enough in terms of notability. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It does seem he holds the highest administrative position at Samarkand State Medical Institute. I do want to note he didn't publish 29 books, he co-edited or contributed sections to a couple textbooks and authored some papers. Even if he had written 29 books solo we'd still need multiple book reviews and/or citations for that to matter for notability. He doesn't meet C8 with his editorship, as the journals [18] [19] [20] are not independent of his employment (they are published by SSMI) and aren't major well-established academic journals (only indexed by GS, CrossRef, and Elibrary). Also, it looks like his publications in both English and Cyrillic call him "Zhasur Rizaev" (Жасур Ризаев) but his university calls him either Rizaev Zhasur Alimdzhanovich or Rizayev Jasur Alimdjanovich; it would be helpful if someone with O'zbek or Russian background could comment on the proper COMMONNAME. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why the table on the main page listed "page numbers" for the book. Maybe they were only book chapters. Samarkand State Medical Institute (founded in 1930) is not even listed on the Uzbekistan article even though Westminster International University in Tashkent (established in 2002) and Turin Polytechnic University in Tashkent (established in 2009) are listed (it seems all universities, or at least the non-Russian ones, listed in the Uzbekistan article were established in the last 20 years, including TEAM University Tashkent which got university status in 2020). The 500 citations, h-index of 12 and i10-index of 20 on Google Scholar seems unusually large for a 46-year-old in Uzebkistan, especially since it seems all of his degrees were done locally, though his website says he's done "advanced training in France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Switzerland, Linchenstein, Korea, Japan" which would have needed funding that I suspect would not be easy to get if he was not notable in some way. However now I see that a large amount of the Wiki article seems to have been taken directly from https://www.sammi.uz/ru/pages/rector. I have changed my !vote from "keep" to "weak keep". I'm mindful of WP:SYSTEMIC bias in the coverage of articles and considering if we apply the "regular" NACADEMIC criteria we might end up with nearly 0 articles about academics in some countries/categories. I've listed this in the AfDs for "russian" related articles to get more people to look at it, per JoelleJay's comment. Dr. Universe (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he indeed meets C6 the article should be kept, but if there's substantial COPYVIO it might need to be TNT'd and rewritten. The Rector website was last edited 21/4/5 so it does predate at least this version of our article, but I am not experienced in determining COPYVIO versus acceptable paraphrasing so best to ask at the relevant noticeboard if this is a concern. I'm guessing it's harder to prove plagiarism for translated/transliterated material though. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I wrote some years ago for Jiri Cizek and Donald James LeRoy got deleted almost instantly for "copyright violations" even though I had paraphrased and never came even close to copy-pasting. Yes, I determined that the article was almost entirely taken from the rector website based on Google Translate. The Wiki article is also in different languages though, so maybe those will match closer with the Rector website. I think it does indeed seem that the subject meets C6 and I'd say even C1 considering the subject's circumstances, but it does seem the article could benefit from a lot of work. Dr. Universe (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NPROF 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. If indeed he is rector of Samarkand State Medical Institute, he passes that criterion easily. Eccekevin (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - realized I didn't !vote before when I responded to a comment. I made the same mistake years ago in not realizing that Rector was the highest admin position at some Asian colleges/universities. Passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C6. JoelleJay (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus now clearly indicates that the rectorship meets WP:NPROF C6, but I wanted to close the open loop of my early comment. I suggest removing the list of "books", which are mostly not actually books, from the article. (An energetic editor could replace it with a bulleted list of actual books, but it looks difficult to me to separate, especially without language proficiency.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duck and Cover (South African band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND, advertisement. Geschichte (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncontroversial WP:GNG fail. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn’t find anything. They don’t appear in any reliable sources. Fails WP:BAND -Xclusivzik (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:BAND no reliable sources available. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Reliable sources. Fails WP:BAND. Aishaa14 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Beauty

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

With just 2 high quality press mentions (one is at The Washington Post), both of which date back to 2017 and 2018, the band doesn't seem to pass WP:NMUSIC. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncontroversially unnotable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press coverage meets criteria 1 of WP:BAND. Gamaliel (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BAND? We're looking at a 300 word short in WaPo noting they have just released an online single and being mentioned in a listicle in Paste Magazine counting as "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works"??? Just checkin'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . the washington post call them . new band in town . there are still new and upcoming , i see NO evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and it is WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chindamanee School English Program

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

Non-notable school. Article virtually unsourced, only supported by citation of the school's own website, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media and directory listings etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability in article or search. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. VV 10:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable school and doesn't pass GNG. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable school which doesn't pass GNG. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Sonofstar (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete The available sourcing is complete garbage and the consensus is overwhelming on the side of deleting the article. So there's zero reason to continue the AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Being WP:BOLD and closing this one early per WP:SNOW and SALTing. Missvain (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zennic

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

Non-notable musician, fail of WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. nearlyevil 665 09:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Previously moved into the draft. Fails WP:SINGER GermanKity (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt with vigour if not vinegar. Good grief, speedy deleted twice AND draftified twice, brought back yet again. Frankenstein's article, this needs to stop. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt agree with previous comments and nominator, non-notable musician JW 1961^Talk 13:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New links were added after the article was draftified. It was a Start class article with continuous edits going on to improve the content. Don't feel the need to be deleted.
Speedy delete and salt. A7 candicate, aggressively promoted by one editor (and an "unrelated" IP voting keep here as well), deliberately creating fake sources. After the first drafting or deletion, suddenly an "interview" appeared at Medium.com (where anyone can post anything) by "Samara Lopez", "A professional writer with over 10 years’ experience with Rolling Stone and Mashable as a writer.", about whom nothing else can be found. Promoting an artist, OK, but faking sources and interviews to get into enwiki? Delete, salt, and considering getting rid of the editor as well. Fram (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
- - An article should speak for itself, and this article does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria, or general notability.
  - A draft has also been created, possibly to game the system and prevent moving this article back into draft space.
  - The title should be ECP salted in article space to prevent further creation by sockpuppets or throw-away accounts.
  - A comment on the unsigned Keep !votes is that one of them is by the originator and one is by an IP, also probably the originator.
  - This is a content forum, and discussion of banning an editor should be somewhere else.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zennic 2, where two drafts have also been nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt; way too many repeated creations to assume good faith to. Either fancruft or WP:PAID, either way, it's WP:NOT what we're here for. ——Serial 16:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't qualify WP:NMUSICIAN. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being mentioned on a music writer's playlist does not establish notability. Still heavily promotional. Should not have gotten out of draft status, but now that it has, here we are. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salt too, the drafts were earlier copies created by the same SPA but moved by editors to draft, so it never really got developed in draft. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Maximum Games#Modus Games. ✗plicit 11:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modus Games

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

Videogame sub-brand does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is either WP:PASSING mentions or WP:ROUTINE stories about the brand's launch and buyouts. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on whether or not this should be kept as an independent article, but favour a merge to Maximum Games#Modus Games over an outright deletion, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I agree that this merger is another option. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lowercaserho. --Velvetune! t • c 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pasig Christian Academy

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article only has two primary references and all I could find was some trivial name drops in school directories. Along with an article about a student from the school winning a spelling bee. Which, unfortunately, is not enough to make this pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Nothing notable based on the WP criteria (GNG and NSCHOOL and NORG). Kolma8 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russna Kaur

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

BLP of a young artist who has some exhibitions and won a prize but does not meet WP:ARTIST. Probably too soon. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't get beyond WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to have been created as part of an educational assignment. [21] I do not know how this subject was selected, but it is probably a disappointing experience for a student to see one's work get deleted. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that an writing about an emerging artist is a poor choice. By definition, emerging is not notable. As a subject, a recent MFA graduate (2019) working as a sessional instructor at the same school where they graduated, written by a student at that same school is less than ideal. I'd be interested to hear from the instructor MagnoliaPauker, why this subject was assigned for the class. I suspect there may be something we missed. It is not mentioned in the article for example that one of the "notable works" listed in the infobox was acquired by the Vancouver Art Gallery for its permanent collection [22]. Vexations (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I added to the article the collection that Vexations found. A search did not find more collections, but she seems to be doing Museum shows (example). Notability is borderline, but I think it's pretty obvious it's heading in the direction of being clear, fairly soon. Regarding cutting special breaks for substandard student work, I don't think this is a good idea. We are building an encyclopedia, not training students; in many ways their needs are irrelevant to our mission, and I am unaware of another group that gets a special break for creating poor articles. --- Possibly (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, I did not mean to imply that we should lower our standards for articles submitted by students. I frequently see students or new participants at edit-a-thons working on articles that have been suggested by them. When I make such a suggestion, I only do so when I'm sure that the subject can pass an AfD. I assume/hope that organizers and instructors do the same. So when such an article comes up at AfD, I think it would be helpful to hear from the student and the instructor. Unfortunately, I too often see that the creators have already stopped editing Wikipedia by the time the article is nominated, so we don't hear from them. That's a missed opportunity. Vexations (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete there's not much to go on besides one of her works being in the collection of the Vancouver Art Gallery. The sources are mainly from the Burrard Arts Foundation, where she showed her work, or the Emily Carr University of Art and Design, where she's an instructor. Apart from that, there's a media release and a small town newspaper article. I would need to see more independent sourcing to change my vote. Curiocurio (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The artist doesn't qualify for WP:NARTIST at this point. All coverage is passing or local Richmond BC papers. One art at the VAG isn't enough to qualify as being a notable artist. WP:TOOSOON. When I host edit-a-thons and consult on educational editing events I always review every subject, before people invest time in writing articles about it, to ensure the subject meets notability. I hope others will do the same in the future. Missvain (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in depth Coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Parents for Education Foundation#Member schools. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PAREF Northfield School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Private schools are not inherently notable and therefore have to pass WP:NORG. More so if they are secondary schools. Given that, the basis for keeping this would be adequate sourcing so it is notable. The problem is though, said sourcing clearly does not exist. Either from the article, which lacks any references, and also from what I was unable to find when I did a search. Since as things turned out there was just a few brief name drops in articles about other things. Nothing that addresses the school directly and in-depth as required though. So, this clearly fails WP:NORG. Likely WP:GNG also (not that it matters). --Adamant1 (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parents for Education Foundation. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pace Academy (Quezon City)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Law & Order (franchise)#Location. Merge as an WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson University

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

Name of fictional university that appears in a number of unrelated works, from comics to some TV dramas. Basically a WP:FANCRUFTy list of "works that this name appears in". The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Ineligible for prod (was tried in 2011, declined), so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is significant coverage here. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find sources such as Secrets of Hudson University; New York Times; Scouting NY; Hudson University in New York;Dick Grayson's College;&c. As it has become generic across several fictional universes, like Oxbridge, a separate page is necessary. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, The first source cites the NYT piece. The NYT is a good start but it misses the comic book angle. The third is a blog. Fourth just screams unreliable (another blog or such). Fifth is about comics only. I don't think we are meeting the threshold for GNG/SIGCOV, plus arguably the use of the name in TV and in comic books are separate issues. Really, NYT is the only half-decent source here and I don't think it is enough to build an entire article on. Maybe a redirect to Law & Order would be ok, except the entity is not even mentioned there at all (WP:EASTEREGG issues...). No prejudice to it being mention in some List of DC comics locations, I guess. But a SYNTH list trying to argue this entity is notable b/c it appears in a number of works is not a good idea. You know, OR, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The NYT piece is not half-bad, but everything else is either derivative from it, plain unreliable, or mentions the entity in passing. Few paragraphs in NYT are not enough to make something notable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The overall topic doesn't meet the standards to pass WP:GNG, so it doesn't need an article at this time. TTN (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just deleting this information after the New York Times article shows that it is a topic of general interest seems a disservice to the users of Wikipedia to me. But of course policy want's other arguments, too: In addition we have the Screen Rant article, which I don't see at all as a mention in passing. That is about the comics version, true. But if these were not separate topics, WP:GNG would be fulfilled, right? In addition to the presented secondary sources, the Gothamist also has a short article dedicated entirely to the subject: Most Dangerous College In NYC: "Hudson University", and that ties the TV and the comic version together, so this is neither original research nor synthesis. The same is supported by a section dedicated to Hudson University in FLASHBACK: All Star Team Up (s01e18). On another note, I would not be fundamentally opposed to a merge, but given the broad distribution of this fictional entity (which is what makes it so interesting!) I did not find any parent article where it would reasonably fit. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, a summary of TV appearances/significance, based on the NYT piece, would belong in the Law & Order. As for the comic side, it is pretty poorly documented (outside plot summary), so I am not sure if there is anything to rescue here - the location can be mentioned briefly in relevant plot summaries but doesn't deserve a stand-alone article unless it has been the subject of SIGCOV going beyond ALLPLOT, which doesn't seem to be the case. It's interesting that the same location appears in diverse media, but sadly, I don't see this fact being discussed in reliable sources. Unless I missed some more significant reception/analysis of the comic book side? (And even that, arguably we are talking about two entities here: Hudson University (television) and Hudson University (DC Comics), whose merging together appears like a WP:SYNTH. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the article in the Gothamist that seemingly ties the TV & DC comics version together is using this very Wikipedia article as its source to do so, so I don't think we could actually count that one as a reliable source due to that. Rorshacma (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Law & Order (possibly the filming section) which is where it mostly appears, incorporating info from the NYT article. The other appearances in fiction are less relevant._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Law & Order (franchise)#Location as its most notable use is as a recurring setting across the franchise. The only strong source here is the NYT and otherwise Hudson is just a mention in the other fictional properties. Merger is a satisfactory alternative to deletion and compromise based on the above discussion. czar 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Law & Order (franchise)#Location - The only genuinely in-depth coverage in a reliable source is the NYT article, which is mostly on the specific version that reoccurs in the Law and Order franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is towards the place meeting WP:GEOLAND (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 17:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virochannagar

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Fairly smaller neighbourhood in Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad has 48 Wards (which denotes large neighbourhoods) in 7 Zones and Virochannagar is not in them. See Zone/Ward list. There is no reference as well since 2018. -Nizil (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. No legal recognition to meet WP:GEOLAND nor coverage for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep changing my vote as per updated source. Meets GEOLAND. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have cited a source showing that this is legally recognised and has a population of over 7,000. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recorded as a location within the official Census of India. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This isn't a neighbourhood, it's apparently a separate village altogether. The Ahmadabad census district handbook lists it as such, and according to the map on page 235 it's located a few kilometres outside of Ahmadabad city limits. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PRince (cartoon character)

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

Fails GNG. Almost zero in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. M4DU7 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails SIGCOV, a few passing mentions here and there. The only source that focuses on him is an obviously rewritten press-release [23]. Interested editors may note that a related article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Point Foundation was just AfDed recently by User:M4DU7, while I prodded PR-e-Sense for a good measure). PR indeed... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by blocked user who has been COI/UPE filling WP with cruft linked to Prime Point. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current coverage seems unsatisfactory to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kabirchowk

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Fairly smaller neighbourhood in Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad has 48 Wards (which denotes large neighbourhoods) in 7 Zones and Kabirchowk is not in them. See Zone/Ward list. Nizil (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source provided is some sort of map name database and "areas" are not automatically notable. I'll note this user has created several dozen similar articles that may also need to go. Reywas92^Talk 01:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No legal recognition to meet WP:GEOLAND nor coverage for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aishaa14 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fox Canning

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

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG, he has received some passing mentions for being killed at the Battle of Waterloo, but has not received any mentions longer than about a sentence for that event or any other. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does, indeed. He's also in the National Portrait Gallery collection alongside a load of other officers in an engraving by Thomas Heaphy of 'Field Marshall the Duke of Wellington KG Giving Orders to his Generals Previous to a General Action'. And that's about as notable as we get... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of passing mentions of his death at Waterloo but lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Aishaa14 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zaur Kamal

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

PROD removed by ip address. References do not show notability of the subject. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

famous person. He is well known in his country and abroad. resources are good. please review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.244.124.28 (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are WP:ROUTINE coverage and do not support claims of notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Showman, radio DJ, journalist, TV presenter." And notable for none of 'em. Passing media mentions fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aishaa14 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urmila Jain Bhaya

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

Doesn't meet our guideline on the notability of politicians because she was never actually elected to office. There doesn't seem to be any substantial coverage about her, and she can't inherit notability from her husband. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncontroversially a WP:GNG fail. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly lacks SIGCOV, fails the GNG. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Owlf 📪 12:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NPOL or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any source which is individually showing her notability. Aishaa14 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enough for me. I'm deleting and salting. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Neupane

:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) winning some poem competitions doesn't makes anyone eligible for having an article on wp, only having one or two RS does'nt allows the person to be considered as notable, Other Experienced editors must discuss about this page !! Suryabeej (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I had AFD'ed the page after finding it had been AFD'ed 3-4 times and lacks sufficient refs, as the page wasn't refered properly, I now searched in depth and found few more wp:rs which I feel MIGHT allow him to pass GNG weakly thus I am withdrawing this AFD, I don't have objection if any other editor feels like afding it, but I feel it soft-passes the GNG criteria. Sorry My bad. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 07:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the new source you added is a copy of this source and you added this source which is written by same author who wrote most of his articles. And this is a contributor post. Don't know WHO or WHAT changed your mind and I feel something is wrong here. Regards. JAHANZAIBARIF 15:00, Monday, November 11, 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Suryabeej: Note that I have removed your G6 tag (Special:Diff/1023103986) since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (3rd nomination) was closed eight months before the creation of this current iteration of the article. G4 is unlikely to apply here too per Special:Diff/875340755. However, this AfD discussion can continue. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's basically a musician not only a poet. All the news sources which are provided in the article are RS. [24] He has won awards and have released three musical album and has done musical tour which is enough to be here.[25][26][27] [28][29] and the article in wikipedia is since 2018 And a there's a questionable mark with your account as you put AFD first than again you did CSD and you were questioning with administrator about why article is live here. Owlf (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

well forcing to proof someone non notable as notable doesn't work over here and since you seem to have some special care for the subject ;), I would like to enlighten you with the fact that among all the rubbish links provided above just [30] this one is Okeish, Rest all are the Puff pieces (Clearly paid one including the Zee and Asianet without any byline everyone here on wikipedia knows it clear well that how Indian media can provide puff pieces so you can't force to show the subject as Notable because it clearly fails wp:musicbio and wp:rs both.Suryabeej (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I Afded the article because I found it utter promotional and full of non reliable rubbish paid publication links, and when I saw it has been deleted again and again for 4 times and despite of that you recreated it I had to ask the admin what made it stay despite of all these :

Suryabeej (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is well supported by reliable sources. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would request you to kindly enlighten us with which source except The Hindu you find Reliable? Suryabeej (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: after 4 discussions this page was recreated by Owlf which I suspect is a case of wp:COI, rest all the provided sources are either from Non-Notable publications and or are paid pieces without bylines, which makes them Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. also I am Pinging all the active editors who voted from previous all the 4 discussions so that they can lead to a clear conclusion. Ronhjones, Northamerica1000, Bonadea, Cunard, Velella. Suryabeej (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going Crazy here, the article was created via draft and according to COI I'm Nepali wikipedin so I've created many nepali musicians wikipedia and u created this one too and another thing is you can't vote for two times as you filed WP:AFD Abc News Nepal, Taha Khabar, Meroflim and other Nepali press are national media of Nepal which are reliable and pass WP:RS and aren't puffery. Being written in Nepali news sources it cannot be called as puffery and you're just registered here being iactive for few days and direct jump here in the article which I've created in wikipedia with lots of the article background resources which i had also never known made me amazed. Owlf (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suryabeej- Just curious, what makes you think The Hindu is a WP:RS? nirmal (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nirmaljoshi: bro the answer to your this question is here, just check the list closely. :)Suryabeej (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Suryabeej:-Great!nirmal (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Suryabeej: striking the dele*te !vote, as you are the nominator and have already effectively !voted. --- Possibly (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: Previously deleted multiple times and sources seems to be paid. A great finding in sources is stated by User:Praxidicae on this page showing many articles posted by same author but still the changes were reverted ignoring all warnings. JAHANZAIBARIF (talk

Note that the account is Newly created and just to vote. Might connect with the one who created AFD. 103.10.31.47 (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this IP editor claims to be User:Owlf.1 Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Or weak delete. It appears the subject has finally passed the notability threshold. The UPE is strong with this one, but competent too it seems, going by the sources that don't read right but, impressively, exist. Also impressive that this seemingly mundane subject seems to have attracted abusive editing on the delete side. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a UPE farm out there, that didn't get paid. Since, unfortunately, there is no community consensus on deleting UPE-tainted articles because they are UPE-tainted, I suggest we keep and try and regulate the addition of unsourced and weakly sourced puffery instead. Obviously, I have no objection to deleting it and salting, until an independent looking version is submitted to AFC, if that would be less taxing on the spam-fighters. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I wouldn't mind speedy keep and speedy blocking of nom and their sock either. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Firstly, I want to ask why the creating user Owlf was blocked while s/he was actively taking part in discussion? How was the blocking administrator sure? I feel it is a kind of harassment to the user. While looking at the log of this user's contribution, it appears he has been making most of the edits on Nepalese actor/actress/musicians since long. Whether it was his hobby or he was being paid can only be judged but not proved. Secondly, regarding the article- its a usual case that Nepalese artists are rarely a topic of notable news or scholarly articles. Fortunately, current online media are providing some indication of their notability via some coverage. In this particular case of Prakash Neupane, the coverage in an Indian media 1 and some nepali music realted magazines are available, so it could indicate a soft keep. And i totally agree with Usedtobecool on why this subject is attacting abusive editing - is it the case of multiple paid editors? Regards! nirmal (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is here read it properly and you will come to know why was he blocked. Rest in talking about This Zee News From India ts purely a paid Article because it clearly lacks its source or say The Byline and although the JAHANZAIBARIF which seems like an SPA but have stated a very correct detailing about its source by Praxidicae over here. Suryabeej (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for mentioning. I already went through the items you mentioned before commenting here. And basically that was the main reason for my concern. This report is unclear, and blocking seems to be done hapazardly. Given that the user had been editing music/actor related articles since last few years, it becomes a suspcet that suddenly the account became compromized while editing this article. I have doubt. Plus, regarding this source discussion, it is also my concern. The sources should have been discussed/reopened by the Nominator in the talk page first before this CSD. Regards! nirmal (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not the complete history. Just the latest disruptive editing spree. Check their contributions. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its sad that users are getting on fruitless disputes instead of using their energy for constructive edits. nirmal (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I originally closed this discussion due to the sockpuppet investigation of the nominator...turns out they're not a sockpuppet even though from my perspective they looked like one. My bad! Reopened. versacespace leave a message! 16:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How you closed this nomination on behalf of a sockpuppet case archieve which is not even relevant ?? Like just curious to know what made you think like that?Suryabeej (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it would appear that with winning an award, his songs may also be getting radio airplay which means he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can a few more experienced editors take a look at this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This version appears to be no better than all the previous iterations. Fails WP:GNG . Please salt to prevent yet another re-incarnation. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean you're still comparing it to previous verison? when it was re-created via Draft. Do you think Nepali news doesn't meet WP:RS ? Owlf (talk)

ENOUGH. Discuss article content, not other editors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)

Admin comment - Another sockpuppet investigation has been opened regarding select participants in this deletion discussion. Missvain (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hello there, I just want to make it clear that I'm not related to the nominator in any way. I saw a Facebook group post where a person named "Prakash Neupane" was offering news articles and wikipedia page creation service to people and asking them to pay money. When I searched his name on google, I found his wikipedia page that was already put under Afd. I checked some of his articles and found that they were published by the same Nepali author who was interacting to the posts on his FB account which brought me the doubt that this page was created by paid articles. The page was created by the same user and looking at the page edit history it seems that many experienced editors were against the page creation but don't know how he still managed to recreate it. I've a strong feeling that the account "Owlf" is owned by the subject himself. I found same thing was shared by Praxidicae on this page. I don't know if anybody will belive this or not but I take responsibility of everything that I said above and I leave the decision upto the Admins who are experienced. Thanks. User:JAHANZAIBARIF (talk)

Also if admins think that despite all these concerns the subject is eligible for a wikipedia page then no one should have a problem but I hope that a fair outcome will be made. Cheers. User:JAHANZAIBARIF (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're leaving your second message after the sockpuppet investigation you suddenly appear. So you mean Prakash Neupane posted on Facebook that he'll provide articles on Nepalese archive sites or deleted source than you directly came here to ! Vote by creating your account and you also know how to diff old sources. What a joke in wikipedia :D . Owlf (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JAHANZAIBARIF- Generally, Prakash is a common name and Neupane is also a common surname. So there could be misunderstanding. Just to be clear, can you share the link to "Facebook group post" or a way to verify your claim? Regards! nirmal (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nirmaljoshi- First of all I'm glad that sockpuppet investigation was completed for the second time. To answer your question, Well my doubt was right and the subject after reading my earlier comment here deleted his group posts. I feel sorry that i couldn't save that post where he was selling wikipedia page creation service. But i still managed to find his old posts which he couldn't find to delete. Watch | screen recording 1 here where the subject himself who thinks he is a noteable person is asking for help from Nepali wikipedia editors because he was afraid that his page will get deleted since many editors were against the page creation:D Watch | screen recording 2 here where he is looking for content writers to write articles for him. What a noteable person he is! I'm sure after seeing this comment he will delete these posts as well. Still you can check the links to his posts [31], [32]. It's sad that new user accounts on wikipedia are not considered credible.. JAHANZAIBARIF (talk)

Well I've seen many people or artists requesting help in the Wikipedia Weekly group every day but how does that prove that the articles are paid and written by other or self-published and the talk page discussions about articles which were removed before have not been completed yet. And about new accounts credibility.... anyone here is credible when they made constructive edits. Owlf (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wikipedia rules say "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments". I think the proofs I provided are enough to prove that subject is himself involved in the spam campaign of this article and the articles are paid. And please don't forget to check this screen recording here :) Goup link is here Isn't offsite coordination against the rules?. After seeing these it's easy to assume that user Owlf is Prakash Neupane himself. Rest I leave upto the admins. Regards. JAHANZAIBARIF (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm here to discuss a Wikipedia article and about the notability of a Nepali musician. I'm not here to care or defend who posts what on Facebook, whose eating or not. I'm here to edit not to spread (this might be that, I feel that or it may be that) kind of rumours. And not only about these particular articles I've always defended when someone tags for the deletion discussion on the page which I've created. And about the articles which are been on discussion her User:Praxidicae on this page were also used by me on references to create VTEN and Manas Ghale who are also Nepali rappers. Owlf (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI- Owlf so as above here you have agreed that EVERY DAY here you see on some facebook group that people requesting for help and you are the creator of the page Prakash Neupane so this clearly indicates WP:COI case and thus I request Ser Amantio di Nicolao to have a look at the screen recording above where in one post verified account of Prakash Neupane is asking other wikipedia users to revert edits by you and there other editors are asking him in the comment section to inbox which I presume is for fixing the prices for the edits, Thank you JAHANZAIBARIF for providing the screen recording, also check COI edits by owlf, Thanks Suryabeej (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also request Praxidicae to have a look over here Suryabeej (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Wikipedian yes I'm on Wikipedia weekly group and many editors here are on that group. And about everyday i see help requets doesn't mean that i'm connected with COI lol. Owlf (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IT CLEARLY SHOWS because request to edit different pages on multiple group by the facebook user account of prakash neupane like on some nepal related group and wikipedia weekly group as per the screen recording IT SHOWS THAT NEUPANE HAVE A NATURE OF COI and YOU are the one who created his pageover here after knowing the WP rules and having all those access clearly shows the missuse of WP POLICY, that clearly shows that you have a COI with Prakash Neupane Suryabeej (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've created many Nepali articles based on musician, politics, movies, actors and I've been editing too, that doesn't mean being COI. :D Owlf (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been adamant about this through every iteration. Neupane is not notable, despite what many here claim and I pointed out extensively why on the talk page and past discussions regarding this very topic. Almost everything is written by the same author, even after having removed the content I mentioned on the talk page, the rest are either based on that paid for content or unreliable. For example, the best source is by the Hindu, which is copied from this source and was published a full 4 hours before appearing on their website. this is nothing more than elaborate marketing ploy by a long term spammer. YODADICAE👽 12:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: well I'm amazed how did you find 4 hours of gap time when there'sthis source not mention of time and anything at all and why would an editor[33] copies the same URL/title & pictures. That sites grab articles from other sites automatically which can be known by the pictures used on both sites and as far as I know The Hindu article is completely written by an editor which Wikipedia can verify through the sources and yeah I agree on some unreliable sources which didn't meet WP:RS were there but they were completely removed by and editor before while creating the article through Draft and some sources have vanished from the internet may be internet archiver could achieve that. Owlf (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can view it under "view source" and you've totally missed my point. YODADICAE👽 13:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well sometimes time varies might be you are wrong take a deep look as there it had mentioned in view source "The Hindu" as OG photo source and also has tagged "The Hindu" ['img data-variant="FREE" data-device-variant="" src=https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/taeus0/article31748951.ece/BINARY/thumbnail/prakashneupane2" Owlf (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I am completely wrong about the copy, my point still stands that the only "decent" source is the Hindu and that simply isn't enough. YODADICAE👽 14:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That might be enough for you but being a Nepali source that exists also do follow WP:RS that's the thing which I want to mention here. If you feel mainstream Nepali media sources are useless then i don't have any point to explain. Owlf (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali sources don't get a special pass of WP:V or WP:RS just by virtue of being Nepali. The rest are simply unreliable PR nonsense. YODADICAE👽 14:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The Nepali sources [34] [35] are reliable. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Google translated text of the 2nd of theses reads " Young singer Prakash Neupane's new album has been released on Fusion Digital Store. Prakash's new album has also been released on iTunes Store, Google Play, Amazon and Spotify. Click here to listen to Prakash's song on iTunes.Click here to listen to Prakash's song on Spotify.His songs are in rap and hip hop genres. He has also sung against Nepali social and political distortions and anomalies.As the use of CDs, VCDs or cassettes has disappeared in Nepal as well, the practice of releasing albums in digital stores has started commercially. Apart from that, songs and videos are also released through platforms like YouTube and Facebook.Prakash's new album Fusion has 7 songs. This is her second album after singing more than a dozen songs so far. Prior to this, in 2016, his album titled Prakash Tunes was released.His songs have been viewed nearly 2 million times on YouTube alone, while the song You Got Me has been viewed more than 1 million times. The songs of 21-year-old singer Prakash, who started singing at the age of 16, are very popular among the Nepali youth. Videos of his 9 songs have also been made public. To know more about Prakash and listen to all his songs, visit his website. " That conveys absolutely no notability. I would add the first source but it is no better. These are commercial plugs, nothing more. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali to English translations are not that much good, i think Nepalese editors knows better about Nepalese sources more than any other countries editors. Owlf (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to read nepali and the translation is almost okay, and google translation only give a basic translation of what it is already there, it can create its sentences of own. and that ABC Nepal which you are trying to portray ABC News is totally rubbishSurya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 15:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to potrya as it passes WP:RS and you've claimed that you're indian editor before and from now onwards i'm not respondind yours any replies or talk which are always targetted to me and how the source come rubbish when Abc Nepal television is national television and news paper of nepal which also appears in wikipedia. Owlf (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally when 5 Nepali editors have claimed it as a reliable source, just Sticking with one word RUBBISH won't help all the time while doing deletion discussions here in wikipedia. Owlf (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

where did that happened ? that consensus? please enlighten us with it, we would be happy to see where this ABC NEPAl is stated under WP:RS?Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 16:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:15, 29 May 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 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Praxidicae. Owlf, the WP:BADGERING here is not helping your cause. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amazed at such a wall of text over such a clear-cut fail of both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per nom. i see No evidence of Notability , most of the sources are not RS ; Samat lib (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noocenosis

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

This looks like a term used by a certain Russian academic group, and little known elsewhere. The article was likely created for self-promotion by a person connected to that group. A corresponding page in Russian Wikipedia, ru:Нооценоз, was deleted with reasons given as “no proof of notability” and “advertising”. Brinerat (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe it would be helpful to ask for input at WikiProject Ecology? The dense technical language and Russian references make this a hard one for the average Wikipedian to make a judgement about. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search of Web of Science for "Noocenosis OR noocenose OR noocoenosis" as topic yields no publications. Clearly not notable. Athel cb (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a classic failure of WP:N. jps (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself says that this term is only used in "post-Soviet countries", and it smells like a post-Soviet Lysenkoism. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:41, 31 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.